--------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F3E00100 Date: 03/06/98 From: SHOSHONA BIEMAN Time: 03:25am \/To: JOHN SAMPSON (Read 0 times) Subj: Got a Medical Plan? JS> In which case, what medical specialist should El Presidente consult? Whacky Jack (Kevorkian) so he can put Klinton out of OUR misery? Check out the next post for more on Whacky Jack (Kevorkian)... [ Shoshona Bieman, Sysop: Shofar BBS @ 714-838-3837 ] [ Such a *NICE* Messianic Jewish, conservative Gal! ] [ California "Got Ilk?" Contingent _ Fido @ 1:103/505 ] --- Aeolus v1.2.1 (#49820837) * Origin: Shofar@714-838-3837 Right-Minded in Orange County (1:103/505) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F3E00101 Date: 03/06/98 From: SHOSHONA BIEMAN Time: 03:32am \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Jack the Whacker The latest MESScapade of Jack (the Whacker) Kevorkian who "assisted" in the suicide (murder) of a man with "fibromyalgia": Fibromyalgia (FMS) is sort-of the muscular analog to arthritis ...many doctors do not consider FMS a valid ailment & it's often given as a blanket diagnosis to explain a collection of problems that in many cases can't specifically be tested for (symptoms can be quite subjective & easy to claim if one is shopping around for an "ailment" to get phony disability). I live with terrible pain every day (from a couple bad auto accidents that disabled me), so I asked my doctor if I could possibly have FMS. Her response: I didn't have FMS -- and I had *REAL* problems... So, that should tell you it's really NOT considered a serious problem, if a problem at all. I think our esteemed moderator, Robert Craft, could fill you all in a little more if need be... Considering the obvious risk to life & limb presented by fibromyalgia, does anyone else here wonder how long it will be before Whacky Jack comes to save the day for sufferers of menstrual cramps or jock itch??? [ Shoshona Bieman, Sysop: Shofar BBS @ 714-838-3837 ] [ Such a *NICE* Messianic Jewish, conservative Gal! ] [ California "Got Ilk?" Contingent _ Fido @ 1:103/505 ] --- Aeolus v1.2.1 (#49820837) * Origin: Shofar@714-838-3837 Right-Minded in Orange County (1:103/505) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F3E00102 Date: 03/06/98 From: SHOSHONA BIEMAN Time: 03:57am \/To: SEANETTE BLAYLOCK (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: I'm BAAACK!!!! :-) SB> Hi, everyone! Real life has been MOST intrusive lately, SB> cutting Fido-netting time right out. Things are mostly SB> settled down now, so I'm back. Welcome back, stranger... I was getting worried about you... SB> BTW, I just found out recently that, while a Ford Tempo SB> DOES have a quite generously sized trunk relative to the SB> size of the car, the trunk is NOT big enough to park a SB> Saturn in it, especially at 40+ mph. :-) OUCH!!! I trust you are A-OK and the car is repaired? I'll be looking forward to any comments you make on any of the various topics we've been discussing in your absence -- I'm sure you will have a LOT to say (not to mention some drive-by nukings!)... Go for it!!! [ Shoshona Bieman, Sysop: Shofar BBS @ 714-838-3837 ] [ Such a *NICE* Messianic Jewish, conservative Gal! ] [ California "Got Ilk?" Contingent _ Fido @ 1:103/505 ] --- Aeolus v1.2.1 (#49820837) * Origin: Shofar@714-838-3837 Right-Minded in Orange County (1:103/505) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F3E00103 Date: 03/06/98 From: MIKE ANGWIN Time: 08:48am \/To: ROBERT PLETT (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Dufus' Waterloo? MA> A Bush - Forbes ticket could become a reality. If you want MA>to think about a dark horse with presidential potential and an MA>electable character in the Republican party, what do you think about MA>Trent Lott. RP>You GOTTA be kidding! He's had the visibility and avoided any major negatives. Those are two of the prime criteria for a serious run. Mike Angwin --- RBBSMail/386 v0.997 * Origin: (713) 664-0002 Lightspeed Systems - 24hrs (1:106/7.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F3E00104 Date: 03/06/98 From: MIKE ANGWIN Time: 09:55am \/To: WALTER LUFFMAN (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: Resignation? WL>Yes, Mike, and I think some political experience at these WL>levels -- and even the state and local governments -- is WL>important for anyone who aspires to the highest national WL>offices. I just don't want politicians who "homestead" in WL>one office for decades at a time, or anyone who spends an WL>entire working life as a politician. I agree withthat sentiment. Those who have spent decades in political office very much tend to lose track to what it's like out here in the real world. Career politicians are experts at compromise, they have to be to be what they are, but they are generally totally ineffectual at digging in their heels over a principle and taking a tough stand. The moment the polls slump they sway ends like a horse trying to run on ice and start peddeling the other way. WL>In all honesty, Ike was a politician-of-sorts when he was WL>in the Army; it goes with every position of power, including WL>in business, and is a good way for aspiring "real" WL>politicians to learn how to get things done without ruffling WL>feathers unnecessarily. (I'm not opposed to ruffling WL>feathers when it _is_ necessary.) Same goes for the other WL>names you mentioned, although Powell is probably the most WL>accomplished at it. True, but military leaders also have to demonstrate leadership and use reason in their judgements. Legislators only have to be good at making people believe they are doing something. If a General fails to perform the results become obvious. WL>Incumbent Senators have a built-in advantage, since their WL>six-year terms sometimes allow them to run for the WL>presidency without having to simultaneously defend their WL>current office. Governors who are elected in "off" years WL>also have this advantage -- Clinton in 1992, for instance. WL>This makes it extra-tough for outsiders to get anywhere, WL>since even an unsuccessful presidential candidate will WL>usually retain all his/her popularity back home and will, WL>in fact, often enjoy an increase in popularity. Senators though, with the exception of JFK, haven't really been that sucessful getting elected president on their own. FDR wasn't a Senator when he was elected. Truman came via the Vice-Presidency. Eisenhower, of course, was a former military leader. JFK was a Senator when elected. LBJ was a senator, but came via the Vice-Presidency. Nixon was an ex-senator, but many years removed. Ford came via appointment to the Oval Office, but was formerly a representative. Carter was a former governor as was Reagan. Bush was a career bureaucrat that came via the Vice-Presidency, and Clinton was a governor. Actually senators running for the Presidency direct from the Senate have been pretty unsucessful even when nominated. Stevenson, Goldwater, McGovern, and Dole, among others, all failed to win the presidency, and by notably negative margins. The Senate appears to be more of an inside track tot he Vice-Presidency than the presidency but even then, former Vice-Presidents such as Nixon(1960), Humphery, Mondale, and Ford all failed to win when they tried to move up a notch. Governors seem to have a much better track record overall as far as getting both nominations and getting elected president. Nixon, Carter, Reagan, and Clinton all came this route in recent times. My money then, for 2000, would have to lie on at least one Governor getting a nomination and lean towards a Governor actually being elected. Since former VP's tend to fade in general elections, except Bush as an exception in his first run, I would suspect a strong Republican governor would be the strongest contender for the presidency in 2000 and, if Gore is nominated, which itself is beginning to appear unlikely, would probably win. Of the Governor's currently with their hats in the ring, or at least close to it, I really think Bush is, by far, the most likely to be the next president. Then again, last time around, I had put my money on Gramm at this point. Shows how little I know. WL>Perhaps in such a case he'd be willing to take the VP slot. WL>After all, Bush's dad did exactly that and it worked out WL>pretty well for him. The Vice-President's job has become WL>much more important over the past twenty years or so, and WL>a wise leader always wants an intelligent, capable WL>second-in-command. Wonder how Bush and Forbes would get WL>along? The personalities are definately different. It would be unquestionably an "odd couple" relationship. Then still, so was the Reagan-Bush relationship. I really can't see Bush Jr. taking a back seat like Bush Sr. did. Bush Sr. was a former representative who spent a great deal of his life working in various bureaucratic roles for other administrations. He made a good VP because he was accustomed to being in the back seat. Bush Jr. is a different cat. Only party name and family name tie the two together. Bush Jr. took the governorship from a sitting governor in Texas that was well known and popular. He kicked Ann Richard's behind. His father failed in both attempts, dismally, to win the governorship. As Governor Bush has been active, agressive, and outspoken. He's just not VP material in my opinion just as he couldn't be a Senator or a representative. His personality and style is fitted for a governorship or a presidency. He's not the back seat type. WL>He isn't a polished speechmaker or ad-libber...but maybe WL>that isn't such a bad thing. I seem to recall reading WL>somewhere that Abe Lincoln wasn't much of a public speaker WL>early in his political career. The country, myself WL>included, pays too much attention to what people say (and WL>how they say it) rather than what they actually do (or WL>intend to do). You are right about what ought to be, unfortunately, it ain't. Those running for office impress people by their speech and public impression. After the Dole campaign I would think Republicans would be accutely aware of this. Dole, before a public audience, was smoked by Slick Willie and it hurt him. Perot was definately hurt by his VP choice the first time around as well. It's not appealing to me, but without backing into the presidency, the ticket is going to have to have people with that personal appeal if it's going to be a serious run for the presidency. Otherwise, like last time around, I get the feeling we are just going through the motions with no expectation of winning from the start. WL>How about that -- I agreed with you before I realized you WL>had already expressed the same thought! I hadn't WL>considered the regional-balance angle, though. I think it's still a factor, though not as big as it once was. Gore is from Tennessee and Clinton from Arkansas. That's not exactly a regionally balanced ticket for much beyond the Mississippi Valley Siding Salesman Association. WL>Good point, worth bearing in mind. Clinton, especially, WL>surprised me...but maybe that's because I live in the WL>state next-door to him, and never saw anything about his WL>governance that made me give him a second thought. Texas is next door too and I really didn't consider hiom a serious contender. Think back to 1992 though. Was it really a year the Democrats actually planned to win? Bush was riding a high tide after Desert Storm and during the primary season looked unbeatable. Major contenders balked at entering the primaries and Clintons biggest opponent was Mr. Moonbeam, Jerry Brown of California. I really believe Clinton's nomination was a "throw down" must as Dole's was last time. With incumbent presidents riding a tide of high popularity, the Democrats nominated Clinton because he was "exp[endable", not expecting him to win against Bush. Dole's nomination was a retirement party for an aging patriarch. Election, as with Clinton, was neven considered very likely. continue later.... /\/\ike --- RBBSMail/386 v0.997 * Origin: (713) 664-0002 Lightspeed Systems - 24hrs (1:106/7.0) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F3E00105 Date: 03/06/98 From: TOM ENRIGHT Time: 11:42pm \/To: SHOSHONA BIEMAN (Read 0 times) Subj: Wheah's Mah Gumbo -=> On 03-06-98 06:12 Shoshona Bieman said to Tom Enright <=- TE> James Carville, appearing on NBC's "Meet the Press" yesterday, took TE> a few seconds off from bashing independent counsel Kenneth Starr in TE> order to denounce journalist Michael Kelly. A look at Mr. Kelly's TE> column in this week's National Journal explains why. SB> Do you have the entire article? Could you post it (or a URL)? It SB> sounds like something I would like to read in its entirety! I don't have the entire article. Michael Kelly writes for the National Journal as well as his column in the Washington Post. As best I can determine the National Journal is an insider publication for "Inside the Beltway Types." Subscriptions are required for access to their website. Pity, I would like a copy of the entire article myself. T.E. - San Diego Ilks (Sgt. at Arms) ... The Silent Majority isn't silent. The Govt.is deaf. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] --- MysticToss 1.20/Pro * Origin: Guilde of High Sorcery (619)575-8249 San Diego, CA (1:202/1100) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F3E00106 Date: 03/06/98 From: TOM ENRIGHT Time: 11:42pm \/To: ALL (Read 0 times) Subj: Camel Cops Strike The following article was on the website for my local NBC affiliate on 3/6/98. If anyone really wants to read it for themselves the url is: http://www.nbc739.com ----------------------------------------------------- Undercover cops bust bar smokers Lauren Krause For the first time since a new smoking restriction took effect in January, undercover police officers ticketed smokers and bar owners for breaking the law. Plainclothes vice detectives hit about a dozen bars all over the city Thursday night. They cited 27 patrons and one bar owner for breaking the new state law against smoking in bars. The tickets could cost smokers as much as $100. But some of those ticketed say it is unfair and they will fight the citations. "I'm not going to pay 100 bucks. It ain't gonna happen," smoker Benjamin Norris said. "The bar shold be punished for this, not us." But police say that for bar owners to be in violation of the law, they must knowingly and willfully let people smoke. That can be very hard to prove if the owner is not physically at the bar. "If the owner was here and we could prove the owner knew the smoking was going on, then they would also be cited," one of the undercover detectives told NBC 7/39. Police say they hit bars that were repeatedly warned by the County Health Department about letting patrons smoke. All of the establishments targeted Thursday had received certified letters warning that action would be taken if they continued to allow smoking. Vice detectives say that they will conduct more undercover operations as needed to enforce the new law. --------------------------------------------------------- No further comment required. T.E. - San Diego Ilks (Sgt. at Arms) ... God save us from those who want to save us from ourselves. ___ Blue Wave/QWK v2.20 [NR] --- MysticToss 1.20/Pro * Origin: Guilde of High Sorcery (619)575-8249 San Diego, CA (1:202/1100) --------------- FIDO MESSAGE AREA==> TOPIC: 115 RUSH LIMBAUGH Ref: F3E00107 Date: 03/05/98 From: DAVID HARTUNG Time: 08:13pm \/To: MATT MUNSON (Read 0 times) Subj: Re: California And Hispan -=> Quoting Matt Munson to David Hartung <=- -> DH(> Actually, What I had in mind was them marketing American -> products to DH(> Americans! MM> MM> but would that be -> isolationism? -> So? MM> That sucks. Why? david.hartung@mcione.com Ilks of Metropolitan Walls/LENS Proud member of White House Enemies database ... Guns don't kill people, it's the bullets. Guns get them going faster. ___ Blue Wave/386 v2.21 [NR] --- Platinum Xpress/Win/Wildcat5! v2.0 * Origin: The GREAT PYRAMID 901-372-7912 (1:123/522)