Clarence Thomas book: Paranoid of everyone?

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 06:49:07 -0700, wrote:

Agree. I could not believe what I was seeing.. Clinton - hand in hand
with NWO Bush sr - pushing for a nation destroying WTO and NAFTA. And
then seeing Clinton sweet talking some labor unions into supporting
that economic poison. snip

My union told Clinton to sit on it regarding NAFTA and never backed
down. We were proved right in the end, as jobs in the manufacturing
sector simply left the country along with the machinery from the
factories. "Neutron Jack" Welch of the now-teetering GE was another
potent force in forcing NAFTA on the US, although he did much to work
under the radar, using techniques that one could term as immoral, if
barely legal. You'll remember "Neutron Jack" stating cavalierly that
it was his dream to put factories on barges that could be towed from
port to port in search of the lower labor rates and weakest labor laws
in the world.

No better proof is needed to demonstrate that - on big ticket items -
the two parties are joined and corrupted at the top. snip

The problem with Clinton is that he bought into the same NWO bull****
that Bushie the Smarter was promoting to decimate our national
industry and make us dependent on China and other ne'er-do-wells to
provide our basic goods in the marketplace. That permanently cost us
jobs. Just look at the campaign contributions from the Waltons of
"Wally-Fart" fame, and you get the picture how THAT happened. Now, we
have China providing about 85% of our national consumer goods, AND
holding the bulk of Bush The Dumber's staggering deficit debt...NOT a
good situation. During the Clinton years, we were quickly approaching
the point of paying off all our foreign-held debt, a situation that
scared the **** out of the Japanese and Chinese and drove Japan into a
still-continuing recession. Bush The Dumber, listening to his
corporate "advisors" and Dickhead Cheney, was told that "deficits
don't matter," and now we're in this current mess. It bears
mentioning that it was Alan Greenspan who cautioned Clinton about
paying off the deficit in full, his theory being that doing so would
place too much US capital in private hands. Thanks a lot, Mr.
Chairman!

Also, due to the Chinese holding our now-massive debt, Bush The Dumber
is scared to death to challenge the Chinese regarding their continuing
fiscal policy of letting the Yaun sink with the crippled dollar...a
dangerous situation that will continue to let the dollar collapse in
free fall in a "race to the bottom." Next in line: Interest rates
will shoot up uncontrollably as lender nations (including China)
refuse to finance any more US debt, and then, runaway inflation, á la
Argentina. The problem there is that, since our national industry has
been decimated by the "free traders," once runaway inflation kicks in,
we won't be able to afford anything coming from other nations, and we
can no longer make it ourselves.

PS on Clarence:
Clarence is obviously unqualified to sit on the Supreme Court... just
as he was unqualified when the democraps had a chance to shoot down
his nomination on the basis of moral deficiencies surround his sexual
harrassment allegations - and failed to do so. snip

Agreed there. You may remember the two poverty pimps/ghetto thugs,
Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton, holding the Dems' feet to the fire
regarding Clarence...mostly because Clarence, even though he's a
"right winger," will reliably side WITH the poverty pimps on issues of
racial quotas and other phony "we're more equal than whites" garbage.
Personally, I don't think Jackson OR Sharpton have the mental capacity
to understand just how bad Thomas really is. Three peas in a pod, you
know....

What a clown show that was.. 'Liberal' democratic leadership
(including Teddy Kennedy) all lined up to praise a confirmed and
obvious retrograde neocon.. only because the man was black. Now the US
is saddled with a entrenched neocon who doesn't even bother to write
his judicial opinions. snip

....or ask pertinent questions from the bench. He's NOT SMART enough.

In his new "autobiography," (again, not his own work,) he recalls
while working at the DoE, reading a report about the chronic low grade
point average of black high school students in the US and weeping.
Maybe the harsh realization sunk in...THEY'RE STUPID! Anthropologists
and sociologists have known this for decades, but the "poverty pimps"
just start screaming "pwejudiss!" and the facts simply go
away...again. These are the same poverty pimps who claim that
standardized international IQ tests are "cult'rilly bias'" ("ed" left
of intentionally, as in how Jackson pronounces it.)

Superficial intellect given a pass by superficial (if not outright
traitorous) legislators. snip

Thomas is 59, so he doesn't have that much longer to go anyway,
according to NIH and NCDC statistics. He's overweight and male
negroes tend to die in their 60s and 70s due to bad diet and
hypertension...not to mention untreated sexually transmitted diseases.
Do the country a favor...send him a year's supply of greasy chitlins
and a bus load of "hos." Same goes for Antonin Scalia...a year's
worth of artery clogging Italian food and a standing weekly
appointment to go duck hunting with Dick Cheney should do the trick in
short order.

Subject: Ditto Democrats


Good opinion that basically sums up the strategy of the Democratic party
which is to regain the White House by focusing their campaign attacks
against George W and his policies and failures but not providing any
realistic solutions to the problems facing the world and our country today,
i.e, terrorism, illegal immigration, health care, and the future of the
social security system. Their strategy is to be united in their opinions and
no infighting.



Ditto Democrats

By E. J. Dionne Jr.

Here is why the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination seems so
peculiar: Political campaigns are normally about highlighting differences,
but never have the philosophical distinctions among Democratic candidates
been so small.

There's a reason for this. "Sometimes," Barack Obama said in an interview
this week, "being in the wilderness focuses attention."

The campaign's daily back-and-forth has obscured the remarkable overlap
among Democrats in their plans, proposals, themes and even rhetoric,
particularly on domestic policy. The old splits that tore the party apart --
"reformer" vs. "regular," "New Democrats" vs. the "Old" kind, "pro-business"
vs. "pro-labor" -- are nowhere to be seen.

Because the contest has been organized around personality and history rather
than ideological passion, the presidential preferences of Democratic primary
voters have been remarkably stable. But they also may prove to be fragile.
Thus has Hillary Clinton maintained her steady and substantial lead in the
national polls, but her advantage could be vulnerable to relatively small
changes in the political environment.

There is no issue on which the convergence is more obvious or important than
health care. As Obama says candidly, "The differences between my plan,
Hillary's plan and Edwards's plan are relatively modest."

This is a big change. When President Bill Clinton proposed health-care
reform in the early 1990s, Democrats were badly split and deeply mistrusted
each other's approaches. Fights among Democrats were nearly as responsible
for the Clinton plan's failure as opposition from Republicans.

Now, former advocates of Canadian-style single-payer plans, supporters of
employer mandates and pro-market reformers have come together around
proposals for universal coverage that are resolutely prudent and incremental
in the way they get there.

The same is true on taxes, Obama's focus this week. Democrats are no longer
spooked by the prospect of raising taxes because the increased concentration
of income and wealth at the top of the class structure -- and the sharp tax
cuts on capital enacted under President Bush -- would allow the government
to collect a great deal of money by increasing taxes on a very narrow slice
of the electorate.

Obama's plan, issued Tuesday, was a model for how any Democrat will approach
the tax issue next year. He led not with his list of tax increases but with
$80 billion to $85 billion in tax cuts for middle- and lower-income workers,
homeowners who do not itemize their deductions, and senior citizens with
annual incomes of less than $50,000. He also proposed simplifying filing for
non-itemizing taxpayers.

Obama would pay for this by raising taxes on dividends and capital gains --
but only for those in the top tax bracket -- and by closing loopholes in the
tax code that benefit very particular (and mostly corporate) interests.

His speech outlining his plan was itself evidence of the year's rhetorical
cross-pollination: Not once but twice did Obama borrow a signature John
Edwards reference point by arguing that "we've lost the balance between work
and wealth."

In the interview after his speech, Obama freely acknowledged that his ideas
build on a consensus. "Democrats were so scared of the tax issue that they
got steamrolled on some very bad policy," he said. "My hope is that
Democrats have regained their voice and lay out a case not for confiscatory
taxes that get in the way of economic growth but for policies that are
sensible and fair."

Note that caveat about "confiscatory taxes." The new Democratic populism is
carefully tempered. "We don't resent people who are doing well," Obama
insisted.

Notice also how carefully Obama weaves the old and the new -- and here
again, his approach is more typical than atypical inside his party. "Over
the last seven or eight years," he says, "Democrats have recognized that the
economy is out of balance and it is not sufficient for us just to defend the
old New Deal programs. We have to take those principles and adapt them to
new times."

In talking about how the party's new consensus would not have been possible
had Democrats not "fully wrung out the excesses of the '60s," Obama pays
unprompted tribute to a leader who happens to be supporting one of his
opponents. "Bill Clinton," says Obama, "deserves some credit for breaking
with some of those dogmas in the Democratic Party." I'm ashamed to say
that, yes, Slick Willie is a product of the '60s. BC

Obama's promise to transcend the Clinton-Bush years while subtly presenting
himself as Bill Clinton's true heir has been one of the central dramas of
his candidacy since its inception. This underscores that the Democrats' 2008
struggle is not about how to shape a new consensus but over who can take
charge of the one that already exists.

On Sun, 30 Sep 2007 12:44:33 -0400, "trippin-2-8-trak"
wrote:

Subject: Ditto Democrats snip

Copyright violation of Washington Post copyrighted material reported
to the Post. Violator: Charles M. Nudo, Jr., 160 Bear Run Dr.,
Drums, PA 18222.

On Sep 29, 3:00 pm, "sandman" wrote:
"DeserTBoB" wrote in message

...

LA Times this morning had a byline about Clarence Thomas' new
so-called "autobiography," the gist of which is that the man is
paranoid beyond doubt. Paranoid of Democrats, paranoid of lighter
skinned negroes, paranoid of...well, just about everything!

How did this sorry excuse for a jurist make it onto the Supreme Court
bench, if not for "identity politics" played by the GOP? Thomas'
career is marked mostly by "me too" decisions, simply trailering his
other long-time right wing fanatic on the bench, Antonin Scalia.
Thomas almost never even attempts to engage litigants in arguments
during oral presentation at the court, and when he does, the question
always involves "racism," or is off-point and irrelevant entirely.

Clarence Thomas...another GOOD reason for a Democratic president in
'08!

Speaking as a former Dem, can you tell me what the Dems have done to warrant
anyone's vote, except roll over on their back for a tummy rub from the NWO?
Here is a hint: they've done nothing. Did nothing about getting a real 911
investigation. All else is secondary.

I'm going to have to teach you some history sometime, since you obviously
are clueless as well as useless. Who gave us NAFTA, the removal of
restrictions on media ownership? The Clintons, fercristsake.

NAFTA was just a moron by-byproduct of The Louisiana Purchase
for all you morons in Calitucky, but nobody expected you to
know that, since moron Washington D.C. itself is just a by-product
of The Boston Purchase.

On Sep 29, 7:47 pm, DeserTBoB wrote:
On Sat, 29 Sep 2007 20:30:46 GMT, "****ingOnTheRight" kidGWBoo

wrote:
Looks like you know little about history.
NAFTA was Oldbush's horse****, passed by the republican Congress and signed
(by law) by Clinton. snip

All true, but Clinton pushed people like Lee Iacocca to support
passage of NAFTA far more than he should have done.

That's makes no difference at all, since it's cranks like
Lee Iacocca that pushed people far, far, far more than they
should have to invent electronics robots, CD, DVD,
microprocessors, fiber optics, and Japanese Imports.



NAFTA will go
down in his presidency's history as one of his biggest blunders.
"Monicagate" and the assorted other worthless crap that gets the right
wingers foaming at the mouth won't even be worth a footnote given the
fullness of time. Come to think of it, the "christian nation" morons
we are currently defeating won't be much of a speed bump in American
history either, at the rate they're collapsing.

MY "EARLY, EARLY PREDICTION©" FOR '08:

It's going to be Hillary versus Rudy. It's possible a right wing
"splinter" candidate will rise up out of the Religious Right, further
fracturing the GOP. Hillary will barbeque Rudy to a crisp on the
stump and will win 289 electors (or more) without Rootie-Tootie even
carrying his own home state of New York, where Clinton won her
reelection to the Senate by a 67% majority. Bernie Kerik will be a
major embarrassment to Rootie late in the game, moreso than he has
been already. The Dems will pick up 20 seats in the House, 5 or 6 in
the Senate. After losing, Rudy will hit the right wing talk show
circuit, where he will earn a reputation as a bitter
has-been/never-was. Due to persistent vetting in '08 by the Clinton
war room, Rootie-Tootie's personal history will drive him into
political Siberia.

Anyone who knows me knows I tend to be uncannily accurate about these
things.

there's nothing wrong with new technology, you can't buff the negative
"Japanese imports" in with technological advances

otherwise, we'd still be riding the horse, using water power, and outhouses,
and candles for light

On Oct 1, 5:39 pm, "trippin-2-8-trak" wrote:
there's nothing wrong with new technology, you can't buff the negative
"Japanese imports" in with technological advances

otherwise, we'd still be riding the horse, using water power, and outhouses,
and candles for light

Sounds like your lifestyle in Beech Mountain Lakes. You may want to
add "no DSL" to that list too.

On Oct 1, 5:39 pm, "trippin-2-8-trak" wrote:
there's nothing wrong with new technology, you can't buff the negative
"Japanese imports" in with technological advances

Sure you can, since Detroit hasn't had any technological
advances since the morons discovered Los Vegas like 100 years ago.



otherwise, we'd still be riding the horse, using water power, and outhouses,
and candles for light

On Mon, 01 Oct 2007 20:03:54 -0700, "
wrote:

On Oct 1, 5:39 pm, "trippin-2-8-trak" wrote:
there's nothing wrong with new technology, you can't buff the negative
"Japanese imports" in with technological advances

Sure you can, since Detroit hasn't had any technological
advances since the morons discovered Los Vegas like 100 years ago. snip

That's LAS Vegas, and there was nothing at all there until the Los
Angeles & Salt Lake RR (part of UP) built the town in 1904. So, there
was a roundhouse, water and fuel oil tanks, crew shanties and a yard
along with a couple of fleabag hotels, and not much else.

Later on, a guy named Benjamin "Bugsy" Siegel showed up one day from
Los Angeles in a '41 Cadillac convertible accompanied by George Raft
and Veronica Lake...and he had this wacky idea right there on the side
of US 91 a few miles south of town....

Francis Copolla thought so much of Bugsy's idea he had Lee Strassberg
do a famous soliloquy about it that helped he and Strassberg win Oscar
nominations. Name the movie.

On Mon, 1 Oct 2007 17:39:12 -0400, "trippin-2-8-trak"
wrote:

there's nothing wrong with new technology, you can't buff the negative
"Japanese imports" in with technological advances

otherwise, we'd still be riding the horse, using water power, and outhouses,
and candles for light snip!

Oh look...Charlie's found a new Usenet buddy!
They appear to be perfectly matched...mental health-wise, at least.