The Seattle chapter of Drinking Liberally meets tonight (and every Tuesday), 8PM at the Montlake Ale House, 2307 24th Avenue E.
Our fearless leader Nick tells us that the Alehouse is open, and DL is going on as usual. I’ll be there if I can manage to get my car off the Graham Hill Glacier.
Not in Seattle? Washington liberals will also be drinking tonight in the Tri-Cities. A full listing of Washington’s eleven Drinking Liberally chapters is available here.
While my paws came equipped with excellent tractions devices, there are too many cars sliding around out there for me to risk it! Also, it takes 24 hours to change my fur color to white, so I blend in with the landscape and am not an easy target for GOP snipers. Maybe next time.
Back to yet another nonunion house ehhh Goldy? Way to keep the American Worker down. Speaking of American worker, since you don’t and never have belonged to a Union… what kind of car do you drive? How about you roger (I am guessing a VW Rabbit might be inline you)? Either of you own an American Car, or do you prefer cars that were outsourced and made in a foreign country?
Mr. Fireman. Where was your tv made? Computer? Camera? Cell Phone? Shall I continue?
Trade, and tax policies that give companies incentives to outsource all labor are the problem. Not the consumer.
Education does not help anyone if there are no jobs other than Wal Mart greeters, and McDonalds french fry cooks.
@2 WTF do I need a car for? I have these: http://tinyurl.com/ya8knz
KING 5 News has a must-see video of mayhem on Portland’s icy hills. They’ll probably show it again on their 6:30 and 11:00 broadcasts. Keep your eye on the gray SUV as he does 360’s into three different heaps of wrecked cars, bouncing off a utility pole and wall on the way.
@5 Or go to the KING 5 website, where the video is a featured item. http://www.king5.com/
Facts support nothing,
Damn, no need to get your cheap labor liberal panties in a bunch. I am merely trying to point out the continued hypocrisy of Goldy. By lambasting me, a dues paying Union member, for my political beliefs, and then he himself choosing to work a nonunion part-time job at a nonunion shop (Sounds allot like Walmart). He then continues to advertise for drinking liberally at a nonunion facility. As far as where my electronics are made? Hey, I don’t have a problem going for the lowest bidder and the best price. But then, I am a Republican. And to answer your question before you ask, I drive a rather large Dodge diesel Pickup (when I can get biodiesel cheaper, I do). But then again, with the price of oil at a new low, I go for good old fashioned Exxon. Speaking of the price of oil, it must be a Liberal Conspiricy that the prices are so low after the election? Especially since you have people here who think Supply and Demand are a hoax.
Bottom’s up, boys
@7 Do you think Samoan workers should live on $3.15 an hour so you can eat cheap tuna?
City Council Deadlocked On Tunnel Vote
Gov. Gregoire wants a public advisory vote on whether to replace the viaduct with a rebuild or tunnel. But there may not be a vote at all, because the city council can’t agree on the wording of the ballot question. Tunnel supporters object to any disclosure of costs:
“‘It’s a very much of you know, a guess, it’s looking into a crystal ball, I’m not sure that anyone knows exactly what anything is going to cost,’ Godden said.”
http://tinyurl.com/2hqy6s
This calls for Roger Rabbit’s expertise! Here is my proposed wording for the viaduct ballot question:
“The Alaska Way Viaduct has suffered earthquake damage, is near the end of its service life, and needs replacement. Should the Viaduct be replaced with:
[ ] A. An elevated structure for the reasonable cost of $2.8 billion, all of which will be provided by the state, with no need for raising local taxes; or
[ ] B. A pie-in-the-sky, pig-in-a-poke tunnel that will cost God knows how much but at least $1.8 billion more than an elevated structure, which will be squeezed out of those least able to pay through imposition of an onerous new set of tax increases, and which may in fact cost a lot more depending on whether it fills with water, the roof collapses, there are engineering design flaws or construction cost overruns, or the tunnel supporters are just plain lying about its feasibility and/or cost.”
Union Fireman
The irony of you calling anyone a hypocrite is truly charming. You are amusing. You don’t know who the fuck does a thing for you. By the way, why didn’t you answer my post on the previous post? I think your dick is only “this big,” you buttfucker.
@13 I don’t think he’ll get any more traction with his “cheap labor liberal” b.s. than those idiots are getting on that Portland hill with their street tires.
Dear Mr. Fireman. If you are a true union man, you would be a Democrat. The GOP has been doing everything they can to weaken unions since Reagan. Everything. They believe the corporations should call all the shots.
If you don’t believe me, name (provide link) something the GOP has done to help unions since Reagan took office…..
(crickets will chirp forever on this one)
Union = Democrat
Everyone knows this. One must be really deluded to think the Republicans care for anyone but their rich masters. Don’t agree? Answer the #1 question Republicans can’t answer.
#1 Name something the Republican Congress passed, and Bush signed into law that helped “Regular Americans” and hurt large corporations, and the uber rich. Go ahead, name something.
I know, I know, they do also represent the Talibangelicals….
Union fireliar’s feeble attempt to paste the “cheap labor” label on liberals is transparently bogus. Liberals, who support unions, raising the minimum wage, and policies that create jobs at home and keep companies from shipping jobs oveseas, obviously are pro-labor. And the right is just as obviously anti-labor.
“Cheap labor conservative” isn’t a mere bumper sticker label; it’s a whole set of policies that include:
“Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like social spending or our ‘safety net’. …
“Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like the minimum wage, or other improvements in wages and working conditions. …
“Cheap-labor conservatives like ‘free trade’, NAFTA, GATT, etc. …
“Cheap-labor conservatives don’t like unions. …
“Cheap-labor conservatives encourage racism, misogyny, homophobia and other forms of bigotry. …
“Cheap-labor conservatives have hated Social Security and Medicare since their inception.
“Many cheap-labor conservatives are hostile to public education. … Cheap-labor conservatives opposed universal public education in its early days. …
“Cheap-labor conservatives hate the progressive income tax …
“Cheap-labor conservatives like budget deficits and a huge national debt …
“[C]heap-labor conservatives just don’t like working people. They don’t like ‘bottom up’ prosperity … [t]hey want to see absolutely nothing that benefits the guy – or more often the woman – who works for an hourly wage. …
“[T]he cheap-labor conservative isn’t really interested in ‘freedom’. What he wants is the ‘privatized tyranny’ of industrial serfdom, the main characteristic of which is … ‘cheap labor’. …
“[C]heap-labor conservatives are BIG supporters of the most oppressive and heavy handed actions the government takes.
“Cheap-labor conservatives are consistent supporters of the generous use of capital punishment.
“Cheap-labor conservatives support the ‘get tough’ and ‘lock ‘em up’ approach to virtually every social problem …
“Cheap-labor conservatives want all the military force we can stand to pay for and never saw a weapons system they didn’t like.
“Cheap-labor conservatives support every right-wing authoritarian hoodlum in the third world.
“Cheap-labor conservatives support foreign assassinations, covert intervention in foreign countries, and every other ‘black bag’ operation the CIA can dream up … against constitutional governments elected by the people of those countries.
“Cheap-labor conservatives support ‘domestic surveillance’ against ‘subversives’ – where ‘subversive’ means ‘everybody but them’. …
“Cheap-labor conservatives support our new concentration camp down at Guantanamo Bay. They also support these ‘secret tribunals’ with ‘secret evidence’ and virtually no judicial review of the trials and sentences. …
“[J]ust what do these guys consider to be ‘tyranny’ … [t]ake a look.
“While they don’t mind tax dollars being used for killing people, using their taxes to feed people is ‘stealing’.
“Minimum wage laws.
“Every piece of legislation ever proposed to improve working conditions, including the eight hour day, OSHA regulations, and even Child Labor laws.
“Labor unions, who ‘extort’ employers by collectively bargaining.
“Environmental regulations and the EPA.
“Federal support and federal standards for public education.
“Civil rights legislation. …
“Public broadcasting …”
http://tinyurl.com/lnzs3
See what I mean? Union fireliar is a bullshitter, liberals don’t do this kind of shit. The list above is the exclusive province of the most despicable, least socially responsible, loudest whiners in our society: The vermin who call themselves “conservatives.”
But at least we know where we stand. When I was a little bunny, I was taught to “work hard” and that rabbits could “succeed” by “working” to “achieve goals.” What a load of crap that was. You succeed in this country by compounding your interest and dividends while sitting on your ass in front of a TV set or computer — like I’m doing right now — not by going to a fucking job so the government can tax away all your wages! Fuck work! Working is for suckers. Our culture hates workers, and punishes people for working. Even our tax system penalizes income derived from work! Nobody should work. Let the Republican business owners do all the work themselves! Everybody should live off inheritances, pensions, dividends, interest, and capital gains like Republicans do! That way, everyone will be rich, no one will pay any taxes, the government won’t have any money to make war with, and we won’t have to listen to all this bitching about how high taxes are! The problem is clear — work is evil — and the solution is equally clear — nobody should do any work, and everyone should live off the fat of the land like I’m doing! Since our society has made it clear, through its attitudes and government policies, that working is antisocial behavior, we’ll all be a lot happier if nobody works.
Dumb Leftist,
Repost your question, I simply didn’t catch it. I have no problem answering it.
Facts,
The International Association of Firefighters (IAFF AFL-CIO) supported 106 Republicans in US Representative, Senate or Governor races last year. The General President of the IAFF awarded the former Speaker of the House Dennis Hastert with an award at the Republican National Convention in 2004. You should remember Schaitberger, he supported Sen. Kerry in 2004
http://select.nytimes.com/gst/.....20Politics
http://workinglife.typepad.com.....y_to_.html
But here is an even greater quote
“While Schaitberger acknowledges Democrats have traditionally been more supportive of labor unions, it doesn’t guarantee them an IAFF endorsement, he said. The union is working on its relationships with Republicans, as evidenced by campaign contributions. In 1980, the union’s PAC contributed 9 percent of its funds to Republican candidates, and in the last election cycle, it was up to 34 percent, Schaitberger said.”
http://public.cq.com/public/20060329_sullivan.html
What you cheap labor liberals don’t understand is, that by endorsing only Libs, we have allowed you to forget about us. You think that because I am a Union member, I have to be a dem… Well where was Frank Chopp on the Walmart bill? He isn’t exactly a a republican.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.c.....rt15m.html
And Helen Sommers?
http://www.idealog.us/2004/09/helen_sommers_t.html
Your one party narrow minded view has hurt labor unions. Look at Goldy, he CHOSE to work for a nonunion shop, but at the same time will bitch about big business being against labor unions and Walmart hurting our communities. You libs on one hand cry about the working class, then get in your IMPORTED HYBRID cars and drive away. Where do you think the Prius is made? How about, when you say you support the American Worker and the middle class, you then get in an American Made car? You libs are hypocrites, when it comes to the American Worker.
Oh yeah, I also forgot where Harold Schaitberger attended the Washington State Council of Firefighters Convention in Vancouver, WA this past year and had glowing remarks about how Congressman Dave Reichert was fighting the good fight and is on our side. In fact, the IAFF FirePAC donated to him. You remember Dave right? Now what was his opponents name again?
So if you couldn’t figure it out, Not all labor Unions want only Dems in control. Since the IAFF is in fact apart of the AFL-CIO, and since Harold Schaitberger is much more of a savvy political operative than the Rabbit, Goldy or that Union Busting WHL will ever be, I think I will continue to head in the same direction of MY labor Union. A steady RIGHT TURN.
C’mon Union Firedude. Name something Republicans have done to help unions…..
(crickets chirping)
I bet Harold Schaitberger voted for Bush right?
Can I ask you a question Firedude?
Are you glad the Democrats control congress, or would you rather have it being run by the DeLay, Hastert, Frist types?
NoFactsinHisPositions: Why are you not out getting smashed with your Moonbat! buddies?
I don’t drink. I will show up someday though. I know Goldy, and run into him from time to time.
We are both working real hard to make our country better, by making both Democrats, and Republicans work for all Americans.
What America has working for her is the millions of people like us that will keep politicians honest by exposing their misdeeds, and lighting them on fire when they screw up, regardless what party they belong to.
My loyalty is to my country before any party.
@18 Go ahead, take your right turn straight into a brick wall. You’ll know you hit the wall when your union wages and benefits disappear.
@21 If you can make Republicans “work” to do anything, that’ll be a sight worth seeing!
By the way, if you don’t like any of my positions, you are welcome to provide links proving I am wrong about anything. Anytime. I ain’t goin’ nowhere.
Better be careful though. I pay attention…..
Facts always beat talking points.
By the way, it has been 6 months, and not a single con has answered the first question no Republican can answer. Here it is again.
#1 “Name any major legislation they (Republicans) have passed, and Bush signed into law that helped normal Americans, and hurt the super rich, and large corporations.”
(crickets been chriping for 16 generations now)
The Washington Association of Realtors is running TV ads promoting their legislative agenda is. Of course, they don’t tell you what their legislative is in their TV ads, and you have to do quite a bit of digging on their web site to find it. Here it is:
HIGHER TAXES
http://tinyurl.com/2klvcq
Yup, they want taxpayers to pay HIGHER TAXES for road and utility improvements so developers can build more houses — so Realtors have more houses to sell. To wit:
Get rid of the 1% property tax cap so local governments can raise property taxes to the constitutional limit;
Allow counties to raise sales taxes for infrastructure improvements;
In counties already charging the maximum allowed local sales tax, allow counties to impose sales tax on gasoline;
Impose user fees and tolls to build more roads; and
Authorize a “street utility tax” to build more roads.
In other words, TAX TO THE MAX to make housing, um, “more affordable.” What-fucking-ever, guys … I’m sure glad I live in a fucking hole in the ground. If the taxes get too high here, all I have to do is hop to another woods and dig a new hole.
Just another right wing racist, gop leader expressing beliefs that show exactly why most real Americans hate the republican party.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16657357/
Hmmm, I really should proofread more. The first paragraph is supposed to say,
“The Washington Association of Realtors is running TV ads promoting their legislative agenda. Of course, they don’t tell you what their legislative agenda is in their TV ads, and you have to do quite a bit of digging on their web site to find it. Here it is:”
C’mon Bunnyman. Many of them (Republicans) work. Read “What’s The Matter With Kansas” by Thomas Frank.
The people the Republicans piss on the most, are the people that support them the strongest. Go figure. Retarded blind loyalty to liars, thieves, and traitors.
The GOP has a real problem now though, and it just keeps getting worse. Toto pulled back the curtain, and the wizard turned out to be a stupid bloodthirsty liar in an oval office, that never got a single thing right in his whole life. I regress. Marrying Laura was probably the only smart decision Bush ever made.
Remember when Bush looked into Putin’s eyes and saw his soul. That is why he respects Putin so much. Putin will kill anyone that opposes him, and get away with it. Now that is something that would impress Bush.
Frankly, I don’t think the Realtors’ agenda has a snowball’s chance in Arizony. Legislators will look at it and see that (a) they get all the voter anger, while (b) Realtors get all the money. Probably not a winner in Oly.
It’s merely a gussied-up version of the ancient, shopworn realtor/developer game of trying to shift the costs of roads, sewers, and utilities in new housing developments from the developers and homebuyers onto the backs of existing homeowners.
Facts Support My Positions says: By the way, if you don’t like any of my positions, you are welcome to provide links proving I am wrong about anything. Anytime. I ain’t goin’ nowhere.
Better be careful though. I pay attention…..Facts always beat talking points.
By the way, it has been 6 months, and not a single con has answered the first question no Republican can answer. Here it is again.
#1 “Name any major legislation they (Republicans) have passed, and Bush signed into law that helped normal Americans, and hurt the super rich, and large corporations.”
(crickets been chriping for 16 generations now)
01/16/2007 at 8:11 pm
I post links that prove the stupidity of Moonbat!s everyday. Those are facts supporting my position. Did you answer any of my open thread queries. Besides, any law signed I present will be repudiated, so why go through the motions. I remember Rufus giving four or five entries and you ignored them.
@28 “C’mon Bunnyman. Many of them (Republicans) work. Read ‘What’s The Matter With Kansas’ by Thomas Frank.”
Coulda fooled me. The Federal Tax Code looks like it was written by coupon-clippers — in fact, it was.
At one time, the USA had a “Union Fireman.” He became a notorious socialist & governments at all levels worked for their corporate masters to squelch him. He went to prison for espionage; i.e., advocating that men avoid the draft for WW I. Peace, love & understanding & that wimpy stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
Now that was a union fireman!
To illustrate, let’s say you’re in a middle income bracket and pay a 25% marginal income tax rate. Let’s also say you’re self-employed, so you pay the self-employment tax. Your federal tax is: 25% + 15.3% = 40.3% and that’s before you pay ANYTHING in state and local taxes!
But let’s say you’re living off capital gains. Now your tax is … ta-da … 15%. Period.
Which is more, 40.3% or 15%? See what I mean? Why the fuck should anybody work, if they can live off capital gains? Clearly, Congress believes flipping hamburgers is bad, and flipping houses is good — and wants everyone to live on capital gains instead of wages. Well, who I am to argue with Congress? Collectively, they know more than I do, so I just go with the flow. In other words, I don’t work, I live off the fat of the land.
At one time, the USA had a “Union Fireman.” He became a notorious socialist & governments at all levels worked for their corporate masters to squelch him. He went to prison for espionage; i.e., advocating that men avoid the draft for WW I. Peace, love, understanding & that wimpy stuff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugene_V._Debs
Now that was a union fireman!
@28 “Marrying Laura was probably the only smart decision Bush ever made.”
Smart decision for who?
Hard to believe Laura couldn’t do any better. Maybe she has some physiological problem we don’t know about? Just wondering.
Sorry ’bout that double-post; surprised me!
Spanish paper: Castro in grave condition after 3 failed operations
Salem News
MADRID, Spain (AP) – Ailing Cuban leader Fidel Castro is in “very grave” condition after three failed operations and complications from an intestinal infection, a Spanish newspaper said today.
The newspaper El Pais cited two unnamed sources from the Gregorio Maranon hospital in the Spanish capital of Madrid. The facility employs surgeon Jose Luis Garcia Sabrido, who flew to Cuba in December to treat the 80-year-old Castro.
Question for the lefties:
Why do liberal dictators have to fly in doctors from other countries?
Roger, ButtRetard has been yammering about a lawsuit against liberal talk show host Randi Rhodes. a SLAPP suit for defamation of character. It was dismissed in response to a petition for summary judgement. You can find the pdf at her website. It’s about 3.5 megs.
It appears to me to be a fairly well crafted analysis of the defective nature of the claim of defamation. I would like your opinion of this decision.
It also appears that the wingtard plaintiffs have refiled this complaint as an adjunct to the bankruptcy case involving Air America. Frankly, I don’t see that this changes the defects in their claim’s for defamation, and merely perpetuate in the public’s eyes that CACI, the plaintiff, has BEEN IMPLICATED IN TORTURE AND PRISONER ABUSE
AT ABU GHRAIB.
I realize there is a secondary strategy of attemptin g to bleed the defendant, but frankly, to my mind this is more of a “Chuvalo” type maneuver, bloodying the defendants fists with their face. . . . . . . .
Dan Rather @ 39:
Same reason rightwingnutz dictators have to leave their countries & fly elsewhere (USA, UK, DE, CH, etc) to get treatment (and political asylum if they survive).
@39 RatherRetarded, describing Fidel Castro as a liberal is insane. But then I’ve come to expect that from a RatherRetarded wingnut.
Same reason rightwingnutz dictators have to leave their countries & fly elsewhere (USA, UK, DE, CH, etc) to get treatment (and political asylum if they survive).
01/16/2007 at 9:35 pm
You mean they flee because the country becomes liberal. Yes you got it. Liberals do screw up countries when they take them over. To bad liberals here don’t put their money where their mouth is and go get medical treatment in Canada and Cuba. Although you wouldn’t be a liberal if were not hypocrites. hehehehe
Yes the Shaw did have to escape the Muslims (liberals) in IRAN to get medical attention. You got a point whl.
Yes RatherRetarded, the liberals and the progressives really wrecked America when they derailed the Right’s Agenda in 1929. A perpetual depression and a total destruction of any semblance of a middle class. Oh, yes, to a RatherRetarded wingnut, that would be wecking a country. . . .bringing it back from the brink of economic disaster, creating the economic engine that saw one of the longest extended periods of economic growth, and then successfully defending that nation against totalitarian threats during WWII.
You really are insane. And, your really are RatherRetarded.
45
Yes and the liberal stayed in power throughout the 30’s ignoring Hitler until he was a superpower and 25 million plus people dead along with 6-7 million Jews were killed. Dont you love how liberals fight wars.
RatherRetarded@44 Nominally Reza Pahlavi, King of Iran, Emperoror of the Peacock throne, etc. (in your style “shaw” (sic) of Iran) was a Muslim. No doubt entirely too secular to suit the likes of the Ayatollah Khomeini, but nevertheless a worshipper of Islam.
To attempt to force this world changing period of time into the shoebox of your perverse labelling of liberal or conservative only reveals your ignorance.
Do you ever have any periods of lucidity?
Moron@46 I love how liberals fight wars a damn sight more than I do how Wingnut Neoconvicts fight theirs. . .Try to defend the train wreck in Irag, RatherRetarded.
47
Radical Islamist = liberal
Secular Islamist = conservative.
I buy that. Why do you liberals love radical Islamists anyway? Just asking.
I love how liberals fight wars a damn sight more than I do how Wingnut Neoconvicts fight theirs. . .Try to defend the train wreck in Irag, RatherRetarded.
01/16/2007 at 10:22 pm
Just trying to prevent another World war. We conservatives learn from history unlike you liberals.
NewsFlash too RatherRetarded. . .the final decree of your Divorce from Reality was filed November 7. Keep deluding yourself like this and you may be treated to another period of thirty or more years of liberal ascendancy.
Math,real science and history have never been a strong point of you liberals. A visit to most public schools can attest to that.
51
I am waiting to see if you liberals actually get a president elected with over 50% of the popular vote before I go there. It has been over 30 years since that happened. Until then 06 is just a off year for the republican voter.
RatherRetarded, and you hold yourself up as an exemplar of what? Home schooling?
The real sad part is that if it wasn’t for Perot, Carter would have been the last Democrat president. Damn Perot. Daddy Bush would have won easily in 1992.
Your Village really is missing you. . .You will provide a great deal of entertainment when they finally haul your deluded sorry ass into the psychiatric ward.
Watching you melt down over the next two years will certainly provide some laughs.
@26 Hmmm, that guy went senile a little quicker than Reagan did.
@39 Ask us when you’ve figured out the difference between “liberal” and “commie.” (Hint: if nothing else works, try using a fucking dictionary!)
Given the GOP has been taken over by a bunch of Trotskyites, it’s gotta be embarrassing for a wingnut to make a fool of himself by calling a commie a “liberal.”
@40 The 49-page decision granting Randi Rhodes’ motion for summary judgement contains an extensive discussion of plaintiff’s claims, the evidence, and the law of libel. It is well reasoned and correctly applies the law, and should withstand appeal.
CACI can’t “nickel and dime” Rhodes by refiling the same lawsuit in other courts, for a couple of reasons. First, the order granting summary judgment is res judicata in all courts. That means any refiling will be summarily dismissed. Second, Rhodes can request Rule 11 sanctions. These are at the discretion of the court, but under this rule, if a baseless suit is filed the judge can order the party bringing the suit to pay all of the defendant’s defense costs, including attorney fees.
I don’t know what the purpose of filing in bankruptcy court would be. Bankruptcy courts are not courts of general jurisdiction, and generally don’t have power to adjudicate tort claims. The only thing I can visualize is that CACI might ask the bankruptcy court to determine the validity of a “debt” Rhodes and Air America allegedly owe CACI for the alleged libel. However, the summary judgment by the federal district court is binding on the bankruptcy court, so there is no basis on which the latter could find a “debt” to exist.
@55 “The real sad part is that if it wasn’t for Perot, Carter would have been the last Democrat president.”
No matter how many times you repeat a lie, it’s still a lie! We hashed through this same issue just a few days ago. You’re full of shit.
“‘Omigod! Clinton might well have lost the race had it not been for Ross Perot!’ It’s recited like scripture on kooky-con radio. … Readers, where does spin come from? ‘Clinton won because of Perot’ provides a good case study.
“Let’s start with some actual data. If Perot hadn’t been in the 92 race, would Bush the elder have beaten Clinton? The exit polling was abundantly clear, and it was widely reported. On November 8, 1992 — five days after the election — E. J. Dionne penned a first report in the Post. Headline: ‘Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome:’
“‘DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters. The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college. And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush ‘margin’ without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton …’
” … On November 12, Dionne provided more details about Perot voters:
‘DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush. An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.’ …
“The data were widely reported — except in the Washington Times, of course. Which brings us to the heart of our question … [w]here does spin come from?
“In today’s world, spin often comes from kooky-con hacks … the Washington Times … soon … was printing letters from kooky-con fabulists — this bit of invention, for example:
“‘LETTER, WASHINGTON TIMES (11/14/92): There is no doubt that Ross Perot drew voters who would otherwise have voted for one or the other of the traditional party candidates. Judging from exit polls and from observing (as best one could) the ethnic and generational makeup of Perot supporters as they appeared on televison, a reasonable conclusion would be that Mr. Perot drew more from Mr. Bush than from Mr. Clinton, by a ratio of at least 6-to-4 (though the would-have-been-Bushers in the Perot column could have been a good deal higher). But for the purpose of discussion, let’s use the 6-4 ratio and divide up the Perot vote and apply it state by state to Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton. Thus, we see that Mr. Perot cost Mr. Bush the following states: Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Nevada, Montana, Kentucky, Georgia and Colorado with a total of 87 electoral votes. Mr. Clinton still wins in the Electoral College, but his margin there shrinks to 283 to 255. In terms of popular vote, Mr. Clinton ends up with roughly 51.4 million to 49.7 million for Mr. Bush, a much tighter contest than was shown in the results with Mr. Perot included. And if my 6-4 breakdown was overly generous to Mr. Clinton — as I suspect it is — we would have come very close to a dead heat or a Bush victory. J— R— B—
Arlington’
“The writer was drawing a ‘reasonable conclusion’ based on his observations of ‘the ethnic and generational makeup of Perot supporters as they appeared on televison!’ Yep! Based upon careful TV viewing (and a bit of wishful thinking), the writer decided that, absent Perot, we might have seen a flat-out Bush win. The exit polling said that Perot could have affected only one state — Ohio. But the writer ‘suspected’ a 6-4 ratio would be quite good to use. Soon, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Georgia and Colorado were falling to Pappy Bush too.
“Even with all this confabulation, JRB only said it would have been a close race absent Perot. Clinton might have won anyway, he conceded. Soon, though, other such analysts abandoned such scruples. For years, it has been conventional wisdom on kooky-con radio that Ross Perot cost George Bush the election. …
“To the extent that we have actual data, there is no indication — none whatever — that Clinton would have lost to Bush if Perot hadn’t been in the race. But so what? Within weeks, kooky-cons began to conjure, and their … stories quickly spread. …”
http://tinyurl.com/2m43hx
There you have it — the etiology of the fable that Clinton wouldn’t have won without Perot. It is pure invention, and the actual data proves it false. So go right ahead, “Dan Rather,” and post this crapola again and again and again. Every time you do, I’ll be right behind you — posting the truth.
Hey Puddybutt, after fucking your ugly wife last night, it came to me why you right wing wingnuts got your asses kicked so badly in November…
You’re all inbred cowards, people who think war is good so long as other people’s kids fight it. You’re all hypocrites. You want less government except when there’s a chance to spend public money on jails, prisons, wars or the military. You’re pro-life, except when you want to murder someone with the death penalty or let some poor Hispanic kid die because they can’t afford medical care. You’re for ethics, except when it’s a republican who gets caught having sex with teenage boys.
No wonder even your wife hates you. She says hello by the way.
62: I figured you were Left Turdball in drag. I just needed a little more evidence.
RightEqualsStupid – Left Turdball
Tree Frog Farmer – KillaTroll
Yos Lib Bro – Clueless
I’m glad you had “sex” with my wife. I’m sure Rosy Palm, her four sisters and ugly step sister were jealous. Oops… glad to have a break. Now which glamour girl did you pick up on Rainier Ave?
Pelletizer: Once again your ANALysis amazes me. You are the only “barrister” who has used this insipid argument anywhere on the web. How can the summary judgment in Federal Court be binding on the Bankruptcy court when the Bankruptcy Court said she could be sued on Rob Glaser’s insurance policy? DuuuuuuuuH!
I would think Jon Alter would have used that argument. – NOT!
I would think libtard Moonbat! radio would use that argument. – NOT!
Pull it out of your ASS ASSessment by Furball! – YES!
Froggy, in the future ask Richard Pope. Graduated near the head of his law class, has a working brain, and makes sense on ASSHeads!
Left Turball@62. Your true colors are shiniong through again! Now let’s clear the air. You said:
You want less government except when there’s a chance to spend public money on jails, prisons, wars or the military.
Real simple You put criminals in Jail and you kill terrorists! Long ago I suggested you let a islamofascist stay in your house. You declined. Crickets still chirping!
You’re pro-life, except when you want to murder someone with the death penalty or let some poor Hispanic kid die because they can’t afford medical care.
The death penalty is for bad people who do heinous things. You can coddle and keep around the Mitchell Roupes, Ted Bundys, etc. of the world. Regarding the poor Hispanic kid, I assume you mean illegal? You never know what a Moonbat! libtard means these days. Skip!
You’re for ethics, except when it’s a republican who gets caught having sex with teenage boys.
Dipstick: I said if Foley is guilty fry him. I posted it all over ASSWipes. Butthead, it looks like the consent laws exonerated Foley and he didn’t touch anyone after all. Even Brian Ross, from ABC News backtracked somewhat! Butt, we know Gerry Studds, friend of Ted Swimmer Kennedy did do the deed illegally and you guys cared less about it! Hmmm…?
Tonight we get to see the Seattle Moonbat! contingent on American Idol. Look for your neighbors!
Jimmy Cahhhhhhrter goes on Al Jazeera and can’t say the Palestinians resort to terrorism to kill Israelis.
Clueless: I’m glad he’s your greatest president!
Dan Rather says:
The real sad part is that if it wasn’t for Perot, Carter would have been the last Democrat president. Damn Perot. Daddy Bush would have won easily in 1992.
———
And if it wasn’t for Nader, Gore would have won Florida easily (unless Jebbie misplaced a bunch of ballot boxes from the inner cities) remember?
Jimmy Cahhhhhrter said: “It is imperative that the general Arab community and all significant Palestinian groups make it clear that they will end the suicide bombings and other acts of terrorism when international laws and the ultimate goals of the Roadmap for Peace are accepted by Israel.”
Goldie: He sez it’s okay to kill your people. I guess no translation is needed here.
Carter doesn’t the Palestinians to give up terror and murder to meet Israel at the table and prove they are serious about peace. Carter allows them to wait until they’ve achieved their goals at the bargaining table. You don’t have to stop your terrorism until you get your peace.
So MOonbat!s I ask: Why have the Palestinians turned down their own state for so long? Cuz the Jimmy Cahhhhhrters of the world think like this!
DarrelSucksButtPutty. . .Just how much snow and ice did you get down in that little corner of the Hood Canal? Did it freeze up the last few retarded brain cells you have?
In the Wingnut mind, corporatism and America are one and the same. Hence, if you oppose corporate world hegemony you, “Hate America”!
Bush Administration Admits it Hates the Constitution:
From today’s news item: A copy of Attorney General Gonzalles speech, scheduled to be delivered today, was leaked to the press early:
“The text of the speech, scheduled for delivery at the American Enterprise Institute, was obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press. It outlines, in part, what qualities the Bush administration looks for when selecting candidates for the federal bench.
“We want to determine whether he understands the inherent limits that make an unelected judiciary inferior to Congress or the president in making policy judgments,” Gonzales says in the prepared speech. “That, for example, a judge will never be in the best position to know what is in the national security interests of our country.”
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/16668110/
This was supposed to be a minor speech before a friendly audience. Does anybody want to place bets that there are some quick revisions, now that the comments have attracted media attention?
My own experience is that Republicans generally say what they really mean when they think they are speaking before a friendly audience. At those events, their real views on minorities, tax policies, etc. are readily apparant. Republican politicians speak completely differently when they think their comments will be broadcast. But with the advent of small camcorders or even mobile phones with video capability, their unguarded comments are being reported more frequently. That’s why so many of the Republican campaign events in this area were closed to all but the proven faithful.
I guess Gonzales missed the portion of his Constitutional Law class regarding seperation of powers under the Constitution. Maybe we should require future attorney generals to at least be able to pass the same test we give prospective citizens?
Republican Definitions of Judges:
“Strict Constructionist” – A judge who supports the Republican status quo, regardless of the actual language of the Constitution or any applicable law.
“Activist Judge” – One who applies the Constitution or law in a manner which is contrary to the express wishes of the Republicans.
1rhp6033@75 Hold that thought. I believe you’ve made a breakthrough. . . .
PuddyBud at 64: I don’t have specific knowledge of this case, but what I have gathered from RR’s post and yours, indicates that you don’t know a thing about Bankruptcy law.
When a person or corporation files Bankruptcy, whether it is under Chapt. 7, 11, or 13, an “Automatic Stay” goes into effect, prohibiting creditors from taking any action against the debtor except through the Bankruptcy Court. A creditor can apply for an exception to the automatic stay, for a variety of reasons. One of the reasons might be that a tort (libel) suit is already in progress, and that a continuation of that lawsuit is more economical than re-starting the proceedings as an “Claim” proceeding in the Bankruptcy Court. But such exceptions to the automatic stays for tort proceedings are usually granted only on the condition that the creditor limit their recovery to proceeds from the Debtor’s insurance policy, and not against the Debtor’s other assetts (which are protected as part of the bankruptcy estate). Getting permission to proceed under those circumstances is rather routine.
But that really doesn’t mean a thing in terms of the validity of the claim itself. A Summary Judgement motion means that the court has determined that even if everything the Plaintiff claims is true, there is still no validity to the claim of libel, so no trial on the facts is necessary. I assume that the only part of the civil case which is left open is the Plaintiff’s appeal of the judge’s decision. If they lose on appeal, the case is over. If they win, it simply means the case is remanded back to the lower court for a trial on the facts (the Plaintiffs still have the burden of proving their case by a preponderence of the evidence).
So what we have is the bankruptcy court telling the plaintiffs they can go ahead and pursue their appeal, as long as they don’t touch the assetts Air America. I haven’t read the summary judgement opinion yet, so I won’t venture an opinion on the validity of the merits of the case, or upon that decision.
But your implication that the Bankruptcy Court has somehow confirmed the validity of the Plaintiff’s claim is false. Roger Rabbit’s analysis is much more correct than your guesses than your reliance on other commentators.
@45 “Muslims (liberals) in IRAN”
Now Iran’s ultra-conservative Quran-thumping fundies, who imprison women for showing their faces in public, are “liberals”?
Bwa-ha-ha ha ha har har har har har har har har
No wonder you returds have no credibility …
Iran is a good example of what Federal Way will be like if the anti-science, anti-evolution, anti-reason Bible-thumpers down there continue running the schools.
@47 This is too silly to even attempt to reply to.
@53 So is this.
@56 I can refute this bullshit as often as you post it!
“‘Omigod! Clinton might well have lost the race had it not been for Ross Perot!’ It’s recited like scripture on kooky-con radio. … Readers, where does spin come from? ‘Clinton won because of Perot’ provides a good case study.
“Let’s start with some actual data. If Perot hadn’t been in the 92 race, would Bush the elder have beaten Clinton? The exit polling was abundantly clear, and it was widely reported. On November 8, 1992 — five days after the election — E. J. Dionne penned a first report in the Post. Headline: ‘Perot Seen Not Affecting Vote Outcome:’
“‘DIONNE (11/8/92): Ross Perot’s presence on the 1992 presidential ballot did not change the outcome of the election, according to an analysis of the second choices of Perot supporters. The analysis, based on exit polls conducted by Voter Research & Surveys (VRS) for the major news organizations, indicated that in Perot’s absence, only Ohio would have have shifted from the Clinton column to the Bush column. This would still have left Clinton with a healthy 349-to-189 majority in the electoral college. And even in Ohio, the hypothetical Bush ‘margin’ without Perot in the race was so small that given the normal margin of error in polls, the state still might have stuck with Clinton …’
” … On November 12, Dionne provided more details about Perot voters:
‘DIONNE (11/12/92): In House races, Perot voters split down the middle: 51 percent said they backed Republicans, 49 percent backed Democrats. In the presidential contest, 38 percent of Perot supporters said they would have supported Clinton if Perot had not been on the ballot and 37 percent said they would have supported Bush. An additional 6 percent of Perot voters said they would have sought another third-party candidate, while 14 percent said they would not have voted if Perot had not run.’ …
“The data were widely reported — except in the Washington Times, of course. Which brings us to the heart of our question … [w]here does spin come from?
“In today’s world, spin often comes from kooky-con hacks … the Washington Times … soon … was printing letters from kooky-con fabulists — this bit of invention, for example:
“‘LETTER, WASHINGTON TIMES (11/14/92): There is no doubt that Ross Perot drew voters who would otherwise have voted for one or the other of the traditional party candidates. Judging from exit polls and from observing (as best one could) the ethnic and generational makeup of Perot supporters as they appeared on televison, a reasonable conclusion would be that Mr. Perot drew more from Mr. Bush than from Mr. Clinton, by a ratio of at least 6-to-4 (though the would-have-been-Bushers in the Perot column could have been a good deal higher). But for the purpose of discussion, let’s use the 6-4 ratio and divide up the Perot vote and apply it state by state to Mr. Bush and Mr. Clinton. Thus, we see that Mr. Perot cost Mr. Bush the following states: Ohio, Wisconsin, New Jersey, New Hampshire, Nevada, Montana, Kentucky, Georgia and Colorado with a total of 87 electoral votes. Mr. Clinton still wins in the Electoral College, but his margin there shrinks to 283 to 255. In terms of popular vote, Mr. Clinton ends up with roughly 51.4 million to 49.7 million for Mr. Bush, a much tighter contest than was shown in the results with Mr. Perot included. And if my 6-4 breakdown was overly generous to Mr. Clinton — as I suspect it is — we would have come very close to a dead heat or a Bush victory. J— R— B—
Arlington’
“The writer was drawing a ‘reasonable conclusion’ based on his observations of ‘the ethnic and generational makeup of Perot supporters as they appeared on televison!’ Yep! Based upon careful TV viewing (and a bit of wishful thinking), the writer decided that, absent Perot, we might have seen a flat-out Bush win. The exit polling said that Perot could have affected only one state — Ohio. But the writer ‘suspected’ a 6-4 ratio would be quite good to use. Soon, Wisconsin, New Jersey, Georgia and Colorado were falling to Pappy Bush too.
“Even with all this confabulation, JRB only said it would have been a close race absent Perot. Clinton might have won anyway, he conceded. Soon, though, other such analysts abandoned such scruples. For years, it has been conventional wisdom on kooky-con radio that Ross Perot cost George Bush the election. …
“To the extent that we have actual data, there is no indication — none whatever — that Clinton would have lost to Bush if Perot hadn’t been in the race. But so what? Within weeks, kooky-cons began to conjure, and their … stories quickly spread. …”
http://tinyurl.com/2m43hx
There you have it — the etiology of the fable that Clinton won because of Perot. It was invented by wingnut boiler-room hacks, and real data prove it false. So go right ahead, post this crapola as many times as you want; I’ll always be right behind you debunking it!
@65 You got your law degree from which Nigerian correspondence school?
@69 There’s no “and” here, Facts. Clinton would have won even if Perot had never been born. See above.
@75 One slight correction — an “activist judge” is what Republican judicial nominees become the instant their ass smacks the chair behind the bench.
@77 That’s a reasonable summation of the situation. The district court didn’t essentially said that CACI is a “public figure” for purpose of libel law, therefore had to prove “actual malice” under a “clear and convincing” standard of proof, and could not do so because Rhodes based her remarks on information from a variety of sources, including government reports, that indicated CACI employees did in fact torture detainees at Abu Ghraib.
rhp6033@77 I must’ve missed RR’s analysis. The pdf. of the dismissal is posted at Randi Rhode’s website. I was wrong, its closer to 1.9 megs.
It actually is “a gem of luminous clarity and legal analysis”,. . .at least the Judge’s portion.
The complaint (summarized) by CACI is turgid. . .but then they are trying to make steak out of hamburger.
The important thought here is that most suits are not thrown out summarily. Also while an absolute affirmative defense is the truth the judge takes the tack that because CACI has been implicated in Murder,Prisoner Abuse, and Torture at Abu Ghraib Prison in various official
investigations, they cannot prove any of these allegations are false Hence the summary dismissal.
Oops,RR, did not see your pos. IANAL. I don’t even play one on TV, etc.
whl,
No matter what you post, you are still a union busting cheap labor liberal. Tell you what, why don’t you go to the IAFF website
http://www.iaff.org
and log into the secure area to look at our President’s speeches about PROFESSIONAL versus the Union Busting Volly’s. Since you keep telling me how PROFESSIONAL and volly’s are equal, you should have no problem doing that right?
Facts,
I realize that you think that we are all just a bunch of dumb firemen (Firefighters) but why do you think that we have increased money given to Republicans, from 9% to 34% and it continues to rise? Do you really think that we do that to screw ourselves over? Boy you sure do have a high opinion of the American blue collar worker.
You want legislation? I am concerned with legislation that MY union the IAFF has pushed to be passed. Here is a link that will provide you with the legislation that we have pushed for, over the pass several years and the status. Note, there are a number of R’s that introduced bill.
http://www.iaff.org/politics/us/content/issues.htm
We can keep going round and round. The facts are; the IAFF supports candidates and politicians that support our issues, we don’t care if you are a Republican or a Dem. Dems have damaged and hurt firefighters across the State of Washington and some have hurt us in the halls of congress. Your statement that Union=Democrat is both ignorant and childish, much like you. Right now, the only thing that is supporting your position(s) is a rabbit.
As far as congress, I am glad the Republicans lost. They were getting cocky and forgot about why they first got elected. This was a kind of gut check for them. But is also serves another purpose, to me. It shows the ineptness of many libs. It shows how you guys fight among yourselves, and leave your own district to fend for themselves for the Federal Minimum Wage. But most of all, it shows the general hypocrisy of your party. Just like Goldy. Saying that you are for the American Worker, but driving an import. Saying you are for Unions, but choosing to work at a nonunion shop (Read Walmart here Goldy).
You guys have people like WHL, who cry about the Government infringing on their rights, but can’t accept that many of us PROFESSIONAL firemen still refer to ourselves as FIREMEN (note, most of the women I work with at my station refer to themselves as firemen too). Calling myself a Fireman is a 1st amendment issue (Oh yeah, and my badge says FIREMAN too, not firefighter). I have learned a great deal about libs here. You are all a bunch you whiny cry babies. You can’t accept a different view, other than your own deluded one. And, the vast majority here are hypocrites. Most of you, are cheap labor liberals.
Tell me Facts, are you a Union member? Do you drive only Union made American cars, or do you prefer to drive an import?
@89 So now, in addition to “cheap labor” liberals, we have “union busting” liberals, on this board?
BWAAA HAAA HAA HA HAR HAR HOO HAW HE HA HO HAR HAR HAR
Thanks for the laugh — I needed that!
Union Fireman is so shrill he could pass for a whistle.
Hey fur ball,
What would you call someone that does the job of a Union member, for decreased pay and no benefits? Sounds allot like a scab, or Union Buster to me. Cause that is the way that PROFESSIONAL firemen (And even firefighters) look at volunteer firefighters. Once again, not my opinion, but the opinion of a UNION. So tell me Roger, if a UNION is trying to negotiate for pay and benefits of firefighters, and volunteers are willing to do it for free, what would call that person? After all he/she/it is blocking more Union jobs from being created. Isn’t that person someone who encourages cheap labor? Now if they are a Liberal, that would mean he/she/it is a Cheap Labor Liberal.
Didn’t know Seattle had volunteer firefighters. Or Tacoma. Or Everett. Or anyplace with a population of more than 10 people and 10 million rabbits. Aren’t volunteer firefighters the folks who fight fires in rural areas that can’t afford fire departments, with equipment they bought themselves? Click here for photo of non-union firefighter:
http://tinyurl.com/2n26sj
Roger,
No, Seattle, Bellevue, Spokane and Tacoma do not have volunteers. However, King County does, So does Pierce and Snohomish. In Seattle, last year during the huge pier fire, volunteer firefighters from other counties and FPD’s (Fire Protection Districts) staffed Seattle Fire Stations. Instead of calling Union firefighters for overtime, they filled it with volunteers. So you tell me how that isn’t a Labor issue? Volunteer took away overtime opportunities from Professional Firemen (Firefighters). Throughout southwest Washington (Vancouver for example) volunteers continue to count as a part of minimum staffing. Most volunteers DO NOT (despite of what the Union Busting WHL says) receive the same type of fire training. Many of us go to North Bend for 3 months, some have in house training. I was a volunteer, I know what type of training and the standards they have to meet. And it isn’t the same as a “PROFESSIONAL” fireman (Firefighter).
I personally have no problem with Volunteers. I use it only to demonstrate how hypocritical you Libs are. You are in favor of Labor laws and of unions. But at the same time you choose to drive import cars, work at nonunion shops for nonunion wages (Goldy = WalMART). You have people like WHL trying to make an issue out of me using my 1st Amendment right to call myself a Fireman, rather than addressing the fact that he took Union jobs away from Union members. The level of hypocrisy runs deep in you libs. You use the term “Cheap Labor Conservatives” but then you forget all about supporting the middle income worker, as soon as you pull out your wallet. You guys have a number of Cheap Labor Liberals, but can’t admit it. You are hypocrites.
I have posted numerous links and quotes to legislation from one of the most powerful labor leader today (President of the IAFF) but rather than address the issues, you put your fingers in your ears and yell “LA LA LA LA LA LA LA LA”. Face the facts, Dems and Libs have hurt the modern labor movement. By using us and not keeping promises. You libs are on the same field as the NeoCons. In fact, you are pretty much the same.
Rhp6033: I said the Bankruptcy court gave the ok based on Glaser’s insurance policy. See above. Froggy said summary judgment case dismissed.
You have Furball disease. Remember he didn’t realize “If” is also a noun!