Skip to comments.
Democrats Know They Can't Win In '04
Rush Limbaugh .com ^
| 5/22/03
| El Rushbo
Posted on 05/22/2003 6:12:06 PM PDT by Libloather
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
To: longtermmemmory
Sorry ... there is NO SUCH RULE - it has even been explored at the Library of Congress and the UN Charter itself. No such rule exists. What does exist is just a sort of gentlemen's agreement that none of the permanent members (5) would take the Presidential chair.
However ... x42 is not known for keeping rules or agreements. I am confident x42 will have no such compunction to honor such an agreement - and ... he has been lobbying for the job for almost a year now.
As for selling our permanent seat - I don't think x42 would have the authority to do that - only the President of the U.S. could do that.
21
posted on
05/22/2003 7:27:19 PM PDT
by
CyberAnt
( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
To: Mind-numbed Robot
I honest to God can't believe Gephardt used the term "wage benefit", especially since he is supposed to be a Union guy. Before he usurped the term, Wage benefit had a real meaning.
Whenever a company provides you with a benefit, health, perks, whatever, they can, and alot of times, do, dock it from your salary as an eqivalent. If they say that rubbing yours hand on the special wall makes you healthier, they can give you a lower salary because they are giving you a wage benefit.
Corporations have been using it for years, to keep salaries down or to give pay cuts, by claiming that anything from free coffee in the morning, to letting you make 1 5 minuit personal phone call, to giving you a stress ball, is a wage benefit, and they factor that in, when deciding to give a raise, or in what salaries are for positions.
Unions hate the term, they know what this is, and despise it, before this is over, I'm sure he'll change the term to somthing else, other wise he's going to have real problems.
22
posted on
05/22/2003 7:28:01 PM PDT
by
Sonny M
("oderint dum metuant")
To: CyberAnt
AND...she's not qualified either!!!!
To: Libloather
Rats can win if the economy is still in the tank.
Rats can win if the Patriot Act II gets enacted permanently. I won't vote for Bush if this bit of dreck ends up as law. I won't necessarily vote for a DIM, but I cannot tolerate a permanent infraction of freedom without solid oversight.
Rats can win if Bush signs into law further draconian gun laws or signs a continuation of the assualt ban. I see no reason to let people have AK47s, but banning my 5 shot semi-auto shotgun and making it illegal means I become a criminal and hence Bush would alienate a good portion of his support. Yes, I know, Dims would ban it faster, I just simply cannot support anyone in gov't who supports this. Sorta like tossing a pint of red dye in the Hudson River and expecting the river to turn red.
-Mal
24
posted on
05/22/2003 7:36:01 PM PDT
by
Malsua
To: cubreporter
Exactly!!
25
posted on
05/22/2003 7:36:27 PM PDT
by
CyberAnt
( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
To: Libloather
bump for later reading
26
posted on
05/22/2003 8:01:48 PM PDT
by
prairiebreeze
(The faintest of ink is better than the strongest of memories.)
To: CyberAnt
hmmm thanks, I would never think of the UN as a place for gentlemen's agreements but then again it must be unPC to be a gentleman.
To: All
LOL, the same thing was said in 1992, and thx to Perot, we had 8 years of theatrics whilst Osama bin Laden built up a terrorist network. I've learned not to be smug about anything. I believe Bush will win, but he hasn't won it yet. I'm hoping that Senators like Shumer (NY) and other obstructionists will be voted out of ofc. A fillibuster-proof Senate, along with retention of the House and WH would be nice. I know I said in posts last year not to be surprised if the Dems picked up seats in 2001 midterms, but the loss of '92 has made me wary. Better to work it to extract the max we can from it, instead of overconfidently declaring victory now.....
28
posted on
05/22/2003 8:10:20 PM PDT
by
Malcolm
To: Sonny M
Thanks for the info. I have never been privileged to union negotiations or contracts so I am not familiar with that tactic. However, I have heard Democrats mention on more than one occasion that benefits should be taxed. I know that company paid car allowances for most field representatives are taxed as income if not totally offset by documented expenses.
29
posted on
05/22/2003 8:11:23 PM PDT
by
Mind-numbed Robot
(Not all things that need to be done need to be done by the government.)
To: Libloather
Rush will be proven correct on this one, if all of us vote! Complacency is the enemy.
30
posted on
05/22/2003 8:11:51 PM PDT
by
onyx
To: longtermmemmory
Well ... when the UN was born (after WWII) ... I think there were a few gentlemen still around; this agreement must be a holdover.
31
posted on
05/22/2003 8:17:07 PM PDT
by
CyberAnt
( America - You Are The Greatest!!)
To: Libloather
Bush Sr. couldn't possibly lose after the first Gulf War. That's why none of the first tier democRATs wanted to run and we ended up with president Clinton and her husband Bill.
It ain't over till it's over.
To: Libloather
This is dangerous talk and thought. Wait until after the cycle in 2004 before boasting.
33
posted on
05/22/2003 8:22:07 PM PDT
by
RWG
To: Mind-numbed Robot
Democrats for years have been trying to find various schemes to tax benefits and perks, but the question is, who do you tax, and how much, and Unions are not to fond of the idea, for good reason (this isn't soaking the rich, this is soaking the working class).
The company car is considered a "wage benefit", thats a scary word, I still can't fathom why, Gephardt would use that kind of corporate term, especially since his biggest support comes from Unions, and thats a term alot of dems hate, because they can't tax those perks effectivley.
34
posted on
05/22/2003 8:22:51 PM PDT
by
Sonny M
("oderint dum metuant")
To: All
Don't bet on it, the demoncraps could defeat Bush on '04. Remember the last election. They don't have to win the election, all they need is the population centers, along with a healthy does of voter fraud, couple of black box ops and bingo....amazing upset and a demonrat ends up in the white house...
Of course I dobt they'd succeed, but I never thought I'd live to see what happened in the last election. We can never let our guard down.
35
posted on
05/22/2003 8:52:02 PM PDT
by
OhhTee5
To: Salman
Don't anyone here misunderestimate Sharpton's intellegence, despite his hairstyle. If you took all the dem candidates' sound bites and put them together withour revealing who said what, IMO Sharpton would look like the most intelligent amongst them.
36
posted on
05/22/2003 8:55:53 PM PDT
by
randog
(It's always darkest before the dawn--a good time to steal the neighbor's newspaper.)
To: Libloather
Never underestimate the stupidity of the American voter or the ability of the Democrats to rig an election.
My mantra.
37
posted on
05/22/2003 8:56:12 PM PDT
by
Samwise
(There are other forces at work in this world, Frodo, besides the will of evil.)
Comment #38 Removed by Moderator
To: Libloather
Pride goeth before a fall.
Remember that George Bush I was 'unbeatable' in 1992, and draw your own conclusions...
J
To: CyberAnt
There isn't? Oh God, here comes my recurring nightmare, again, in which Clinton becomes Secretary General of the UN. :(
(And yes, this was an actual nightmare I had repeatedly LONG before anyone ever mentioned this on Free Republic)
40
posted on
05/22/2003 10:13:30 PM PDT
by
Green Knight
(Looking forward to seeing Jeb stepping over Hillary's rotting political corpse in '08.)
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-42 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson