Discussion about usa politics

[ralphwiggum 6]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ 08 May 2003,04:35)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (RalphWiggum @ 08 May 2003,09:16)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Let's face it. Bush cannot say word "Subliminal" correctly, has a less than adequate public speaking capability to convince ppl about his argument, and not to mention some comments that were very confusing. "I believe in small business growth." is what Bush said in terms of importance in growth of small business. Read the quoted sentence  carefully again, it is so confusing. Does he believe in small amount of business growth? <span id='postcolor'>

And you made the mistake of thinking I quoted you.  Does that mean you're a bad moderator?<span id='postcolor'>

Bush's mistake was that he did not even know that particular word, even though the press asked questionas about subliminal message. In your case, it was your lack of quoting skills (and subsequent explanation communication) that screwed everything up to begin with. You say "can you get me a coke?" aloud in a room full of people having casual social, without indicating whom the statement was intended for.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">yes in other words, there is a big problem with your communication/composition methos. you can't have numerous staements rolled into one place with no designation and try to have other ppl sort it out.<span id='postcolor'>

I was assuming you'd know what you said.  <span id='postcolor'>

read my example above, you can't just say something and expect someone to take care of it all for you. you can't send a reply postcard without rewriting the adress of the sender on your postcard. try stapling old postcard on top of your reply postcard and send it through postoffice.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">you said that when someone insults the president, you are insulting a proportion of population according to approval ratings. so when you insult Cretien or Chirac, you are insulting corresponding nationalities, based on approval ratings.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, and?<span id='postcolor'>

so you are asking ppl to stop insulting a group while you also insult several nationalities.

not to mention that argument of link between a country's leader being the proportional population behaviour. if Bush's rating is 79%, then you are saying that 79% of Americans are Bush. but when his approval rating was say 59%, then where did 20% go?

[Tex -USMC- 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @ 08 May 2003,02:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry, but remove your "embarassement". I don't care of "embarassement", I care about not having a nationalist, racist and revisionnist party in charge of my country. I do not care of our "reputation" when Le Pen comes second in first tour, I care about seeing him immediatly taken down.

If you think that this 85% were a way to keep our reputation, you are really mislead, and moreover insulting (BTW insulting not our president, but our whole country). <span id='postcolor'>

Excuse moi, but was that or was that not the entire French intellectual community coughing uncomfortably and shuffling their feet around when Le Pen won a significant portion of the primary vote? And incidentally, if you want to feel insulted, I'm going to have to ask you to take a number and get in line, as I really don't care. Apparently, I'm a citizen of a nascent fascist police state to hear others tell it, so I think you'll be able to get by as a citizen of a country that suddenly had to realize that they aren't quite so above it all as they'd like to think. France's reputation as a bastion of progressive social thought took a serious hit during that election, and only a fool or an ignoramus will deny that.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 07 May 2003,11:45)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 07 May 2003,13:13)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">PitViper:  It true that I was in error about the extent of the proceedings in Bush v. Gore, but I did point out that the Equal Protection clause connection used by the Supreme Court is at best flimsy.  <span id='postcolor'>

The equal protection clause is invoked because hand-counting three democratic counties with different and new standards (subjectively divining the vote's intent on obviously miscast ballots) would be obviously unfair to the rest of the voters in the state (and subsequently, the nation).  Hand-counts, according to the law, are authorized with clear cut cases of fraud which have been taken to court.  That's the legal threshold from what I've just read.  With such a close results in the tally, I think it was clear Gore was fishing for some votes.<span id='postcolor'>

I find it more than a little strange that the Court pre-empted the Florida Supreme Court on what has essentially been considered a State matter throughout the history of its jurisprudence, then says it can't do anything about the matter because a state elctions board deadline had been passed. Now if you can override the Florida Supreme Court, why the hell can't you override a minor state authority? I smell shit.

Also, taking the case, if there was nothing they could do about it violates the Court's own barriers to entry. It constitutes a political question, a matter best determined by the coordinate branches of government.

[Oligo 1]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tamme @ 07 May 2003,20:12)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Oligo @ 07 May 2003,08:20)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">I'm not personally a fan of the police<span id='postcolor'>

Why not? They keep the streets safe and definitely need more money.<span id='postcolor'>

Cops are in the business of retaliation, not prevention, since they cannot be everywhere all the time (not with all the money in the world). When shit hits the fan, they come and pick up the pieces.

Luckily most street combat in Finland is still handled with fists and feet. Less casualties that way.

[Akira 0]

Politics is inherently rascist. Why? Because minorities, "aliens", "immigrants", etc etc, are always used as political platforms. The very names are rascists denoting "not belonging" or not being a part of the larger group ie the rest of the country (or usually more specifically....Whitey). African-American's and Hispanic's in particular (for the US) are always being used in a political tug-of-war for votes and money. In Texas' last election that was quite evident. And after the election, "minorities" again fade back to the dark recesses of everyone's mind...mostly the politician.

The use of this ploy itself is rascist as well. It sets forth the idea that minorities need some form of "separate law" that governs them outside the "majority". (I'm not talking about affirmative action)

[Schoeler 0]

Affirmative Action, however also falls into the line of thinking that "race matters". By making racial distinctions, and then enacting laws that recognize those distinctions, we all continue to allow race to matter when it should not. If we truly believe that all men are created equal, then the law should be race neutral.

I don't think that politics itself is an inherently racist subject, but i do believe that for politicians, playing the race game can be immensely profitable. It won't stop until we as a people disallow that kind of shit, and the minority population is as guilty as the majority in allowing this game to go on.

[theavonlady 2]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 08 May 2003,10:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Affirmative Action, however also falls into the line of thinking that "race matters".  By making racial distinctions, and then enacting laws that recognize those distinctions, we all continue to allow race to matter when it should not.  If we truly believe that all men are created equal, then the law should be race neutral.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, the idea behind Affirmative Action was to allow people to catch up after decades of inequality. In that sense, it's to counter the previous effects of racism.

However, at some point, people should have or will have to let go of this crutch.

[Guest]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 08 May 2003,06:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @ 08 May 2003,02:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry, but remove your "embarassement". I don't care of "embarassement", I care about not having a nationalist, racist and revisionnist party in charge of my country. I do not care of our "reputation" when Le Pen comes second in first tour, I care about seeing him immediatly taken down.

If you think that this 85% were a way to keep our reputation, you are really mislead, and moreover insulting (BTW insulting not our president, but our whole country). <span id='postcolor'>

Excuse moi, but was that or was that not the entire French intellectual community coughing uncomfortably and shuffling their feet around when Le Pen won a significant portion of the primary vote? And incidentally, if you want to feel insulted, I'm going to have to ask you to take a number and get in line, as I really don't care. Apparently, I'm a citizen of a nascent fascist police state to hear others tell it, so I think you'll be able to get by as a citizen of a country that suddenly had to realize that they aren't quite so above it all as they'd like to think. France's reputation as a bastion of progressive social thought took a serious hit during that election, and only a fool or an ignoramus will deny that.<span id='postcolor'>

At least they chose the right thing in the end which cannot be said for USA (well, again, depending on how you interpret the election results ).

Le Pen only succeeded in the first round because of the genuine lack of interest for the candidates. People simply didn't vote in the first round. When Le Pen qualified for a second round, France awakened and got rid of him very very quickly.

There is however a worrying trend in Europe of neo-facism and xenophobic parties gaining strength. Countries like Denmark, Italy and Holland all have xenophobic parties in their parliament.

Incidently it is those countries that have a good relationship with the Bush administration. Go figure

[whisperFFW06 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Tex [uSMC] @ 08 May 2003,06:29)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (whisperFFW06 @ 08 May 2003,02:54)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Sorry, but remove your "embarassement". I don't care of "embarassement", I care about not having a nationalist, racist and revisionnist party in charge of my country. I do not care of our "reputation" when Le Pen comes second in first tour, I care about seeing him immediatly taken down.

If you think that this 85% were a way to keep our reputation, you are really mislead, and moreover insulting (BTW insulting not our president, but our whole country). <span id='postcolor'>

Excuse moi, but was that or was that not the entire French intellectual community coughing uncomfortably and shuffling their feet around when Le Pen won a significant portion of the primary vote? And incidentally, if you want to feel insulted, I'm going to have to ask you to take a number and get in line, as I really don't care. Apparently, I'm a citizen of a nascent fascist police state to hear others tell it, so I think you'll be able to get by as a citizen of a country that suddenly had to realize that they aren't quite so above it all as they'd like to think. France's reputation as a bastion of progressive social thought took a serious hit during that election, and only a fool or an ignoramus will deny that.<span id='postcolor'>

You didn't get my point. These 85% were not to save our reputation, but simply not to have FN in presidence. That's all. You seem to have seen it as a "hey, stop it, we are really looking stuping, there", which was none of our concern by that time. I don't understand how this idea came to your mind.

[FSPilot 0]

Ralph this is pointless, lets just drop it. Itr's a stupid forum bug that's been going on since I got here.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">so you are asking ppl to stop insulting a group while you also insult several nationalities.<span id='postcolor'>

No, I think I said they should expect a hostile response.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">not to mention that argument of link between a country's leader being the proportional population behaviour. if Bush's rating is 79%, then you are saying that 79% of Americans are Bush. but when his approval rating was say 59%, then where did 20% go?<span id='postcolor'>

I didn't say this. Where are you pulling this from?

I said, simply, that if 71% of Americans like the president, then you go and insult the president, you are also insulting 71% of Americans. Not that that 71% are the president, they just like him and are insulted when you make fun of him.

Say your best friend is getting picked on by a bully or something, don't you also feel the need to stand up for your friend?

And don't get me started on affirmative action.

[Schoeler 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (theavonlady @ 08 May 2003,00:53)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Schoeler @ 08 May 2003,10:49)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Affirmative Action, however also falls into the line of thinking that "race matters".  By making racial distinctions, and then enacting laws that recognize those distinctions, we all continue to allow race to matter when it should not.  If we truly believe that all men are created equal, then the law should be race neutral.<span id='postcolor'>

Well, the idea behind Affirmative Action was to allow people to catch up after decades of inequality. In that sense, it's to counter the previous effects of racism.

However, at some point, people should have or will have to let go of this crutch.<span id='postcolor'>

Yes, it was intended as a temporary solution to get the ball rolling in the area of rapid social integration, and it accomplished that, but now its lasted decades too long and is a program that is designed to combat racial distinctions and racial deiscrimination by making racial distinctions and employing (reverse) racial discrimination. The problem of "race matters" will never go away in this country until race ceases to matter, and that means affirmative action must go. Its like trying to fight a fire with a blowtorch.

[Akira 0]

Getting back to American politics, and in this case, state politics.

The Democrats of the state legislature have staged a "walkout" here in Austin. This may not seem like a big deal, but in Texas a "qourum" is needed in order for the House to conduct business, meaning at least 100 members have to be present in the House. There are 150 members in the Texas House. 53 Democrats walked out. Or "fled" if you believe some accounts.

Apparently, the Republicans, having a majority for the first time in ages here in Texas, decided that they wanted to try and force through a Congressional redistricting plan that would benefit (any guess?)...yes thats right...state Republicans. Standard politics.

The thing is, redistricting was done LAST session ('01), and the plan has already been court approved. This new plan was set ("calendered") to be brought up today (Mon. 12th). Starting this week, our sessional deadlines begin, meaning if the Democrats don't come back, heaps of legislation is effectively DEAD.

So beginning last night (Sunday) Democrats started meeting in predesignated areas with only one person in each group knowing where they were going. And they effectively ran. DPS (Department of Public Safety....State cops) have been sent to look for the Democrats. Arrest warrants have been issued for them as well. Some have been found in Oklahoma. Speaker Craddick has sent DPS and his plane there to ask the Democrats to come back.

A "lockdown" also was put in place at the Capitol here. All members in the House at the time have to stay in the chambers. Guarded by....yes thats right. DPS (refer above). The House as I write this is "at ease" meaning the legislative day is not over. This was done so that the bills that are on the "calender" today aren't killed. As long as they don't recess, the legislative day is not over. So this legislative day could technically last a week.

This little saga is ongoing, with some saying the Democrats won't be back till Friday...making sure everything is good and killed.

That's politics...

EDIT: Oh yeah...that means I am sitting here. Doing nothing. And dreading what is called a "special session".

EDIT2: figured some links to the saga could be given.

Austin-American Statesman

And here is a live Real Player feed of the House floor "at ease"...

Streaming Video

[FSPilot 0]

There's a good way to get reelected.

That really turns my cheese. They lost the majority so they just don't show up when it starts to work against them? Maybe someone should take their positions away from them, see if they come back.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ 13 May 2003,05:46)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">There's a good way to get reelected.

That really turns my cheese.  They lost the majority so they just don't show up when it starts to work against them?  Maybe someone should take their positions away from them, see if they come back.<span id='postcolor'>

It's not so much that they lost and are sore.

The were completely shut out of the process, aside from some that turned into favored lap dogs. Democrats were shut out of appropriations, committee assignments, legislation, everything...and hat is something that didn't happen when the Dem's had the majority I can tell you.

In a qoute in one of the articles on the Statesman website...a Republican aide accuses the Democrats of  killing legislation dealing with health care, children, education, just about every "social"  piece of legislation. The sad thing is people will believe that. Why? Because no one reads about what happens, and they certianly don't actually WATCH what happens on the floor of the House. I watch everyday. Texas is in a budget nightmare right now. So the Republicans gutted just about all social/democrat programs, while at the same time making sure our wonderful used-car-salesman -looking Governor still gets his $300,000 to have lobbyists around him.

This is strictly the Republicans fault. Take it from someone at Ground Zero.

EDIT: The "lockdown" has ended. Members are going home, but the House still stands "at ease" if and when the Democrats decide to ever come back. The streaming video link won't work again until 9am tomorrow.

[Akira 0]

Gov. Perry of Texas asked the New Mexico Attorny General office whether Texas officers could make arrests in New Mexico. Assuming, rightly, that it was about the missing Democrats, she basically said no. Her reply, though, should go down as a classic in the lexicon of politics:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">"Some are speculating this request from the Texas Governor's office concerns an effort to locate missing Texas House Democrats," Madrid wrote. "If so, Texas should understand that since ski season is over, the Santa Fe Opera has not begun and President Bush was just in town, I don't think they are in Santa Fe now. Nevertheless, I have put out an all-points bulletin for law enforcement to be on the look out for politicians in favor of health care for the needy and against tax cuts for the wealthy."<span id='postcolor'>

[PitViper 0]

oh god.. you're a politician?

*slowly starts backing away*

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 13 May 2003,06:26)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">oh god.. you're a politician?

*slowly starts backing away*<span id='postcolor'>

Nope not a politician. We're a non-partisan government agency (Texas Legislative Council....yes...thats right...the TLC ). We handle the legislation and codes for the state. I process legislation.

It's actually against our policy for employee's to work for politicians in elections or any other capacity. We're not even allowed to have signs in our yards. Nothing that might make it seem that we are biased.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ 12 May 2003,23:55)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"><span id='postcolor'>

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Texas is in a budget nightmare right now. So the Republicans gutted just about all social/democrat programs,<span id='postcolor'>

if your state is like a number of others, they went spending crazy in the 90's.  Now that the economy has come back down,  the state should reel in excess spending. Do you disagree?

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">while at the same time making sure our wonderful used-car-salesman -looking Governor still gets his $300,000 to have lobbyists around him.<span id='postcolor'>

$300,000?  as in his salary?

(incorrect assumption removed for clarity)

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote

Texas is in a budget nightmare right now. So the Republicans gutted just about all social/democrat programs,

if your state is like a number of others, they went spending crazy in the 90's.  Now that the economy has come back down,  the state should reel in excess spending. Do you disagree?<span id='postcolor'>

No I don't disagree. But why should poor children not be able to get have health-care coverage while Mr. Rick Perry:

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote

while at the same time making sure our wonderful used-car-salesman -looking Governor still gets his $300,000 to have lobbyists around him.

$300,000?  as in his salary?<span id='postcolor'>

No. As in he gets $300,000 to pay to his lobbyist buddies.

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote </td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Quote

This is strictly the Republicans fault. Take it from someone at Ground Zero.

Everyone knows that lawyers are the democratic party's biggest donors and lobbying group. Why should I trust you? <span id='postcolor'>

How about because:

1-I'm not a lawyer

2-I don't contribute money to any party

3-I'm not registered to any party

4-I work for the State, not for a political party

5-I see everyday what happens here. I read the bills that come through.

6-I watched the Appropriations debates.

7-I don't blanket vote one party.

[PitViper 0]

umm.. so your job is to read legislation? please tell me you do more. You better be a GS-5.  

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 13 May 2003,06:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">umm.. so your job is to read legislation? please tell me you do more.  You better be a GS-5.  <span id='postcolor'>

Process legislation...that includes setting it up. Making sure it is formated correctly and that it gets to the correct member. That includes drafts, codes, bills, resolutions, committe reports, 2nd Readings, 3rd Reading Engrossments, Senate Amendments, Conference Committee Reports, Enrollments. Our area also deals with some publications. We deal the calenders also (calenders decide when a bill can be brought up for consideration).

When session starts we hire "sessional employees" to help out. Temps really. We also go to two shifts. 7am-4pm, and 4pm-whenever the work is done. I'm on the latter Lately I've been working about 4pm to 3-4am.

[PitViper 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ 13 May 2003,00:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 13 May 2003,06:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">umm.. so your job is to read legislation? please tell me you do more.  You better be a GS-5.  <span id='postcolor'>

Process legislation...that includes setting it up. Making sure it is formated correctly and that it gets to the correct member. That includes drafts, codes, bills, resolutions, committe reports, 2nd Readings, 3rd Reading Engrossments, Senate Amendments, Conference Committee Reports, Enrollments. Our area also deals with some publications. We deal the calenders also (calenders decide when a bill can be brought up for consideration).

When session starts we hire "sessional employees" to help out. Temps really. We also go to two shifts. 7am-4pm, and 4pm-whenever the work is done. I'm on the latter Lately I've been working about 4pm to 3-4am.<span id='postcolor'>

I thought pages did all that?

[FSPilot 0]

Ohhh ok, I get it now.

But, honestly, what did you expect the republicans to do? Don't tell me you think the democrats wouldn't of cut the republicans out given the opportunity.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 13 May 2003,07:02)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (Akira @ 13 May 2003,00:56)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE"></span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (PitViper @ 13 May 2003,06:48)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">umm.. so your job is to read legislation? please tell me you do more.  You better be a GS-5.  <span id='postcolor'>

Process legislation...that includes setting it up. Making sure it is formated correctly and that it gets to the correct member. That includes drafts, codes, bills, resolutions, committe reports, 2nd Readings, 3rd Reading Engrossments, Senate Amendments, Conference Committee Reports, Enrollments. Our area also deals with some publications. We deal the calenders also (calenders decide when a bill can be brought up for consideration).

When session starts we hire "sessional employees" to help out. Temps really. We also go to two shifts. 7am-4pm, and 4pm-whenever the work is done. I'm on the latter Lately I've been working about 4pm to 3-4am.<span id='postcolor'>

I thought pages did all that?<span id='postcolor'>

Pages are "gophers"....they are called pages on the federal level. Here we have "house sergeants"...the run member errands, deliver messages to members on the floor, and things of that nature.

[Akira 0]

</span><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="3" cellspacing="1"><tr><td>Quote (FSPilot @ 13 May 2003,07:08)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Ohhh ok, I get it now.

But, honestly, what did you expect the republicans to do?  Don't tell me you think the democrats wouldn't of cut the republicans out given the opportunity.<span id='postcolor'>

Actually that is what I am saying. They didn't. The Dem's were in control since the 70s or so and never cut out nor steam-rolled the Repub's like the Repub's are now.