Senate Majority Leader: I wish the segregationist had won!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by GePap

Krugman today in the NYTimes wrote an interesting article about the South; I don't agree wih most of it, but I do wonder at one basic point: Why do the states that gain the most out of Federalism in terms of services and development aid (The South, the West, those states either too poor or with population's too small to matter) always vote agains the idea of Federalism while those states that loose (California, the Northeast, those huge or rich states) by sending more money out as federal taxes than they will ever recoup always vote for it? If some hick from Mississippi doesn't care for income taxes, then why should I send him mine to pay for his subsidies and roads? Hell, if NY state and NJ stopped paying their federal taxes and kept all the money they export to Mississippi or Alabama, or Arkansas or Nebraska, Montana, or S. Dakota then our defecits would be far lower. It must be somehting in the water.....

There are various reasons for this rather than one that fits every state. States in the West have a large percentage of their land owned by the Feds. Thus what the Feds do in terms of regulations etc. has a much greater impact in many cases in Colorado than it does in New Jersey. Federal land tends to limit the ability of these states to develop state identities and institutions, as the Federal Government land in many cases cuts these states into pieces, and severely limits their ability to develop in the same ways that Eastern States did. So these states end up with smaller and weaker local and state governments which are much more sensitive to Federal power than elsewhere.

A lot of the Southern resentment of the Feds stems from the forcible changing of Southern institutions by the Feds during the Civil War, Reconstruction and the Civil Rights Movement. Of course a lot of Southerners are fine with this now, but there are still quite a few who resent being not only forced to behave according to someone else's values, but being regularly abused by the larger American culture as well. Finally, in response the South has tended to be a one party area for better and mostly worse. The benefit of this for them is that it gives them much more power in Congress due to longevity, and hence a lot of pork. Of course it also gives all of us an opportunity to enjoy more corruption and poorer legislation in general.

As for Trent Lott, he has again risen to the top of mu Senate sh!t list. He certainly doesn't deserve to represent the Republican party as its leader in the Senate, though I leave it up to Mississipians to decide whether he represents them or not.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
I think the point has been lost in the commotion. Ken Starr started out with an investigation into Whitewater. When after $70m was spent and he couldn't even get Clinton for writing a bad check, in desperation, he went after Clinton's sex life. The questions about his sex life, since they had nothing to do with the original investigation, should never have asked in the first place. This was in the finest mudslinging tradition and the mud stuck.

Wrong. Starr was given the Lewinski case, he didn't create it. If the vast right wing conspiracy had control they would have kept the investigations seperate rather than puting them all in the hands of one rather poor public figure who could be smeared as being "out to get Clinton".

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
I'm sorry, adultery is not against the law.

It is against the law in many places, though perhaps not in Washington.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by MosesPresley
The question should never have been asked. The question was irrelevant. What does a private affair have to do with Whitewater? I am still not sure why the question was allowed.

[end threadjack] I promise.

It had nothing to do with Whitewater, and the question wasn't asked in connection to Whitewater, it was asked in connection with a civil lawsuit filed against Clinton for sexual harrassment. It was allowed because it was material to show a pattern of conduct. When Clinton perjured himself he committed a felony for which he was impeached, and he lost his license to practise law in exchange for the charges being dropped.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
I see you couldn't raise the bar Boris, you STILL don't understand that congress acts as a court in an impeachment proceding, and they did convict him.

Sorry Mike, your wrong here.

Whether you're being obtuse deliberately or not, this is still pretty funny! Hmmm, who has more credibility...MtG, who has, oh, some legal knowledge, or you, who has demonstrated none?

Where in the Constitution does it say the impeachment proceedings are akin to a criminal court? Please cite.

However, you're in a no-win situation here no matter what, Chrissy-poo. You clearly don't understand what "impeachment" even means, and I'm beginning to think you don't know what "conviction" means.

Let me help you with a non-1928 definition:

im·peach ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-pch)
tr.v. im·peached, im·peach·ing, im·peach·es

To make an accusation against.
To charge (a public official) with improper conduct in office before a proper tribunal.
To challenge the validity of; try to discredit: impeach a witness's credibility.

As you can see, nothing about conviction--merely accusations, dear Chris. You seem not to understand the U.S. legal system difference between an accusation and a conviction. But pray, tell us...doesn't a trial usually preceed a conviction? And yet, Clinton's trial came after impeachment. How would that work in your crazy world where impeachment equals conviction?

By the way, you don't even seem to know what "Congress" means. Congress = The House of Representatives AND the Senate. Only the House voted to impeach Clinton, as only the House has such ability. He was tried in the Senate, he was acquitted in the Senate. And he was acquitted with Republican votes in the Senate.

Now, this is only if you go by your erroneous assertion that the impeachment proceedings were the same as a criminal trial, which they were not. Do you recall that the Special Prosecutor was prepared to indict and try Clinton for perjury outside of the congressional proceedings? We have a little thing in our law called "double jeopardy." That means you can't be tried for the same crime twice. If the Senate trial had been criminal in nature, it would have made him immune from such charges by the special prosecutor.

Someday Dear Boris, when you grow up a bit, you might find that trying to insult people, and holding your breath and stomping your foot (your posting equivelent is pages of "NO, I'M RIGHT, {Insert childish insult}") will never convince anyone of your postion. I know it makes you feel good to hurt others with insults, I don't like to, you bring it out in me, but that is my failing, and I try to address it.

Sounds like a nice summary of your own behavior, actually. Your first post in this thread was insulting in tone. You were the first to use childish insults. I simply said such a nasty attitude wasn't welcome in the thread I started. And since you use such rotten behavior with everyone you argue with, I'd say the problem is indeed with you, not anyone else. Therapy?

That's the difference between us, it's called maturity, and I fervently hope you will someday understand that your childishness just makes people uncomfortable..

Riiight, you're so much more mature, Chris. Considering I've never sent a private message to someone threatening them physically over things going on in a message board, I'd say you don't have much of a leg to stand on in the "maturity" argument. Unless you think threats are mature, yes?

Clinton was guilty, but escaped through the Denocrats voting in mass in the senate not to impeach, then they marched to the white house and applauded him..

First, Clinton was never found guilty of anything, as we've addressed. You may feel he was guilty, but that means nothing in a legal sense.

Second, the Senate Democrats never marched to the White House and applauded him after the trial. That was the House of Represenatives, and it was after the impeachment vote. Once again, you don't seem to know the difference between the House and the Senate nor impeachment and conviction.

All your rants will never change that, nor will your pedantic swipes at Lott, dinosaur he may be, he still actually said NOTHING wrong.

Hey, if you're comfortable saying racists statements aren't wrong, that's up to you and your beliefs. I'd think you'd look very unbecoming in a hood, though.

The rest of your post was just blah blah blither blah. I do eagerly await the day, however, when you have gotten a clue. Until then---game, set, match.

[Chris 62]

See what I mean?

Silly insults and lol smileys, dripping in scarcaism.

Your a child Boris.

Ask Mike what he thinks of my opinion, since he and I are long time friends.

You can't even be adult enough to speak on a level of civility, you try to attack all the time, and your pettiness knows no bounds.

It's really a shame.

[Guynemer]

How exactly did this thread go from Lott and his big mouth to Clinton's beejer, the A-bomb, and a brewing flame war between two people who ought to know better?

Frankly, I'm disgusted (and not in the least bit surprised) that wastes-of-organic-molecules like Lott and Byrd manage to get elected time after time. It will be awful interesting if the GOP stands behind Lott for Senate Majority Leader... it would definitely conflict with their campaign to broaded the party's appeal to minorities.

[Chris 62]

Guy, I'm not going to get into a flame war with Boris, I'm trying to get him to just talk WITHOUT the scarcism.

I used to insult people also on Poly, and I made a concious effort to get past it (and a lot was brought on by my biterness over 9/11).

You and I have ofetn disagreed on matters, but we can talk about them, everytime I get into a conversation with Boris, it becomes Junior High, let's see who can be pettier.

I'm tired of it, and I fervently hope he sees that this does NOTHING to make poly fun, this constant scarcism.

So far, my efforts have been in vane, the smae kind of post appeared, overloaded with flase facts, tons of smilieys, and attempts to hurt and humiliate.

To get to the topic, Lott is coming under increased fire now, many conservaties feel he should step down.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
Guy, I'm not going to get into a flame war with Boris, I'm trying to get him to just talk WITHOUT the scarcism.

I used to insult people also on Poly, and I made a concious effort to get past it (and a lot was brought on by my biterness over 9/11).

You and I have ofetn disagreed on matters, but we can talk about them, everytime I get into a conversation with Boris, it becomes Junior High, let's see who can be pettier.

Are you serious? Chris, your first post addressed to me started with this:

Boris, you just don't know what your talking about.

Then, after I offered a pretty detailed rebuttal (free of any "sarcasm" too), your only answer was this:

You are so full of sh1t you eyes must be brown Boris.

Your busted, take it like a man, you little whiner.

And it got worse from there. You have a lot of gall to accuse me of being the insulter, when I've yet to see any post from you in this forum addressed to me that wasn't a condescending insult. You are incapable of disagreeing with people in a civil way. I agree with Loinburger in this regard--you flame me, I will flame you back. I know you get a little hard-on whenever you think you can flame me, but your efforts fall really flat (especially when you make such blatantly false statements like you have about impeachment here).

And the line about the smilies is rich--you who are the king of using the smiley after every sentence in your posts.

Keep trying Chris. And while you're at it, care to actually discuss the fact that you were completely wrong about impeachment and what it means? I'm waiting for this much-vaunted maturity of yours to fess up you were wrong about it. Maybe you'd even have the guts to apologize for starting off with insults, but I think baby steps are good at first.

Guy--I agree the discourse has gotten off-track. But like I said, if someone flames me, they can expect to get it back. I've never said I'm a turn-the-other-cheek type.

[Chris 62]

Your like a lost cause Boris, I'm over here begging you to act like an adult, and it's ANOTHER post of scarcism and smilies.

Is it IMPOSSIBLE for you to converse on an adult level?

WITHOUT the pettiness?

[Boris Godunov]

Chris, you addressed me first in a childish, insulting manner. I responded with like fire. As I said, I fight flame with flame.

If you're upset about it, I suggest that, in the future, you don't start such things. Be mature and disagree with people respectfully from the start, or just don't say anything. Then you won't get your feelings hurt, ok?

Now unless you have more to add to the Lott discussion, or you want to bother to explain your erroneous assertions about impeachment, then please find someone else's thread to mangle. Thanks, boo.

[Chris 62]

If you were insulted, I appologise.

Next, your dead wrong on the impreachment process, but I can see your not changing your mind, which is fine.
We can agree to disagree.

Third, you don't own threads Boris, I see you several times told people to leave "your" threads, that's rather immpolite.

It's Christmas, let's all make an effort to get along.

Back to the topic, what do people think of Bush's rather firm rebuke of Lott, is Bush sincere or in damage control mode?

[David Floyd]

The "aggressive war" bit was more about initiating unrestricted submarine warfare in violation of pre-war international conventions.

That's my point. You're telling me that someone should be tried for unrestricted submarine warfare, but that intentionally burning civilians to death in air raids - intentionally, mind you, not collateral damage - is perfectly acceptable?

MtG, come on. Either you're wrong, and the atomic bombings were immoral, or you're again wrong, and the Nuremburg trials were wrong. You can't be right about both, because you are applying rather odd reasoning that doesn't make any sense. Point being, one way or another, by your own reasoning, you're wrong somewhere. I'll let you decide where, though.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Chris 62
If you were insulted, I appologise.

Thank you.

Next, your dead wrong on the impreachment process, but I can see your not changing your mind, which is fine.
We can agree to disagree.

Asserting this means nothing. I even gave you the definition of impeachment. Back up your assertions.

Third, you don't own threads Boris, I see you several times told people to leave "your" threads, that's rather immpolite.

It is established precedent that Ming has supported that, if a thread starter feels the conversation has gotten off-topic, he can say something about it. He also has the right to set the tone of his threads and tell people to keep the tone in line with that.

That's why I called Carver on his really nasty comment to Joseph. I don't want that tone in here, it's simply repugnant. I'm glad he apologized.

It's Christmas, let's all make an effort to get along.

Hug?

Back to the topic, what do people think of Bush's rather firm rebuke of Lott, is Bush sincere or in damage control mode?

Damage control. He's trying to get as much distance from Lott as he can. Rove is no dummy and will do everything he can to keep the taint off Bush.

This has escalated to the point that all the Dems would have to do is show Lott's face in a commercial attacking the GOP, and minorities are going to get riled and remember this instance. He's damaged goods now, so the White House is going to keep far away. Looks like he may seriously not keep his leadership position.

[David Floyd]

Oh, and Mike, you're not responding to many of my points, so would it be fair to assume you're conceding any of the points you're not arguing?