The Great Don Quijote of RBM!

bicycle-forum.net
Promoting biking discussion.

Main

Date: 31 Jul 2007 00:17:16
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: The Great Don Quijote of RBM!

I like to read posts by such as Don Quijote. He is pure and I am not. Yea, I
KNOW what scoundrels all the rest of you are and I treat you accordingly.
Unfortunately, in the process, I become as bad as any of you.

But Don Quijote presses on pure and innocent and occasionally quite naive.
He is like a breath of fresh air after all our vituperations. I am mostly in
a rage every time I come on these freaking cycling newsgroups. I only want
to kill all of you. Sometimes I think I am going crazy from the frustration
of it all.

But then I read a message from the Great Don Quijote and I realize that all
is not lost after all. We need to become like children in order to go on
living. I mourn my lost innocence. It was Tom Sherman of ARBR who soured me
for Usenet. Aye, I hold him responsible for my dour disposition.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 10 Aug 2007 14:40:29
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike

On Aug 10, 12:35 am, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@invailid.com > wrote:
> datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 2, 11:42 am, "Keats" <ke...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:1186063284.497820.112140@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> On Aug 2, 9:25 am, "Keats" <ke...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>>> After having a president by and for the SUVs, we need a chance for our
> >>>>> humble bikes. Maybe we need to come up with a bicycle party, since
> >>>>> they have a Big Oil party.
> >>>> George Bush regularly rides a mountain bike for recreation and exercise.
> >>>> And his modest personal home is a model of energy efficiency (unlike Al
> >>>> Gore's four homes, for example)[Google it]. I think it safe to say that
> >>>> he
> >>>> has spent more time on a bicycle and that his home is the greenest of any
> >>>> candidate who has ever run for president of the USA since electricity and
> >>>> home heating oil came into widespread use.
> >>>> Perhaps you need to introduce your agenda from a different and more
> >>>> truthful
> >>>> angle.-
> >>> Maybe he's having a good time riding bike between cocktail and
> >>> cocktail, but most American don't feel any safer riding a bike than
> >>> the troops he sent to Iraq.
> >> Something tells me you aren't exactly all squared away. Were you whacked in
> >> the head by a windmill blade somewhere along the line?- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> > its beyond comprehension: today he said ima told wera not gonna print
> > money. 2-3 hours later they started printing money. i usta think he
> > was joking, today i believe they set him out on the lawn and set him
> > on fire.
>
> gene for President 2008!
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
> --
> Posted via a free Usenet account fromhttp://www.teranews.com- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

good grief!

Date: 10 Aug 2007 04:29:34
From: datakoll
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike

On Aug 2, 11:42 am, "Keats" <ke...@nospam.com > wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1186063284.497820.112140@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 2, 9:25 am, "Keats" <ke...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> > After having a president by and for the SUVs, we need a chance for our
> >> > humble bikes. Maybe we need to come up with a bicycle party, since
> >> > they have a Big Oil party.
>
> >> George Bush regularly rides a mountain bike for recreation and exercise.
> >> And his modest personal home is a model of energy efficiency (unlike Al
> >> Gore's four homes, for example)[Google it]. I think it safe to say that
> >> he
> >> has spent more time on a bicycle and that his home is the greenest of any
> >> candidate who has ever run for president of the USA since electricity and
> >> home heating oil came into widespread use.
>
> >> Perhaps you need to introduce your agenda from a different and more
> >> truthful
> >> angle.-
>
> > Maybe he's having a good time riding bike between cocktail and
> > cocktail, but most American don't feel any safer riding a bike than
> > the troops he sent to Iraq.
>
> Something tells me you aren't exactly all squared away. Were you whacked in
> the head by a windmill blade somewhere along the line?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

its beyond comprehension: today he said ima told wera not gonna print
money. 2-3 hours later they started printing money. i usta think he
was joking, today i believe they set him out on the lawn and set him
on fire.

Date: 10 Aug 2007 16:07:51
From: Keats
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike

"datakoll" <datakoll@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:1186720174.485024.283410@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...

> its beyond comprehension: today he said ima told wera not gonna print
> money. 2-3 hours later they started printing money. i usta think he
> was joking, today i believe they set him out on the lawn and set him
> on fire.

When the bicycling groups leading economist speaks we listen.

Keats

Date: 09 Aug 2007 23:35:45
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike

datakoll aka gene daniels wrote:
> On Aug 2, 11:42 am, "Keats" <ke...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1186063284.497820.112140@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Aug 2, 9:25 am, "Keats" <ke...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> After having a president by and for the SUVs, we need a chance for our
>>>>> humble bikes. Maybe we need to come up with a bicycle party, since
>>>>> they have a Big Oil party.
>>>> George Bush regularly rides a mountain bike for recreation and exercise.
>>>> And his modest personal home is a model of energy efficiency (unlike Al
>>>> Gore's four homes, for example)[Google it]. I think it safe to say that
>>>> he
>>>> has spent more time on a bicycle and that his home is the greenest of any
>>>> candidate who has ever run for president of the USA since electricity and
>>>> home heating oil came into widespread use.
>>>> Perhaps you need to introduce your agenda from a different and more
>>>> truthful
>>>> angle.-
>>> Maybe he's having a good time riding bike between cocktail and
>>> cocktail, but most American don't feel any safer riding a bike than
>>> the troops he sent to Iraq.
>> Something tells me you aren't exactly all squared away. Were you whacked in
>> the head by a windmill blade somewhere along the line?- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> its beyond comprehension: today he said ima told wera not gonna print
> money. 2-3 hours later they started printing money. i usta think he
> was joking, today i believe they set him out on the lawn and set him
> on fire.

gene for President 2008!
--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Aug 2007 05:02:13
From: Ed_Zep
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike

> George Bush regularly rides a mountain bike for recreation and exercise.
> And his modest personal home is a model of energy efficiency (unlike Al
> Gore's four homes, for example)[Google it]. I think it safe to say that he
> has spent more time on a bicycle and that his home is the greenest of any
> candidate who has ever run for president of the USA since electricity and
> home heating oil came into widespread use.
>
> Perhaps you need to introduce your agenda from a different and more truthful
> angle.- Hide quoted text -
>
Your logic would be perfect if his family hadn't made huge profits
from oil, he hadn't rejected Kyoto, hadn't been in denial about
climate change and oh yes, hadn't invaded Iraq for the, er, oil.

Apart from that...

Date: 09 Aug 2007 08:55:26
From: Keats
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike

"Ed_Zep" <ed_zep@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:1186660933.935726.325930@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> George Bush regularly rides a mountain bike for recreation and exercise.
>> And his modest personal home is a model of energy efficiency (unlike Al
>> Gore's four homes, for example)[Google it]. I think it safe to say that
>> he
>> has spent more time on a bicycle and that his home is the greenest of any
>> candidate who has ever run for president of the USA since electricity and
>> home heating oil came into widespread use.
>>
>> Perhaps you need to introduce your agenda from a different and more
>> truthful
>> angle.- Hide quoted text -
>>
> Your logic would be perfect if his family hadn't made huge profits
> from oil, he hadn't rejected Kyoto, hadn't been in denial about
> climate change and oh yes, hadn't invaded Iraq for the, er, oil.
>
> Apart from that...
>
>
What I said was fact not logic.

So tell me more about those huge profits you say the family made from oil.
Care to give some details? Personally I don't think you know *anything*
about what you are talking about.

As I recall it was Bill Clinton who rejected Kyoto and for good reason I
might add. Denial about climate change? Seems to me climate is always
changing - when did Bush deny that? And then there's always the oil. Tell
me where is the Iraqi oil.

You are merely spouting off and it ain't oil you're spouting.

(not Tom) Keats

Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:08:11
From: Colin Nelson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike

"Ed_Zep" <ed_zep@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:1186660933.935726.325930@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> > George Bush regularly rides a mountain bike for recreation and exercise.
> > And his modest personal home is a model of energy efficiency (unlike Al
> > Gore's four homes, for example)[Google it]. I think it safe to say that
he
> > has spent more time on a bicycle and that his home is the greenest of
any
> > candidate who has ever run for president of the USA since electricity
and
> > home heating oil came into widespread use.
> >
> > Perhaps you need to introduce your agenda from a different and more
truthful
> > angle.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Your logic would be perfect if his family hadn't made huge profits
> from oil, he hadn't rejected Kyoto, hadn't been in denial about
> climate change and oh yes, hadn't invaded Iraq for the, er, oil.
>
> Apart from that...
>
>

There's a certain amount of truth there (please note :- that I have removed
uk.rec.cycling from the list ... The thread was taking up a lot of space ...
and we in the UK have our own 'presidential' problems) ... No offence
intended

--
Colin N.

Lincolnshire is mostly flat ... But the wind is mostly in your face

Date: 11 Aug 2007 06:13:05
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike

"Colin Nelson" <colin.nelson2@ntlworld.com > wrote in message
news:%kEui.15813$h11.3152@newsfe7-gui.ntli.net...
>
> "Ed_Zep" <ed_zep@ntlworld.com> wrote in message
> news:1186660933.935726.325930@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
>> > George Bush regularly rides a mountain bike for recreation and
>> > exercise.
>> > And his modest personal home is a model of energy efficiency (unlike Al
>> > Gore's four homes, for example)[Google it]. I think it safe to say
>> > that
> he
>> > has spent more time on a bicycle and that his home is the greenest of
> any
>> > candidate who has ever run for president of the USA since electricity
> and
>> > home heating oil came into widespread use.
>> >
>> > Perhaps you need to introduce your agenda from a different and more
> truthful
>> > angle.- Hide quoted text -
>> >
>> Your logic would be perfect if his family hadn't made huge profits
>> from oil, he hadn't rejected Kyoto, hadn't been in denial about
>> climate change and oh yes, hadn't invaded Iraq for the, er, oil.
>>
>> Apart from that...
>>
>>
>
> There's a certain amount of truth there (please note :- that I have
> removed
> uk.rec.cycling from the list ... The thread was taking up a lot of space
> ...
> and we in the UK have our own 'presidential' problems) ... No offence
> intended
>
> Colin N.

The God Damn UK is composed of the worst idiots in this world, excepting
only the execrable French of course. If and when the Muslims start
slaughtering the French, I will only rejoice!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 09 Aug 2007 12:56:59
From: RBrickston
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike

In article <1186660933.935726.325930@k79g2000hse.googlegroups.com >,
ed_zep@ntlworld.com says...
> > George Bush regularly rides a mountain bike for recreation and exercise.
> > And his modest personal home is a model of energy efficiency (unlike Al
> > Gore's four homes, for example)[Google it]. I think it safe to say that he
> > has spent more time on a bicycle and that his home is the greenest of any
> > candidate who has ever run for president of the USA since electricity and
> > home heating oil came into widespread use.
> >
> > Perhaps you need to introduce your agenda from a different and more truthful
> > angle.- Hide quoted text -
> >
> Your logic would be perfect if his family hadn't made huge profits
> from oil, he hadn't rejected Kyoto, hadn't been in denial about
> climate change and oh yes, hadn't invaded Iraq for the, er, oil.
>
> Apart from that...

That damn Bush, he must of forgot about Kuwait's oil reserves when US
troops had the entire country for the taking.

Date: 08 Aug 2007 10:34:12
From: andresmuro@aol.com
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Aug 5, 1:03 pm, Ken the Troll <ken.k...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Unfortunately we have a President who rides a bicycle, but its a
> mountain bike, which are ridden by people with a "macho" complex who
> are more interested in tearing up the environment than protecting it.
> He seems to prefer being hauled up to the top of a big hill and then
> coasts his way down, much as he seems to have done in college and in
> the university, and then calls that getting his exercise.
>
> If you want a better President next time you have to 1) contribute to
> those candidates that hold the same values as you do, 2) volunteer to
> work on their local campaign staff and then try to influence you
> neighbors, 3) vote in the primary or attend your caucus, 4) become a
> delegate to the national convention of your party [I hope the hell it
> isn't Republican - after 16 years of living under a Rethug government
> in Michigan], 5) continue to campaign and contribute to the candidate
> who is closest to your point of view, 6) vote early and then work with
> your candidate's committee to get out the vote. If you don't do this
> then don't complain about the people who get elected.
>
> I only vote for candidates who have a record of supporting cycling
> friendly bills and programs while they had office. We can bitch all we
> want of newsgroups like this, but unless we get active and elect
> people who support our causes we will continue to get "Bike Route"
> signs instead of designated bike lanes, paths, etc. and we will
> continue to see our brothers and sisters killed by "distracted" ( -
> "sun blinded" or what ever other excuse used to excuse the drivers who
> use their two to six ton gas pigs to kill us) drivers.
>
> As Pogo used to say "We have met the enemy and it is us!"
>
> Ken the Troll (living below - South - of the Mighty Mackinaw Bridge)

If the president's riding skills are the same as his speaking skills,
I certainly don't want to ride near him.

Date: 08 Aug 2007 15:37:26
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

It's my contention here that a very modern trend is rooted in a very
primitive behavior: MONKEY SEE MONKEY DO. Yeap, those who got money
and power (the top monkeys) ride big shiny SUVs, so the rest of the
troop quickly learns the trick. IF YOU WANT TO STAND OUT AND SURVIVE
IN THE JUNGLE YOU BETTER HAVE AN SUV. The hope, however, is that we
can turn around that bad behavior by changing those monkeys at the top
--or simply changing their behavior-- so the other monkeys would
follow...

(THE HUNDREDTH MONKEY BY KEN KEYES, JR.)

This book does not deal with petty matters.

It tells how to operate our lives - and our world.

It tells us how to stay alive!

The mess we've brought upon ourselves is a most perilous and
challenging one.

The broad picture pieced together here will show you the immensity of
the nuclear dangers, the futility of any defense or protection, the
power of the new awareness and your role in the unfolding drama.

There is a phenomenon I'd like to tell you about.

In it may lie our only hope of a future for our species.

Here is the story of the Hundredth Monkey:

The Japanese monkey, Macaca fuscata, has been observed in the wild for
a period of over 30 years.

In 1952, on the island of Koshima scientists were providing monkeys
with sweet potatoes dropped in the sand. The monkeys liked the taste
of the raw sweet potatoes, but they found the dirt unpleasant.

An 18-month-old female named Imo found she could solve the problem in
a nearby stream. She taught this trick to her mother. Her playmates
also learned this new way and they taught their mothers, too.

This cultural innovation was gradually picked up by various monkeys
before the eyes of the scientists.

Between 1952 and 1958, all the young monkeys learned to wash the sandy
sweet potatoes to make them more palatable.

Only the adults who imitated their children learned this social
improvement. Other adults kept eating the dirty sweet potatoes.

Then something startling took place. In the autumn of 1958, a certain
number of Koshima monkeys were washing sweet potatoes - the exact
number is not known.

Let us suppose that when the sun rose one morning there were 99
monkeys on Koshima Island who had learned to wash their sweet
potatoes.

Let's further suppose that later that morning, the hundredth monkey
learned to wash potatoes.

THEN IT HAPPENED!

By that evening almost everyone in the tribe was washing sweet
potatoes before eating them.

The added energy of this hundredth monkey somehow created an
ideological breakthrough!

But notice.

A most surprising thing observed by these scientists was that the
habit of washing sweet potatoes then jumped over the sea -

Colonies of monkeys on other islands and the mainland troop of monkeys
at Takasakiyama began washing their sweet potatoes!*

(*Lifetide by Lyall Watson, pp. 147-148. Bantam Books 1980. This book
gives other fascinating details.)

Thus, when a certain critical number achieves an awareness, this new
awareness may be communicated from mind to mind.

Although the exact number may very, the Hundredth Monkey Phenomenon
means that when only a limited number of people know of a new way, it
may remain the consciousness property of these people.

But there is a point at which if only one more person tunes-in to a
new awareness, a field is strengthened so that this awareness is
picked up by almost everyone!

Your awareness is needed in saving the world from nuclear war.

You may be the "Hundredth Monkey" . . . .

http://secretthink.blog-city.com/from_a_100_monkeys_can_we_learn_their_lesson.htm

Date: 08 Aug 2007 18:03:58
From: Mark McNeill
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Response to donquijote1954:
> A most surprising thing observed by these scientists was that the
> habit of washing sweet potatoes then jumped over the sea -
>
> Colonies of monkeys on other islands and the mainland troop of monkeys
> at Takasakiyama began washing their sweet potatoes!*
>
> (*Lifetide by Lyall Watson, pp. 147-148. Bantam Books 1980. This book
> gives other fascinating details.)

Erm, but it's a myth: Lyall Watson made it up.

Google for it, if you can be bothered.

--
Mark, UK
"Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you walk into an open
sewer and die."

Date: 08 Aug 2007 12:16:25
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Mark McNeill" <markonnewsgroups@yahoo.co.uk > wrote in message
news:MPG.212407d413e45cc39899ac@news.nildram.co.uk...
> Response to donquijote1954:
>> A most surprising thing observed by these scientists was that the
>> habit of washing sweet potatoes then jumped over the sea -
>>
>> Colonies of monkeys on other islands and the mainland troop of monkeys
>> at Takasakiyama began washing their sweet potatoes!*
>>
>> (*Lifetide by Lyall Watson, pp. 147-148. Bantam Books 1980. This book
>> gives other fascinating details.)
>
>
> Erm, but it's a myth: Lyall Watson made it up.
>
> Google for it, if you can be bothered.
>
>
> --

Whew! That's a relief. I was getting all concerned about Mahmoud
Ahmadinejad being the 100th Hitler.

(not Tom) Keats

Date: 07 Aug 2007 09:41:50
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Aug 6, 5:16 pm, "Keats" <ke...@nospam.com > wrote:
> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:1186431843.178936.30930@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > And how would you about getting rid of the Republicans? That would
> > leave us with something like, what 70% of the population by current
> > approval rates, right?
>
> Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?
>
> Being the wimpy peace and lovenik that you are I'm sure you wouldn't have
> the personal courage for shooting them or herding them into gas chambers.
> But maybe you could convince your illegal alien kindred spirit brothers
> toiling away in the kitchens of America's restaurants to poison them. Or
> failing that you surely should be able to convince the 70% Good People to
> pass laws for mass republican sterilization. It would take longer than the
> gas chambers for sure, but you would have your final solution in good time.

I'd prefer a fate similar to that they subjected the Iraqi people
to...

Warning over spiralling Iraq refugee crisis

Thursday December 7, 2006
Guardian Unlimited

The surging violence in Iraq has created what is becoming the biggest
refugee crisis in the world, a humanitarian group said today.
A report (pdf) by Washington-based Refugees International said an
influx of Iraqis threatened to overwhelm other Middle Eastern
countries, particularly Syria, Jordon and Lebanon.

Last month, the UN estimated that 100,000 people were fleeing the
country each month, with the number of Iraqis now living in other Arab
countries standing at 1.8 million.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html

At that rate Iraq would lose all of its population within a few years.
But, of course, you can always hire Hindus, Pakistanis, Bangla Deshis
and some Chinese, elect an all-Iraqi Congress and declare
"democracy." ;)

Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:00:20
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1186504910.385470.223500@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 6, 5:16 pm, "Keats" <ke...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> "donquijote1954" <nolionnoprob...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:1186431843.178936.30930@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > And how would you about getting rid of the Republicans? That would
>> > leave us with something like, what 70% of the population by current
>> > approval rates, right?
>>
>> Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?
>>
>> Being the wimpy peace and lovenik that you are I'm sure you wouldn't have
>> the personal courage for shooting them or herding them into gas chambers.
>> But maybe you could convince your illegal alien kindred spirit brothers
>> toiling away in the kitchens of America's restaurants to poison them. Or
>> failing that you surely should be able to convince the 70% Good People to
>> pass laws for mass republican sterilization. It would take longer than
>> the
>> gas chambers for sure, but you would have your final solution in good
>> time.
>
> I'd prefer a fate similar to that they subjected the Iraqi people
> to...
>
> Warning over spiralling Iraq refugee crisis
>
> Thursday December 7, 2006
> Guardian Unlimited
>
> The surging violence in Iraq has created what is becoming the biggest
> refugee crisis in the world, a humanitarian group said today.
> A report (pdf) by Washington-based Refugees International said an
> influx of Iraqis threatened to overwhelm other Middle Eastern
> countries, particularly Syria, Jordon and Lebanon.
>
> Last month, the UN estimated that 100,000 people were fleeing the
> country each month, with the number of Iraqis now living in other Arab
> countries standing at 1.8 million.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html
>
> At that rate Iraq would lose all of its population within a few years.
> But, of course, you can always hire Hindus, Pakistanis, Bangla Deshis
> and some Chinese, elect an all-Iraqi Congress and declare
> "democracy." ;)

Kill the brutes, kill all of them!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 07 Aug 2007 12:13:15
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1186504910.385470.223500@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...

> Last month, the UN estimated that 100,000 people were fleeing the
> country each month, with the number of Iraqis now living in other Arab
> countries standing at 1.8 million.
>
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/Iraq/Story/0,,1966333,00.html
>
> At that rate Iraq would lose all of its population within a few years.
> But, of course, you can always hire Hindus, Pakistanis, Bangla Deshis
> and some Chinese, elect an all-Iraqi Congress and declare
> "democracy." ;)
>

Yes, that's exactly what we should do.

Then we could live happily in peace and harmony ever after on the oil
revenues. This is the finest plan I've heard so far. Let's do it! Do you
want to tell President Bush or do you want me to tell him?

(not Tom) Keats

Date: 06 Aug 2007 20:24:03
From: donquijote1954
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Aug 5, 3:24 pm, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0...@iinvalid.com > wrote:
> "Ken the Troll" wrote:
> > ...
> > I only vote for candidates who have a record of supporting cycling
> > friendly bills and programs while they had office. We can bitch all we
> > want of newsgroups like this, but unless we get active and elect
> > people who support our causes we will continue to get "Bike Route"
> > signs instead of designated bike lanes, paths, etc. and we will
> > continue to see our brothers and sisters killed by "distracted" ( -
> > "sun blinded" or what ever other excuse used to excuse the drivers who
> > use their two to six ton gas pigs to kill us) drivers.
>
> Some of us do NOT view "designated bike lanes, paths, etc." as cyclist
> friendly facilities (for reasons that have been posted very recently on
> these groups, so I will not repeat the argument here).
>
> What is needed are traditional grid neighborhoods, as opposed to
> cul-de-sac dead ends emptying onto major arterials that characterize so
> much of post-WW2 US suburban development, vigorous prosecution of
> motorists who harass and/or strike cyclists, fuel taxes that reflect the
> true cost of motor vehicle use, and lower overall population.

And how would you about getting rid of the Republicans? That would
leave us with something like, what 70% of the population by current
approval rates, right?

Date: 06 Aug 2007 16:16:05
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1186431843.178936.30930@r34g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...

> And how would you about getting rid of the Republicans? That would
> leave us with something like, what 70% of the population by current
> approval rates, right?
>

Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?

Being the wimpy peace and lovenik that you are I'm sure you wouldn't have
the personal courage for shooting them or herding them into gas chambers.
But maybe you could convince your illegal alien kindred spirit brothers
toiling away in the kitchens of America's restaurants to poison them. Or
failing that you surely should be able to convince the 70% Good People to
pass laws for mass republican sterilization. It would take longer than the
gas chambers for sure, but you would have your final solution in good time.

Hope this helps.

Keats (not Tom)

Date: 07 Aug 2007 00:47:33
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:16:05 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote:

>Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?

Getting rid of the Republicans is easy. Just force them to practice
what they preach. So, let their kids play with the poisoned and unsafe
toys from China. Make them live in neighborhoods hopelessly polluted
by chemical manufacturers and industrial polluters. Make them breath
the air that comes from factories without pollution controls and
vehicles without emission controls. Make them drive cars with no
safety devices. As a second layer, eves drop on their conversations
without warrant or court oversight and when we decide it's right to
arrest them based on evidence we won't disclose, send them to Gutmo
Bay to be held until we decide what to do with them.

They'll all be gone in a generation.

Date: 06 Aug 2007 20:22:46
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:7rffb3dg7vqnr121trn38s7u2br7n8n8mk@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 6 Aug 2007 16:16:05 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?
>
> Getting rid of the Republicans is easy. Just force them to practice
> what they preach. So, let their kids play with the poisoned and unsafe
> toys from China. Make them live in neighborhoods hopelessly polluted
> by chemical manufacturers and industrial polluters. Make them breath
> the air that comes from factories without pollution controls and
> vehicles without emission controls. Make them drive cars with no
> safety devices. As a second layer, eves drop on their conversations
> without warrant or court oversight and when we decide it's right to
> arrest them based on evidence we won't disclose, send them to Gutmo
> Bay to be held until we decide what to do with them.
>
> They'll all be gone in a generation.

So drinking USA water, breathing USA air, and driving USA cars is your idea
of a death sentence for republicans, eh?

And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must have
renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care there is
just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of
good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite soon. You will no
doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family and friends, yes?

Date: 07 Aug 2007 01:13:11
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

>> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>> Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?

> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> Getting rid of the Republicans is easy. Just force them to practice
>> what they preach. So, let their kids play with the poisoned and unsafe
>> toys from China. Make them live in neighborhoods hopelessly polluted
>> by chemical manufacturers and industrial polluters. Make them breath
>> the air that comes from factories without pollution controls and
>> vehicles without emission controls. Make them drive cars with no
>> safety devices. As a second layer, eves drop on their conversations
>> without warrant or court oversight and when we decide it's right to
>> arrest them based on evidence we won't disclose, send them to Gutmo
>> Bay to be held until we decide what to do with them.
>> They'll all be gone in a generation.

Keats wrote:
> So drinking USA water, breathing USA air, and driving USA cars is your idea
> of a death sentence for republicans, eh?
> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must have
> renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care there is
> just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of
> good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite soon. You will no
> doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family and friends, yes?

The poor wayward misunderstood waifs of deficient parentage who are now
getting sprung from Gitmo (Saudi cash + NYC attorneys) have a way of
ending up dead in firefights with Marines lately.

Good riddance but wish they could go with less risk to good men.

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 07 Aug 2007 00:38:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

A Muzi wrote:
>>> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?
>
>> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> Getting rid of the Republicans is easy. Just force them to practice
>>> what they preach. So, let their kids play with the poisoned and
>>> unsafe toys from China. Make them live in neighborhoods hopelessly
>>> polluted by chemical manufacturers and industrial polluters. Make
>>> them breath the air that comes from factories without pollution
>>> controls and vehicles without emission controls. Make them drive
>>> cars with no safety devices. As a second layer, eves drop on their
>>> conversations without warrant or court oversight and when we decide
>>> it's right to arrest them based on evidence we won't disclose, send
>>> them to Gutmo Bay to be held until we decide what to do with them.
>>> They'll all be gone in a generation.
>
> Keats wrote:
>> So drinking USA water, breathing USA air, and driving USA cars is
>> your idea of a death sentence for republicans, eh?
>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they
>> must have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the
>> medical care there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of
>> Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on
>> the world quite soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion
>> with your family and friends, yes?
>
>
> The poor wayward misunderstood waifs of deficient parentage who are
> now getting sprung from Gitmo (Saudi cash + NYC attorneys) have a way
> of ending up dead in firefights with Marines lately.
>
> Good riddance but wish they could go with less risk to good men.

Careful, Andrew, or Flogittodeathlinson and others will start assassinating
your character and run you out of here like they did Mark.

Date: 07 Aug 2007 16:01:04
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

>>>> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote: blah blah blah
>>> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote blah blah blah
> A Muzi wrote: blah blah blah

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Careful, Andrew, or Flogittodeathlinson and others will start assassinating
> your character and run you out of here like they did Mark.

Yes, I have opinions
No, I cannot always resist the urge to OT comment. Sorry.
My intent is not to force anyone away and
No, I'm not sensitive and I'm not leaving
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 07 Aug 2007 01:50:15
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?
>
>> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> Getting rid of the Republicans is easy. Just force them to practice
>>> what they preach. So, let their kids play with the poisoned and unsafe
>>> toys from China. Make them live in neighborhoods hopelessly polluted
>>> by chemical manufacturers and industrial polluters. Make them breath
>>> the air that comes from factories without pollution controls and
>>> vehicles without emission controls. Make them drive cars with no
>>> safety devices. As a second layer, eves drop on their conversations
>>> without warrant or court oversight and when we decide it's right to
>>> arrest them based on evidence we won't disclose, send them to Gutmo
>>> Bay to be held until we decide what to do with them.
>>> They'll all be gone in a generation.
>
> Keats wrote:
>> So drinking USA water, breathing USA air, and driving USA cars is your
>> idea of a death sentence for republicans, eh?
>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must
>> have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care
>> there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in
>> the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite
>> soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family
>> and friends, yes?
>
>
> The poor wayward misunderstood waifs of deficient parentage who are now
> getting sprung from Gitmo (Saudi cash + NYC attorneys) have a way of
> ending up dead in firefights with Marines lately.
>
> Good riddance but wish they could go with less risk to good men.

If someone locked you up and tortured you for several years even though
you were innocent, would revenge cross your mind?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 07 Aug 2007 00:33:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?
>>
>>> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> Getting rid of the Republicans is easy. Just force them to practice
>>>> what they preach. So, let their kids play with the poisoned and
>>>> unsafe toys from China. Make them live in neighborhoods hopelessly
>>>> polluted by chemical manufacturers and industrial polluters. Make
>>>> them breath the air that comes from factories without pollution
>>>> controls and vehicles without emission controls. Make them drive
>>>> cars with no safety devices. As a second layer, eves drop on their
>>>> conversations without warrant or court oversight and when we
>>>> decide it's right to arrest them based on evidence we won't
>>>> disclose, send them to Gutmo Bay to be held until we decide what
>>>> to do with them. They'll all be gone in a generation.
>>
>> Keats wrote:
>>> So drinking USA water, breathing USA air, and driving USA cars is
>>> your idea of a death sentence for republicans, eh?
>>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they
>>> must have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the
>>> medical care there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of
>>> Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on
>>> the world quite soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the
>>> occasion with your family and friends, yes?
>>
>>
>> The poor wayward misunderstood waifs of deficient parentage who are
>> now getting sprung from Gitmo (Saudi cash + NYC attorneys) have a
>> way of ending up dead in firefights with Marines lately.
>>
>> Good riddance but wish they could go with less risk to good men.
>
> If someone locked you up and tortured you for several years even
> though you were innocent, would revenge cross your mind?

Tortured before or after their herbal wraps? LOL

Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:34:40
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Bill Sornson wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>>>> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hmmmm.....How to go about getting rid of the republicans?
>>>> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Getting rid of the Republicans is easy. Just force them to practice
>>>>> what they preach. So, let their kids play with the poisoned and
>>>>> unsafe toys from China. Make them live in neighborhoods hopelessly
>>>>> polluted by chemical manufacturers and industrial polluters. Make
>>>>> them breath the air that comes from factories without pollution
>>>>> controls and vehicles without emission controls. Make them drive
>>>>> cars with no safety devices. As a second layer, eves drop on their
>>>>> conversations without warrant or court oversight and when we
>>>>> decide it's right to arrest them based on evidence we won't
>>>>> disclose, send them to Gutmo Bay to be held until we decide what
>>>>> to do with them. They'll all be gone in a generation.
>>> Keats wrote:
>>>> So drinking USA water, breathing USA air, and driving USA cars is
>>>> your idea of a death sentence for republicans, eh?
>>>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they
>>>> must have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the
>>>> medical care there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of
>>>> Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on
>>>> the world quite soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the
>>>> occasion with your family and friends, yes?
>>>
>>> The poor wayward misunderstood waifs of deficient parentage who are
>>> now getting sprung from Gitmo (Saudi cash + NYC attorneys) have a
>>> way of ending up dead in firefights with Marines lately.
>>>
>>> Good riddance but wish they could go with less risk to good men.
>> If someone locked you up and tortured you for several years even
>> though you were innocent, would revenge cross your mind?
>
> Tortured before or after their herbal wraps? LOL

Sometimes Bill Sornson can be funny. This is not one of them.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 06 Aug 2007 20:27:59
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

(not Tom) Keats wrote:
> ...
> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must have
> renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care there is
> just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of
> good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite soon. You will no
> doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family and friends, yes?

Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone turned
them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty money, yes.

Hell, even Gates and Rice want the camp closed.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:20:07
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46b7be83$0$16365$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> (not Tom) Keats wrote:
>> ...
>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must
>> have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care
>> there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in the
>> zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite soon.
>> You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family and
>> friends, yes?
>
> Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone turned
> them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty money, yes.
>
> Hell, even Gates and Rice want the camp closed.

ALL terrorists should be shot on sight. After all, they murder mostly
innocents - and then they hide behind them if and when they can. I say kill
them all! Prison is way too good for them.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:00:07
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> ALL terrorists should be shot on sight. After all, they murder mostly
> innocents - and then they hide behind them if and when they can. I say kill
> them all! Prison is way too good for them.

We should poke the terrorists with soft cushions with the stuffing up at
one end!

Then we should annoy the Ed Dolan's of the world by referencing Monty
Python sketches!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Aug 2007 01:09:17
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba852f$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> ...
>> ALL terrorists should be shot on sight. After all, they murder mostly
>> innocents - and then they hide behind them if and when they can. I say
>> kill them all! Prison is way too good for them.
>
> We should poke the terrorists with soft cushions with the stuffing up at
> one end!
>
> Then we should annoy the Ed Dolan's of the world by referencing Monty
> Python sketches!

Monty Python should be shot too. After all, it is only idiots like Tom
Sherman who think Monty Python is funny. Hells Bells, he probably even
thinks Benny Hill is funny, Anglophile that he is!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 07 Aug 2007 07:07:05
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46b7be83$0$16365$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> (not Tom) Keats wrote:
>> ...
>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must
>> have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care
>> there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in the
>> zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite soon.
>> You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family and
>> friends, yes?
>
> Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone turned
> them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty money, yes.
>

Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on into
the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any prison are
*innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is just plain *mean*.
They've been humiliated enough.

We should free them all, don't you think?

Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:11:25
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46b7be83$0$16365$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> (not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>> ...
>>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must
>>> have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care
>>> there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in the
>>> zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite soon.
>>> You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family and
>>> friends, yes?
>> Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone turned
>> them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty money, yes.
>>
>
> Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
> brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on into
> the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any prison are
> *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is just plain *mean*.
> They've been humiliated enough.
>
> We should free them all, don't you think?

Any "we" wonder why "they" hate us?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:15:50
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba6bb4$0$16337$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>> message news:46b7be83$0$16365$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> (not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must
>>>> have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care
>>>> there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in
>>>> the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite
>>>> soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family
>>>> and friends, yes?
>>> Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone turned
>>> them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty money,
>>> yes.
>>>
>>
>> Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>> brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on into
>> the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any prison
>> are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is just plain
>> *mean*.
>> They've been humiliated enough.
>>
>> We should free them all, don't you think?
>
> Any "we" wonder why "they" hate us?
>
> --

"We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight skinny
right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's because we are
"infidels". And they will continue to hate us until we "come to Islam" and
live under Sharia law. He has never once indicated it's because we aren't
"nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad holy war "being nice" is considered
weakness to be exploited.

You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam don't
you?

(not Tom) Keats

Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:28:24
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

In article <WN6dnY4ij6NUGyfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com >,
"Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote:

> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight
> skinny right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's
> because we are "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until
> we "come to Islam" and live under Sharia law. He has never once
> indicated it's because we aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad
> holy war "being nice" is considered weakness to be exploited.

That is the simplistic construction but I think it has a lot going for
it. The "death tapes" produced by various suicide bombers have made it
quite clear what their motivation is. I see no reason to disbelieve
their simple, clear, fervent statements. Bush is wrong again- "they"
don't "hate us for our freedom," They hate us because we are not
Muslim. They hate us for supporting Israel over the Palestinians. They
hate us because of the failure of much of the Middle East to get out of
the Middle Ages, for which it is easier to blame the modern world than
the strictures of the extremist elements of Islam which prevent
modernizing. There are other economic, social and cultural factors as
well, which allow for the rampant, virulently hate-filled version of
Islam to exist.

By comparison there are many moderate Muslims whom I have met, primarily
through work. They are pleasant, generous people who work hard. They
are typically quiet and unassuming, a bit outside of the American
mainstream and aware of it but not necessarily uncomfortable with it-
and more than willing to explain their understanding of their religion
with people who ask about it with sincerity. I find them only
superficially different from the moderate Christians and moderate Jews
that I know. I know very few people of other faiths- just one Hindu and
a few Buddhists, not enough to claim any sort of understanding of the
cultural aspects of their religions. I have studied a lot of Buddhist
texts over the past 30 years and find much of high merit there, but have
had little contact with Buddhists (by which I mean people who grew up in
Buddhism, not Western converts. I know quite a few of the latter and
occasionally consider myself among them. Except that I am *such* a
crappy Buddhist when it comes to applying the principles to my daily
life).

> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam
> don't you?

However, I would quibble with your use of the term "fundamentalist
Islam" and would instead suggest "radical Islamists." Fundamentalists
are not necessarily radicals and radicals usually have twisted the
fundamentals of a faith to suit their agenda. We see it in the US with
the Christianists too, the main difference being that they are not
currently as violent as the radical Islamists. They have been in the
past, however- just tonight on TV I watched a member of the Ku Klux Klan
proudly proclaim that the KKK was a "terror group" 40 years ago. They
often justify their terrorism with perversions of Christian theology.

I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear the
radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.

Date: 11 Aug 2007 08:06:52
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-2CD92A.23282408082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <WN6dnY4ij6NUGyfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight
>> skinny right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's
>> because we are "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until
>> we "come to Islam" and live under Sharia law. He has never once
>> indicated it's because we aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad
>> holy war "being nice" is considered weakness to be exploited.
>
> That is the simplistic construction but I think it has a lot going for
> it. The "death tapes" produced by various suicide bombers have made it
> quite clear what their motivation is. I see no reason to disbelieve
> their simple, clear, fervent statements. Bush is wrong again- "they"
> don't "hate us for our freedom," They hate us because we are not
> Muslim. They hate us for supporting Israel over the Palestinians. They
> hate us because of the failure of much of the Middle East to get out of
> the Middle Ages, for which it is easier to blame the modern world than
> the strictures of the extremist elements of Islam which prevent
> modernizing. There are other economic, social and cultural factors as
> well, which allow for the rampant, virulently hate-filled version of
> Islam to exist.
>
> By comparison there are many moderate Muslims whom I have met, primarily
> through work. They are pleasant, generous people who work hard. They
> are typically quiet and unassuming, a bit outside of the American
> mainstream and aware of it but not necessarily uncomfortable with it-
> and more than willing to explain their understanding of their religion
> with people who ask about it with sincerity.

Here are some web sites to help with your Muslim studies:

www.religion-of-peace-blows-up-mosques.com
www.religion-of-peace-blows-up-nightclubs.com
www.religion-of-peace-blows-up-officebuildings.org
www.religion-of-peace-stones-young-girls.com
www.religion-of-peace-blows-up-buses.org
www.religion-of-peace-stones-married-women.com
www.religion-of-peace-stones-homosexuals.com
www.religion-of-peace-sues-at-the-drop-of-a-hat.com

<snip >
>> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam
>> don't you?
>
> However, I would quibble with your use of the term "fundamentalist
> Islam" and would instead suggest "radical Islamists." Fundamentalists
> are not necessarily radicals and radicals usually have twisted the
> fundamentals of a faith to suit their agenda. We see it in the US with
> the Christianists too, the main difference being that they are not
> currently as violent as the radical Islamists. They have been in the
> past, however- just tonight on TV I watched a member of the Ku Klux Klan
> proudly proclaim that the KKK was a "terror group" 40 years ago. They
> often justify their terrorism with perversions of Christian theology.
>
> I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear the
> radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
> for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.

You start out being fairly rational but then you drift so far out in left
field there's no reeling you in. Go hide under you bed so the Christians
won't find you.

Keats

Date: 12 Aug 2007 23:12:07
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:06:52 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote:

>> I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear the
>> radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
>> for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.
>
>You start out being fairly rational but then you drift so far out in left
>field there's no reeling you in. Go hide under you bed so the Christians
>won't find you.

Sure, you joke now... when they restart The Inquisition you'll be
singing another tune!
>Keats

Date: 12 Aug 2007 19:17:23
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:ts4vb39hp32s2ni8sseq4t9uenek0hgo7j@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:06:52 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear the
>>> radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
>>> for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.
>>
>>You start out being fairly rational but then you drift so far out in left
>>field there's no reeling you in. Go hide under you bed so the Christians
>>won't find you.
>>Keats

>
> Sure, you joke now... when they restart The Inquisition you'll be
> singing another tune!

I don't sing well, so I'll be humming Onward Christian Soldiers. But
really now, do you think President Bush is going to have enough time to
finish up Iraq, then take out Iran's nuclear capability, and also restart
The Inquisition by his term's end? Let's be practical.

Keats

Date: 12 Aug 2007 19:19:33
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:ts4vb39hp32s2ni8sseq4t9uenek0hgo7j@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:06:52 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear the
>>>> radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
>>>> for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.
>>> You start out being fairly rational but then you drift so far out in left
>>> field there's no reeling you in. Go hide under you bed so the Christians
>>> won't find you.
>>> Keats
>
>> Sure, you joke now... when they restart The Inquisition you'll be
>> singing another tune!
>
> I don't sing well, so I'll be humming Onward Christian Soldiers. But
> really now, do you think President Bush is going to have enough time to
> finish up Iraq, then take out Iran's nuclear capability, and also restart
> The Inquisition by his term's end? Let's be practical.

If there is a "national emergency" created from the blow-back of
attacking Iran, will there be an election in 2008?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"Humans are not Peterbilt trucks..." - Jobst Brandt

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 12 Aug 2007 19:52:36
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46bf977d$0$16400$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:ts4vb39hp32s2ni8sseq4t9uenek0hgo7j@4ax.com...
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:06:52 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>> I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear
>>>>> the
>>>>> radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
>>>>> for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.
>>>> You start out being fairly rational but then you drift so far out in
>>>> left
>>>> field there's no reeling you in. Go hide under you bed so the
>>>> Christians
>>>> won't find you.
>>>> Keats
>>
>>> Sure, you joke now... when they restart The Inquisition you'll be
>>> singing another tune!
>>
>> I don't sing well, so I'll be humming Onward Christian Soldiers. But
>> really now, do you think President Bush is going to have enough time to
>> finish up Iraq, then take out Iran's nuclear capability, and also restart
>> The Inquisition by his term's end? Let's be practical.
>
> If there is a "national emergency" created from the blow-back of attacking
> Iran, will there be an election in 2008?
>
> --

Well that could be upsetting to some people who had their hearts set on
voting. How long do you think Bush and Cheney would have to stay in office
to take care of this "national emergency"?

Keats

Date: 13 Aug 2007 13:13:34
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:52:36 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote:

>> If there is a "national emergency" created from the blow-back of attacking
>> Iran, will there be an election in 2008?
>>
>> --
>
>Well that could be upsetting to some people who had their hearts set on
>voting. How long do you think Bush and Cheney would have to stay in office
>to take care of this "national emergency"?

They floated that Constitutional horror last time around. It's
incredible that anyone can support them at this point.

Date: 14 Aug 2007 02:35:07
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:jql0c3lgmp91mk37r9rvm469ejlag25iqa@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 19:52:36 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> If there is a "national emergency" created from the blow-back of
>>> attacking
>>> Iran, will there be an election in 2008?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>Well that could be upsetting to some people who had their hearts set on
>>voting. How long do you think Bush and Cheney would have to stay in
>>office
>>to take care of this "national emergency"?
>
> They floated that Constitutional horror last time around. It's
> incredible that anyone can support them at this point.

There is nothing finer in this world than to see America kicking ass all
over the world. The reason why this is so is that the entire rest of the
world is composed of cowardly cretins. I give you La Belle France as a
perfect illustration of this phenomenon. Yea, we should drop some atom bombs
on France. I would put one right on Napoleon's tomb in Paris. It would do my
old heart good to see tens of millions of fucking French assholes going up
in a mushroom cloud. Oh happy day!

After I have atom bombed France off the face of the earth, I would then
proceed to drop an atom bomb on Tom Sherman's head. He does not deserve to
live since he is such a cowardly liberal.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 13 Aug 2007 17:49:39
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Date: 12 Aug 2007 20:37:56
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46bf977d$0$16400$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ts4vb39hp32s2ni8sseq4t9uenek0hgo7j@4ax.com...
>>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:06:52 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear
>>>>>> the
>>>>>> radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
>>>>>> for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.
>>>>> You start out being fairly rational but then you drift so far out in
>>>>> left
>>>>> field there's no reeling you in. Go hide under you bed so the
>>>>> Christians
>>>>> won't find you.
>>>>> Keats
>>>> Sure, you joke now... when they restart The Inquisition you'll be
>>>> singing another tune!
>>> I don't sing well, so I'll be humming Onward Christian Soldiers. But
>>> really now, do you think President Bush is going to have enough time to
>>> finish up Iraq, then take out Iran's nuclear capability, and also restart
>>> The Inquisition by his term's end? Let's be practical.
>> If there is a "national emergency" created from the blow-back of attacking
>> Iran, will there be an election in 2008?
>>
>> --
>
> Well that could be upsetting to some people who had their hearts set on
> voting. How long do you think Bush and Cheney would have to stay in office
> to take care of this "national emergency"?

Until the people demand a change, no sooner.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 12 Aug 2007 18:48:25
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:06:52 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>> I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear the
>>> radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
>>> for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.
>> You start out being fairly rational but then you drift so far out in left
>> field there's no reeling you in. Go hide under you bed so the Christians
>> won't find you.
>
> Sure, you joke now... when they restart The Inquisition you'll be
> singing another tune!

I wasn't expecting a kind of Spanish Inquisition!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
�Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.� - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Aug 2007 01:02:27
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-2CD92A.23282408082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <WN6dnY4ij6NUGyfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight
>> skinny right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's
>> because we are "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until
>> we "come to Islam" and live under Sharia law. He has never once
>> indicated it's because we aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad
>> holy war "being nice" is considered weakness to be exploited.
>
> That is the simplistic construction but I think it has a lot going for
> it. The "death tapes" produced by various suicide bombers have made it
> quite clear what their motivation is. I see no reason to disbelieve
> their simple, clear, fervent statements. Bush is wrong again- "they"
> don't "hate us for our freedom," They hate us because we are not
> Muslim. They hate us for supporting Israel over the Palestinians. They
> hate us because of the failure of much of the Middle East to get out of
> the Middle Ages, for which it is easier to blame the modern world than
> the strictures of the extremist elements of Islam which prevent
> modernizing. There are other economic, social and cultural factors as
> well, which allow for the rampant, virulently hate-filled version of
> Islam to exist.

My God, I can't believe it! Jim McNamara is finally saying something
sensible!

> By comparison there are many moderate Muslims whom I have met, primarily
> through work. They are pleasant, generous people who work hard. They
> are typically quiet and unassuming, a bit outside of the American
> mainstream and aware of it but not necessarily uncomfortable with it-
> and more than willing to explain their understanding of their religion
> with people who ask about it with sincerity. I find them only
> superficially different from the moderate Christians and moderate Jews
> that I know. I know very few people of other faiths- just one Hindu and
> a few Buddhists, not enough to claim any sort of understanding of the
> cultural aspects of their religions. I have studied a lot of Buddhist
> texts over the past 30 years and find much of high merit there, but have
> had little contact with Buddhists (by which I mean people who grew up in
> Buddhism, not Western converts. I know quite a few of the latter and
> occasionally consider myself among them. Except that I am *such* a
> crappy Buddhist when it comes to applying the principles to my daily
> life).

Forget Buddhism! Just another crappy, nutty religion which came out of
India. India is an insane asylum of religions. I mean it just does not get
any worse than that. But Hinduism is my favorite. It permits starvation in
the streets. You know, all that shit about class and reincarnation!

>> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam
>> don't you?
>
> However, I would quibble with your use of the term "fundamentalist
> Islam" and would instead suggest "radical Islamists." Fundamentalists
> are not necessarily radicals and radicals usually have twisted the
> fundamentals of a faith to suit their agenda. We see it in the US with
> the Christianists too, the main difference being that they are not
> currently as violent as the radical Islamists. They have been in the
> past, however- just tonight on TV I watched a member of the Ku Klux Klan
> proudly proclaim that the KKK was a "terror group" 40 years ago. They
> often justify their terrorism with perversions of Christian theology.

You will go awfully astray if you attempt to compare fundamentalist
Christians with fundamentalist Muslims. Christians have not been murdering
anyone for quite some time now. This is the 21st century. What excuse can
you dredge up for the Muslim murderers other than their medieval mentality.
Islam has kept them permanently retarded and stupid.

> I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear the
> radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
> for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.

Yup, I knew it! Jim McNamara is just too god damn stupid himself ever to
arrive at any sound conclusions about anything. And this jerk attended
Loyola, a renown institution of Catholic education in Chicago.

The Islamists would not amount to anything provided there were no weapons of
mass destruction. That changes everything. Too bad liberals are forever too
stupid to realize this brute fact.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 09 Aug 2007 06:56:35
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-2CD92A.23282408082007@news.iphouse.com...
>> In article <WN6dnY4ij6NUGyfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight
>>> skinny right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's
>>> because we are "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until
>>> we "come to Islam" and live under Sharia law. He has never once
>>> indicated it's because we aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad
>>> holy war "being nice" is considered weakness to be exploited.
>> That is the simplistic construction but I think it has a lot going for
>> it. The "death tapes" produced by various suicide bombers have made it
>> quite clear what their motivation is. I see no reason to disbelieve
>> their simple, clear, fervent statements. Bush is wrong again- "they"
>> don't "hate us for our freedom," They hate us because we are not
>> Muslim. They hate us for supporting Israel over the Palestinians. They
>> hate us because of the failure of much of the Middle East to get out of
>> the Middle Ages, for which it is easier to blame the modern world than
>> the strictures of the extremist elements of Islam which prevent
>> modernizing. There are other economic, social and cultural factors as
>> well, which allow for the rampant, virulently hate-filled version of
>> Islam to exist.
>
> My God, I can't believe it! Jim McNamara is finally saying something
> sensible!

Er Ed,

JIM McNamara lives in the north side of Chicago and rides a P-38.

TIM McNamara lives in the Twin Cities area of Minnesota and rides uprights.

Please keep your McNamara's straight.

>> By comparison there are many moderate Muslims whom I have met, primarily
>> through work. They are pleasant, generous people who work hard. They
>> are typically quiet and unassuming, a bit outside of the American
>> mainstream and aware of it but not necessarily uncomfortable with it-
>> and more than willing to explain their understanding of their religion
>> with people who ask about it with sincerity. I find them only
>> superficially different from the moderate Christians and moderate Jews
>> that I know. I know very few people of other faiths- just one Hindu and
>> a few Buddhists, not enough to claim any sort of understanding of the
>> cultural aspects of their religions. I have studied a lot of Buddhist
>> texts over the past 30 years and find much of high merit there, but have
>> had little contact with Buddhists (by which I mean people who grew up in
>> Buddhism, not Western converts. I know quite a few of the latter and
>> occasionally consider myself among them. Except that I am *such* a
>> crappy Buddhist when it comes to applying the principles to my daily
>> life).
>
> Forget Buddhism! Just another crappy, nutty religion which came out of
> India. India is an insane asylum of religions. I mean it just does not get
> any worse than that. But Hinduism is my favorite. It permits starvation in
> the streets. You know, all that shit about class and reincarnation!
>
>>> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam
>>> don't you?
>> However, I would quibble with your use of the term "fundamentalist
>> Islam" and would instead suggest "radical Islamists." Fundamentalists
>> are not necessarily radicals and radicals usually have twisted the
>> fundamentals of a faith to suit their agenda. We see it in the US with
>> the Christianists too, the main difference being that they are not
>> currently as violent as the radical Islamists. They have been in the
>> past, however- just tonight on TV I watched a member of the Ku Klux Klan
>> proudly proclaim that the KKK was a "terror group" 40 years ago. They
>> often justify their terrorism with perversions of Christian theology.
>
> You will go awfully astray if you attempt to compare fundamentalist
> Christians with fundamentalist Muslims. Christians have not been murdering
> anyone for quite some time now. This is the 21st century. What excuse can
> you dredge up for the Muslim murderers other than their medieval mentality.
> Islam has kept them permanently retarded and stupid.
>
>> I would say that I fear the American Christianists more than I fear the
>> radical Islamists. For one thing, the Christianists are just as nuts;
>> for another, there are far more of them than Islamists in the US.
>
> Yup, I knew it! Jim McNamara is just too god damn stupid himself ever to
> arrive at any sound conclusions about anything. And this jerk attended
> Loyola, a renown institution of Catholic education in Chicago.

Nope, wrong McNamara again. TIM McNamara went to St. Mary's University,
not Loyola.

> The Islamists would not amount to anything provided there were no weapons of
> mass destruction. That changes everything. Too bad liberals are forever too
> stupid to realize this brute fact.

And now for something completely different...

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Aug 2007 01:36:02
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:j6WdnUsg7vGLMyfbnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>
> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
> news:timmcn-2CD92A.23282408082007@news.iphouse.com...
>> In article <WN6dnY4ij6NUGyfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight
>>> skinny right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's
>>> because we are "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until
>>> we "come to Islam" and live under Sharia law. He has never once
>>> indicated it's because we aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad
>>> holy war "being nice" is considered weakness to be exploited.
>>
>> That is the simplistic construction but I think it has a lot going for
>> it. The "death tapes" produced by various suicide bombers have made it
>> quite clear what their motivation is. I see no reason to disbelieve
>> their simple, clear, fervent statements. Bush is wrong again- "they"
>> don't "hate us for our freedom," They hate us because we are not
>> Muslim. They hate us for supporting Israel over the Palestinians. They
>> hate us because of the failure of much of the Middle East to get out of
>> the Middle Ages, for which it is easier to blame the modern world than
>> the strictures of the extremist elements of Islam which prevent
>> modernizing. There are other economic, social and cultural factors as
>> well, which allow for the rampant, virulently hate-filled version of
>> Islam to exist.
>
> My God, I can't believe it! Jim McNamara is finally saying something
> sensible!
>

<snip >

Err......Ed, it's Tim McNamara not Jim McNamara. Thought you would want to
know. Seems Jim still hasn't said anything sensible.

(not Tom) Keats

Date: 09 Aug 2007 02:08:35
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:E8OdnUyXdMorKCfbnZ2dnUVZ_qSonZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:j6WdnUsg7vGLMyfbnZ2dnUVZ_qqgnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>>
>> "Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote in message
>> news:timmcn-2CD92A.23282408082007@news.iphouse.com...
>>> In article <WN6dnY4ij6NUGyfbnZ2dnUVZ_umlnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight
>>>> skinny right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's
>>>> because we are "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until
>>>> we "come to Islam" and live under Sharia law. He has never once
>>>> indicated it's because we aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad
>>>> holy war "being nice" is considered weakness to be exploited.
>>>
>>> That is the simplistic construction but I think it has a lot going for
>>> it. The "death tapes" produced by various suicide bombers have made it
>>> quite clear what their motivation is. I see no reason to disbelieve
>>> their simple, clear, fervent statements. Bush is wrong again- "they"
>>> don't "hate us for our freedom," They hate us because we are not
>>> Muslim. They hate us for supporting Israel over the Palestinians. They
>>> hate us because of the failure of much of the Middle East to get out of
>>> the Middle Ages, for which it is easier to blame the modern world than
>>> the strictures of the extremist elements of Islam which prevent
>>> modernizing. There are other economic, social and cultural factors as
>>> well, which allow for the rampant, virulently hate-filled version of
>>> Islam to exist.
>>
>> My God, I can't believe it! Jim McNamara is finally saying something
>> sensible!
>>
>
> <snip>
>
> Err......Ed, it's Tim McNamara not Jim McNamara. Thought you would want
> to know. Seems Jim still hasn't said anything sensible.
>
> (not Tom) Keats

Yes, 2 McNamaras and 2 Keats! Life does get confusing, especially when you
get to be my age.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:55:37
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46ba6bb4$0$16337$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>> message news:46b7be83$0$16365$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>> (not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they must
>>>>> have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the medical care
>>>>> there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of Gutmo Bay , in
>>>>> the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on the world quite
>>>>> soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion with your family
>>>>> and friends, yes?
>>>> Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone turned
>>>> them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty money,
>>>> yes.
>>>>
>>> Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>>> brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on into
>>> the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any prison
>>> are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is just plain
>>> *mean*.
>>> They've been humiliated enough.
>>>
>>> We should free them all, don't you think?
>> Any "we" wonder why "they" hate us?
>>
>> --
>
> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight skinny
> right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's because we are
> "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until we "come to Islam" and
> live under Sharia law. He has never once indicated it's because we aren't
> "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad holy war "being nice" is considered
> weakness to be exploited.
>
> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam don't
> you?

Oh Bullshit! Almost all Muslim's consider bin Laden's religious ideas to
be wrong. The only reason they support him is because he stands up to
western imperialist bullying, unlike "President" Mubarak, King Abdullah
II, the House of Saud and other toady governments. If you actually knew
and talked to people from some Muslim countries you would realize this,
but instead you fill you head with propaganda garbage from the
government and media.

Cripes, no wonder the US is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to
mention the "War on Terror".

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Aug 2007 00:11:53
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba8421$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>> message news:46ba6bb4$0$16337$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:46b7be83$0$16365$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>>> (not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they
>>>>>> must have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the
>>>>>> medical care there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of
>>>>>> Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on
>>>>>> the world quite soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion
>>>>>> with your family and friends, yes?
>>>>> Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone
>>>>> turned them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty
>>>>> money, yes.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>>>> brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
>>>> into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
>>>> prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
>>>> just plain *mean*.
>>>> They've been humiliated enough.
>>>>
>>>> We should free them all, don't you think?
>>> Any "we" wonder why "they" hate us?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight skinny
>> right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's because we are
>> "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until we "come to Islam"
>> and live under Sharia law. He has never once indicated it's because we
>> aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad holy war "being nice" is
>> considered weakness to be exploited.
>>
>> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam don't
>> you?
>
> Oh Bullshit! Almost all Muslim's consider bin Laden's religious ideas to
> be wrong. The only reason they support him is because he stands up to
> western imperialist bullying, unlike "President" Mubarak, King Abdullah
> II, the House of Saud and other toady governments. If you actually knew
> and talked to people from some Muslim countries you would realize this,
> but instead you fill you head with propaganda garbage from the government
> and media.

The only bullshitter here is Tom Sherman. Fundamentalist Islam (Wahabism out
of Saudi Arabia) is the mortal enemy of civilization. They want to take the
world back to the Middle Ages. That is where I would like to see Tom Sherman
go too. Then Saint Edward the Great would see to it that he was properly
stoned to death for all his transgressions against Christianity and common
human decency.

> Cripes, no wonder the US is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention
> the "War on Terror".

It is only liberal traitors and cowards like Tom Sherman who think we are
losing any wars. Or is he not able to differentiate between a proper war and
an insurgency waged by scoundrels and scalawags. The US cannot be defeated
in any war. Such an idea borders on the absurd.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 09 Aug 2007 00:24:25
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> The only bullshitter here is Tom Sherman. Fundamentalist Islam (Wahabism out
> of Saudi Arabia) is the mortal enemy of civilization. They want to take the
> world back to the Middle Ages. That is where I would like to see Tom Sherman
> go too. Then Saint Edward the Great would see to it that he was properly
> stoned to death for all his transgressions against Christianity and common
> human decency....

Like this
<http://www.thebricktestament.com/the_law/when_to_stone_your_whole_family/dt13_06-08.html >?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:26:18
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba8421$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>> message news:46ba6bb4$0$16337$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:46b7be83$0$16365$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>>> (not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they
>>>>>> must have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the
>>>>>> medical care there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of
>>>>>> Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on
>>>>>> the world quite soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion
>>>>>> with your family and friends, yes?
>>>>> Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone
>>>>> turned them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty
>>>>> money, yes.
>>>>>
>>>> Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>>>> brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
>>>> into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
>>>> prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
>>>> just plain *mean*.
>>>> They've been humiliated enough.
>>>>
>>>> We should free them all, don't you think?
>>> Any "we" wonder why "they" hate us?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight skinny
>> right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's because we are
>> "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until we "come to Islam"
>> and live under Sharia law. He has never once indicated it's because we
>> aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad holy war "being nice" is
>> considered weakness to be exploited.
>>
>> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam don't
>> you?
>
> Oh Bullshit! Almost all Muslim's consider bin Laden's religious ideas to
> be wrong. The only reason they support him is because he stands up to
> western imperialist bullying, unlike "President" Mubarak, King Abdullah
> II, the House of Saud and other toady governments. If you actually knew
> and talked to people from some Muslim countries you would realize this,
> but instead you fill you head with propaganda garbage from the government
> and media.
>
> Cripes, no wonder the US is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention
> the "War on Terror".
>
> --

Take it easy Mr. Sunset. I'm having a hard time understanding you.

You're saying almost all Muslims consider bin Laden's religious ideas wrong
(and you know that how?), but they support him because he stands up to
western imperialist bullying, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Ok so? And we are
losing the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the so called "War on Terror"
because we aren't nice?

I saw a poll not long ago that claimed 75% of the US Muslims disapproved of
suicide bombing. That's fine, but it's the other 25% that worry me.

Keats

Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:41:13
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Keats wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46ba8421$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>> message news:46ba6bb4$0$16337$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>>>> message news:46b7be83$0$16365$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>>>> (not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they
>>>>>>> must have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the
>>>>>>> medical care there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of
>>>>>>> Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on
>>>>>>> the world quite soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion
>>>>>>> with your family and friends, yes?
>>>>>> Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone
>>>>>> turned them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect bounty
>>>>>> money, yes.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>>>>> brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
>>>>> into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
>>>>> prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
>>>>> just plain *mean*.
>>>>> They've been humiliated enough.
>>>>>
>>>>> We should free them all, don't you think?
>>>> Any "we" wonder why "they" hate us?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight skinny
>>> right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's because we are
>>> "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until we "come to Islam"
>>> and live under Sharia law. He has never once indicated it's because we
>>> aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad holy war "being nice" is
>>> considered weakness to be exploited.
>>>
>>> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam don't
>>> you?
>> Oh Bullshit! Almost all Muslim's consider bin Laden's religious ideas to
>> be wrong. The only reason they support him is because he stands up to
>> western imperialist bullying, unlike "President" Mubarak, King Abdullah
>> II, the House of Saud and other toady governments. If you actually knew
>> and talked to people from some Muslim countries you would realize this,
>> but instead you fill you head with propaganda garbage from the government
>> and media.
>>
>> Cripes, no wonder the US is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to mention
>> the "War on Terror".
>>
>> --
>
> Take it easy Mr. Sunset. I'm having a hard time understanding you.
>
> You're saying almost all Muslims consider bin Laden's religious ideas wrong
> (and you know that how?),

I happen to personally know Muslim's that live in some of these
countries. The general attitude is "US government bad, most US people good."

> but they support him because he stands up to
> western imperialist bullying, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Ok so? And we are
> losing the war in Iraq, Afghanistan, and the so called "War on Terror"
> because we aren't nice?

The only way to win a war of conquest over a reluctant population is
genocide.

> I saw a poll not long ago that claimed 75% of the US Muslims disapproved of
> suicide bombing. That's fine, but it's the other 25% that worry me.

How is suicide bombing more immoral than any other type of bombing? In
late March and April 2003, before the Iraqi occupation resistance had
begun to fight and prove Kenneth Adelman's "cakewalk" prediction and
Bush's "major combat operations have ended" pronouncement wrong, most
USians supporting the bombing of Iraq.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Aug 2007 01:26:49
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Date: 09 Aug 2007 06:45:16
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46ba8ed1$0$16288$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> Keats wrote:
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>> message news:46ba8421$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>
>
>>>>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight
>>>>> skinny right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's
>>>>> because we are "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until we
>>>>> "come to Islam" and live under Sharia law. He has never once indicated
>>>>> it's because we aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad holy war
>>>>> "being nice" is considered weakness to be exploited.
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam
>>>>> don't you?
>>>> Oh Bullshit! Almost all Muslim's consider bin Laden's religious ideas to
>>>> be wrong. The only reason they support him is because he stands up to
>>>> western imperialist bullying, unlike "President" Mubarak, King Abdullah
>>>> II, the House of Saud and other toady governments. If you actually knew
>>>> and talked to people from some Muslim countries you would realize this,
>>>> but instead you fill you head with propaganda garbage from the
>>>> government and media.
>>>>
>>>> Cripes, no wonder the US is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to
>>>> mention the "War on Terror".
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Take it easy Mr. Sunset. I'm having a hard time understanding you.
>>>
>>> You're saying almost all Muslims consider bin Laden's religious ideas
>>> wrong (and you know that how?),
>> I happen to personally know Muslim's that live in some of these countries.
>> The general attitude is "US government bad, most US people good."
>>
>
> And how many Muslims would that be?

Enough to know what the general opinion is (just like it is not
necessary to talk to millions of people to know general attitudes in the
US).

>>> but they support him because he stands up to western imperialist
>>> bullying, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Ok so? And we are losing the war in
>>> Iraq, Afghanistan, and the so called "War on Terror" because we aren't
>>> nice?
>> The only way to win a war of conquest over a reluctant population is
>> genocide.
>
>
> Well I don't know about that, but you've got to get it to the point they
> don't want to study war no more.

Those being attacked by neo-colonial/imperial oppressors say the same
thing about their attackers. DUH! Or are you one of those people that
believes brown skinned Muslim people to be inherently less worthy of
life than "Americans" and Israeli Jews?

>>> I saw a poll not long ago that claimed 75% of the US Muslims disapproved
>>> of suicide bombing. That's fine, but it's the other 25% that worry me.
>> How is suicide bombing more immoral than any other type of bombing?
>
>
> If blowing up a house where enemy combatant terrorist are having a meeting
> and having a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of children on the way to
> school are the moral equivalent for you then what Ed Dolan said........."You
> God Damn Fucking Stupid Moron! Screw you and all your liberal fantasies. I
> would like to drop an atom bomb on your confounded head!"

[Yawn]

Check the relative civilian death tolls: US versus Afghanistan, US
versus Iraq, Israel versus Palestine and Israel versus Lebanon and see
who is by far killing MORE innocent civilians. DUH!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Aug 2007 08:22:30
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46baf234$0$16263$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>> message news:46ba8ed1$0$16288$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> Keats wrote:
>>>>> --

>>>> Take it easy Mr. Sunset. I'm having a hard time understanding you.
>>>>
>>>> You're saying almost all Muslims consider bin Laden's religious ideas
>>>> wrong (and you know that how?),
>>> I happen to personally know Muslim's that live in some of these
>>> countries. The general attitude is "US government bad, most US people
>>> good."
>>>
>>
>> And how many Muslims would that be?
>
> Enough to know what the general opinion is (just like it is not necessary
> to talk to millions of people to know general attitudes in the US).
>

I take that to be one or maybe two if we count the wife, but I don't think
they would.

>>>> but they support him because he stands up to western imperialist
>>>> bullying, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Ok so? And we are losing the war in
>>>> Iraq, Afghanistan, and the so called "War on Terror" because we aren't
>>>> nice?
>>> The only way to win a war of conquest over a reluctant population is
>>> genocide.
>>
>>
>> Well I don't know about that, but you've got to get it to the point they
>> don't want to study war no more.

>
> Those being attacked by neo-colonial/imperial oppressors say the same
> thing about their attackers. DUH! Or are you one of those people that
> believes brown skinned Muslim people to be inherently less worthy of life
> than "Americans" and Israeli Jews?
>

When it comes to people who are determined to kill me and other Americians,
and who want to wipe Israeli Jews off the face of the earth I do not take
the time to celebrate their diversity. I'll leave that to you and the
other, as you call them, left progressives, whose only value I can see is
their ability to get republicians elected. Although this time republicans
may possibly have to trade down to Ms. Clinton and her husband Bill.

>>>> I saw a poll not long ago that claimed 75% of the US Muslims
>>>> disapproved of suicide bombing. That's fine, but it's the other 25%
>>>> that worry me.
>>> How is suicide bombing more immoral than any other type of bombing?
>>
>>
>> If blowing up a house where enemy combatant terrorist are having a
>> meeting and having a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of children on
>> the way to school are the moral equivalent for you then what Ed Dolan
>> said........."You God Damn Fucking Stupid Moron! Screw you and all your
>> liberal fantasies. I would like to drop an atom bomb on your confounded
>> head!"
>
> [Yawn]

Once again, it's useful idiots like you who got George Bush elected twice.
Keep Yawning.

(not Tom) Keats

Date: 09 Aug 2007 01:57:53
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:w6ednREyYbsTLifbnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46ba8ed1$0$16288$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
[...]
>> How is suicide bombing more immoral than any other type of bombing?
>
> If blowing up a house where enemy combatant terrorist are having a meeting
> and having a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of children on the way
> to school are the moral equivalent for you then what Ed Dolan
> said........."You God Damn Fucking Stupid Moron! Screw you and all your
> liberal fantasies. I would like to drop an atom bomb on your confounded
> head!"
>
> Keats

Keats, there is something terribly wrong with the way Tom Sherman's brain
operates. I attribute it to his hatred of America. In the past he has
equated what the Palestinian suicide bombers do with what the Israeli
Defense Force does. It is all quite insane of course.

Believe you me, I know this asshole better than anyone on Usenet. He only
begins to make sense when you realize he is entirely motivated by his hatred
of the US. For some reason, he does not think he has gotten his just deserts
even though he is a civil engineer and enjoys all the prerogatives that go
with such a position in society. Envy of the rich is a terrible thing. It is
the one vice that gives no pleasure.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 09 Aug 2007 06:47:44
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:w6ednREyYbsTLifbnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
>> news:46ba8ed1$0$16288$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> [...]
>>> How is suicide bombing more immoral than any other type of bombing?
>> If blowing up a house where enemy combatant terrorist are having a meeting
>> and having a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of children on the way
>> to school are the moral equivalent for you then what Ed Dolan
>> said........."You God Damn Fucking Stupid Moron! Screw you and all your
>> liberal fantasies. I would like to drop an atom bomb on your confounded
>> head!"
>>
>> Keats
>
> Keats, there is something terribly wrong with the way Tom Sherman's brain
> operates. I attribute it to his hatred of America. In the past he has
> equated what the Palestinian suicide bombers do with what the Israeli
> Defense Force does. It is all quite insane of course.
>
> Believe you me, I know this asshole better than anyone on Usenet. He only
> begins to make sense when you realize he is entirely motivated by his hatred
> of the US. For some reason, he does not think he has gotten his just deserts
> even though he is a civil engineer and enjoys all the prerogatives that go
> with such a position in society. Envy of the rich is a terrible thing. It is
> the one vice that gives no pleasure.

"Use your head, Mr. Ed" - Slugger

Actually, my preferred career choice was to be a Knight that says "Ni",
but no positions were open.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 11 Aug 2007 07:47:04
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46baf2c8$0$16263$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:w6ednREyYbsTLifbnZ2dnUVZ_oSnnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>> message news:46ba8ed1$0$16288$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> [...]
>>>> How is suicide bombing more immoral than any other type of bombing?
>>> If blowing up a house where enemy combatant terrorist are having a
>>> meeting and having a suicide bomber blowing up a bus full of children on
>>> the way to school are the moral equivalent for you then what Ed Dolan
>>> said........."You God Damn Fucking Stupid Moron! Screw you and all your
>>> liberal fantasies. I would like to drop an atom bomb on your confounded
>>> head!"
>>>
>>> Keats
>>
>> Keats, there is something terribly wrong with the way Tom Sherman's brain
>> operates. I attribute it to his hatred of America. In the past he has
>> equated what the Palestinian suicide bombers do with what the Israeli
>> Defense Force does. It is all quite insane of course.
>>
>> Believe you me, I know this asshole better than anyone on Usenet. He only
>> begins to make sense when you realize he is entirely motivated by his
>> hatred of the US. For some reason, he does not think he has gotten his
>> just deserts even though he is a civil engineer and enjoys all the
>> prerogatives that go with such a position in society. Envy of the rich is
>> a terrible thing. It is the one vice that gives no pleasure.
>
> "Use your head, Mr. Ed" - Slugger
>
> Actually, my preferred career choice was to be a Knight that says "Ni",
> but no positions were open.

You bet, play the fool that you are, you god damn idiot! I will show you up
here on these cycling newsgroups for what you are, not for what you think
you are. I wonder what you think you are anyway - besides being an America
hater, a traitor and a coward who will not defend this nation against its
enemies. Nothing but a freaking LIBERAL!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 09 Aug 2007 00:33:56
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba8ed1$0$16288$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Keats wrote:
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>> message news:46ba8421$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:46ba6bb4$0$16337$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>>>>> message news:46b7be83$0$16365$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>>>>> (not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>> And as far as sending republicans to Gutmo Bay is concerned (they
>>>>>>>> must have renamed it after Sicko's visit, lol), I've heard the
>>>>>>>> medical care there is just wonderful. Anyway the gentle souls of
>>>>>>>> Gutmo Bay , in the zenith of good health, are going to be loosed on
>>>>>>>> the world quite soon. You will no doubt be celebrating the occasion
>>>>>>>> with your family and friends, yes?
>>>>>>> Considering that most of the prisoners are there because someone
>>>>>>> turned them in for fictional "terrorist activities" to collect
>>>>>>> bounty money, yes.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>>>>>> brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
>>>>>> into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
>>>>>> prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
>>>>>> just plain *mean*.
>>>>>> They've been humiliated enough.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> We should free them all, don't you think?
>>>>> Any "we" wonder why "they" hate us?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>> "We" may wonder, but "I" don't wonder, because I got the straight
>>>> skinny right from the horse's mouth. According to bin Laden it's
>>>> because we are "infidels". And they will continue to hate us until we
>>>> "come to Islam" and live under Sharia law. He has never once indicated
>>>> it's because we aren't "nice" to them. In fact, in a jihad holy war
>>>> "being nice" is considered weakness to be exploited.
>>>>
>>>> You do realize we are in a religious war with fundamentalist Islam
>>>> don't you?
>>> Oh Bullshit! Almost all Muslim's consider bin Laden's religious ideas to
>>> be wrong. The only reason they support him is because he stands up to
>>> western imperialist bullying, unlike "President" Mubarak, King Abdullah
>>> II, the House of Saud and other toady governments. If you actually knew
>>> and talked to people from some Muslim countries you would realize this,
>>> but instead you fill you head with propaganda garbage from the
>>> government and media.
>>>
>>> Cripes, no wonder the US is losing in Iraq and Afghanistan, not to
>>> mention the "War on Terror".
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Take it easy Mr. Sunset. I'm having a hard time understanding you.

Hey, Keats, Tom Sherman is a liberal scofflaw. He is a traitor and a coward
and an Islamic Terrorist sympathizer. That is because he hates the US. That
is all you will ever have to know about him. I have been trying to get him
to emigrate to Fucking France for years, but he refuses to go.

>> You're saying almost all Muslims consider bin Laden's religious ideas
>> wrong (and you know that how?),
>
> I happen to personally know Muslim's that live in some of these countries.
> The general attitude is "US government bad, most US people good."

The Muslim street is very anti-American, and they would like nothing better
than to gut the likes of Tom Sherman. What a fool!

>> but they support him because he stands up to western imperialist
>> bullying, etc., etc., ad nauseam. Ok so? And we are losing the war in
>> Iraq, Afghanistan, and the so called "War on Terror" because we aren't
>> nice?
>
> The only way to win a war of conquest over a reluctant population is
> genocide.

Nonsense, the British proved long ago (Malaysia) that you can squelch any
insurgency provided you stay the course.

>> I saw a poll not long ago that claimed 75% of the US Muslims disapproved
>> of suicide bombing. That's fine, but it's the other 25% that worry me.
>
> How is suicide bombing more immoral than any other type of bombing?

You God Damn Fucking Stupid Moron! Screw you and all your liberal
fantasies. I would like to drop an atom bomb on your confounded head!

In
> late March and April 2003, before the Iraqi occupation resistance had
> begun to fight and prove Kenneth Adelman's "cakewalk" prediction and
> Bush's "major combat operations have ended" pronouncement wrong, most
> USians supporting the bombing of Iraq.

What a fool Tom Sherman is! He is a traitor and a coward of the worst sort.
Nothing but an America hater - but are not all liberals!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 09 Aug 2007 06:38:00
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...I would like to drop an atom bomb on your confounded head!...

Hey Ed, it is supposed to be a (clearly labeled) 16-ton weight that
falls on people.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 07 Aug 2007 12:23:10
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:07:05 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote:

>
>Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on into
>the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any prison are
>*innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is just plain *mean*.
>They've been humiliated enough.
>
>We should free them all, don't you think?

If they are guilty, then they need to be tried and convicted. I don't
have any problem with that. But, holding people indefinitely without
charging them is against everything this country was founded on.

If you don't know that, you should go back and review the
Constitution.

Date: 07 Aug 2007 08:36:41
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

In article <isogb3dp9suijfelfddhpsjn3r2of1spu4@4ax.com >,
still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:07:05 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
> >brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
> >into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
> >prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
> >just plain *mean*. They've been humiliated enough.
> >
> >We should free them all, don't you think?
>
> If they are guilty, then they need to be tried and convicted. I don't
> have any problem with that. But, holding people indefinitely without
> charging them is against everything this country was founded on.
>
> If you don't know that, you should go back and review the
> Constitution.

And that is exactly the point. The Bush Administration has overturned
the principle of rule of law and is in violation of its oath to uphold
and defend the Constitution.

Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:35:58
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-6582F5.08364107082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <isogb3dp9suijfelfddhpsjn3r2of1spu4@4ax.com>,
> still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:07:05 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>> >brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
>> >into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
>> >prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
>> >just plain *mean*. They've been humiliated enough.
>> >
>> >We should free them all, don't you think?
>>
>> If they are guilty, then they need to be tried and convicted. I don't
>> have any problem with that. But, holding people indefinitely without
>> charging them is against everything this country was founded on.
>>
>> If you don't know that, you should go back and review the
>> Constitution.
>
> And that is exactly the point. The Bush Administration has overturned
> the principle of rule of law and is in violation of its oath to uphold
> and defend the Constitution.

Fuck the g.d. Constitution - and fuck Jim McNamara while we are at it!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 08 Aug 2007 20:58:12
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> And that is exactly the point. The Bush Administration has overturned
> the principle of rule of law and is in violation of its oath to uphold
> and defend the Constitution.

butbutbut, George W. DID NOT [1] get a blow job from an intern!

[1] To the best available knowledge.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 07 Aug 2007 17:34:37
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:07:05 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>>> brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
>>> into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
>>> prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
>>> just plain *mean*. They've been humiliated enough.
>>>
>>> We should free them all, don't you think?

> still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> If they are guilty, then they need to be tried and convicted. I don't
>> have any problem with that. But, holding people indefinitely without
>> charging them is against everything this country was founded on.
>> If you don't know that, you should go back and review the
>> Constitution.

Tim McNamara wrote:
> And that is exactly the point. The Bush Administration has overturned
> the principle of rule of law and is in violation of its oath to uphold
> and defend the Constitution.

No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
American Constitution again??

I did see the 'oath' part, "I will support and defend the Constitution
of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Sounds
good to me, glad he was sincere in it.

hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
definition of POWs?

Maybe call pilots of airplanes-into-buildings 'freedom fighters'??
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:10:12
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:07:05 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>>>> brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on
>>>> into the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any
>>>> prison are *innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is
>>>> just plain *mean*. They've been humiliated enough.
>>>>
>>>> We should free them all, don't you think?
>
>> still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> If they are guilty, then they need to be tried and convicted. I don't
>>> have any problem with that. But, holding people indefinitely without
>>> charging them is against everything this country was founded on. If
>>> you don't know that, you should go back and review the Constitution.
>
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> And that is exactly the point. The Bush Administration has overturned
>> the principle of rule of law and is in violation of its oath to uphold
>> and defend the Constitution.
>
> No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
> out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
> American Constitution again??
>
> I did see the 'oath' part, "I will support and defend the Constitution
> of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic". Sounds
> good to me, glad he was sincere in it.
>
> hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
> definition of POWs?

To quote from the "Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions of 12
August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International
Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977":

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Art 44. Combatants and prisoners of war

1. Any combatant, as defined in Article 43, who falls into the power of
an adverse Party shall be a prisoner of war.

2. While all combatants are obliged to comply with the rules of
international law applicable in armed conflict, violations of these
rules shall not deprive a combatant of his right to be a combatant or,
if he falls into the power of an adverse Party, of his right to be a
prisoner of war, except as provided in paragraphs 3 and 4.

3. In order to promote the protection of the civilian population from
the effects of hostilities, combatants are obliged to distinguish
themselves from the civilian population while they are engaged in an
attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack. Recognizing,
however, that there are situations in armed conflicts where, owing to
the nature of the hostilities an armed combatant cannot so distinguish
himself, he shall retain his status as a combatant, provided that, in
such situations, he
carries his arms openly:

(a) during each military engagement, and
(b) during such time as he is visible to the adversary while he is
engaged in a military deployment preceding the launching of an attack in
which he is to participate.

Acts which comply with the requirements of this paragraph shall not be
considered as perfidious within the meaning of Article 37, paragraph 1 (c).

4. A combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while
failing to meet the requirements set forth in the second sentence of
paragraph 3 shall forfeit his right to be a prisoner of war, but he
shall, nevertheless, be given protections equivalent in all respects to
those accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention and by this
Protocol. This protection includes protections equivalent to those
accorded to prisoners of war by the Third Convention in the case where
such a person is tried and punished for any offences he has committed.

5. Any combatant who falls into the power of an adverse Party while not
engaged in an attack or in a military operation preparatory to an attack
shall not forfeit his rights to be a combatant and a prisoner of war by
virtue of his prior activities .

6. This Article is without prejudice to the right of any person to be a
prisoner of war pursuant to Article 4 of the Third Convention.

7. This Article is not intended to change the generally accepted
practice of States with respect to the wearing of the uniform by
combatants assigned to the regular, uniformed armed units of a Party to
the conflict.

8. In addition to the categories of persons mentioned in Article 13 of
the First and Second Conventions, all members of the armed forces of a
Party to the conflict, as defined in Article 43 of this Protocol, shall
be entitled to protection under those Conventions if they are wounded or
sick or, in the case of the Second Convention, shipwrecked at sea or in
other waters.

Art 45. Protection of persons who have taken part in hostilities

1. A person who takes part in hostilities and falls into the power of an
adverse Party shall be presumed to be a prisoner of war, and therefore
shall be protected by the Third Convention, if he claims the status of
prisoner of war, or if he appears to be entitled to such status, or if
the Party on which he depends claims such status on his behalf by
notification to the detaining Power or to the Protecting Power. Should
any doubt arise as to whether any such person is entitled to the status
of prisoner of war, he shall continue to have such status and,
therefore, to be protected by the Third Convention and this Protocol
until such time as his status has been determined by a competent tribunal.

2. If a person who has fallen into the power of an adverse Party is not
held as a prisoner of war and is to be tried by that Party for an
offence arising out of the hostilities, he shall have the right to
assert his entitlement to prisoner-of-war status before a judicial
tribunal and to have that question adjudicated. Whenever possible under
the applicable procedure, this adjudication shall occur before the trial
for the offence. The representatives of the Protecting Power shall be
entitled to attend the proceedings in which that question is
adjudicated, unless, exceptionally, the proceedings are held in camera
in the interest of State security. In such a case the detaining Power
shall advise the Protecting Power accordingly.

3. Any person who has taken part in hostilities, who is not entitled to
prisoner-of-war status and who does not benefit from more favourable
treatment in accordance with the Fourth Convention shall have the right
at all times to the protection of Article 75 of this Protocol. In
occupied territory, any such person, unless he is held as a spy, shall
also be entitled, notwithstanding Article 5 of the Fourth Convention, to
his rights of communication under that Convention.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Note what No. 4 says - it doesn't make any difference if the prisoner
qualifies as a POW or not for how the are to be treated!

> Maybe call pilots of airplanes-into-buildings 'freedom fighters'??

"Freedom fighters" is what Ronald Reagan called Usama bin Laden and company.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 07 Aug 2007 23:44:45
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13bhsr4b09rbb4a@corp.supernews.com...

> No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
> out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
> American Constitution again??
>
> hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
> definition of POWs?

Ok, so they aren't POWs. Which means they must be normal prisoners, and
should be treated as such - with the normal trial, etc. And this should be
done by somebody with juristiction in the area.

If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the Americans
holding them?

clive

Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:17:03
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Clive George wrote:
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> news:13bhsr4b09rbb4a@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
>> out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
>> American Constitution again??
>>
>> hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
>> definition of POWs?
>
> Ok, so they aren't POWs. Which means they must be normal prisoners, and
> should be treated as such - with the normal trial, etc. And this should
> be done by somebody with juristiction in the area.
>
> If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the
> Americans holding them?

The prisoners ARE covered by the US Constitution, since ALL ratified
treaties are considered to be the supreme law of the land, and the US
has ratified the Geneva Conventions. From Article 6:
----------------------------------------------------------------------
This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made
in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made,
under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of
the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any
Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 07 Aug 2007 22:22:55
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
>> No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
>> out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
>> American Constitution again??
>> hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
>> definition of POWs?

Clive George wrote:
> Ok, so they aren't POWs. Which means they must be normal prisoners, and
> should be treated as such - with the normal trial, etc. And this should
> be done by somebody with juristiction in the area.
>
> If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the
> Americans holding them?

Some might say it's an ad hoc and still-evolving solution to vicious and
feral attacks based on an asymmetry which exploits the freedoms of an
advanced civilization against itself. Not citizens. Not soldiers. No
clear prior examples to follow.

Others feel the power, wealth and blood of the nation are being spent to
unfairly exploit a couple hundred innocent 'just walking by' victims at
Guantanamo.

I'm reminded of Norman Mailer, who 'discovered' a violent felon with
supposed writing skills. After Mailer got him out from under the jury's
sentence, the 'poor soul' sliced a waiter to death with a knife in NYC.
I think the taxpaying waiter's rights were abridged but, hey, people's
viewpoints differ.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:32:51
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Andrew Muzi wrote:
>> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
>>> No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
>>> out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
>>> American Constitution again??
>>> hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
>>> definition of POWs?
>
> Clive George wrote:
>> Ok, so they aren't POWs. Which means they must be normal prisoners,
>> and should be treated as such - with the normal trial, etc. And this
>> should be done by somebody with juristiction in the area.
>>
>> If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the
>> Americans holding them?
>
> Some might say it's an ad hoc and still-evolving solution to vicious and
> feral attacks based on an asymmetry which exploits the freedoms of an
> advanced civilization against itself. Not citizens. Not soldiers. No
> clear prior examples to follow....

Do you approve of the asymmetry in weapons used that has killed hundred
of thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians in Iraq, while the number of US
citizens killed by Iraqi's in the US is either none or something close
to that value?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:57:06
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba70bb$0$16336$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
>>>> No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
>>>> out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
>>>> American Constitution again??
>>>> hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
>>>> definition of POWs?
>>
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> Ok, so they aren't POWs. Which means they must be normal prisoners, and
>>> should be treated as such - with the normal trial, etc. And this should
>>> be done by somebody with juristiction in the area.
>>>
>>> If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the
>>> Americans holding them?
>>
>> Some might say it's an ad hoc and still-evolving solution to vicious and
>> feral attacks based on an asymmetry which exploits the freedoms of an
>> advanced civilization against itself. Not citizens. Not soldiers. No
>> clear prior examples to follow....
>
> Do you approve of the asymmetry in weapons used that has killed hundred of
> thousands of innocent Iraqi civilians in Iraq, while the number of US
> citizens killed by Iraqi's in the US is either none or something close to
> that value?

Wow! When Tom Sherman tells us what he really thinks and how he thinks it,
you realize what a total asshole he is!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 08 Aug 2007 03:54:02
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:22:55 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org >
wrote:

>Some might say it's an ad hoc and still-evolving solution to vicious and
>feral attacks based on an asymmetry which exploits the freedoms of an
>advanced civilization against itself. Not citizens. Not soldiers. No
>clear prior examples to follow.

Evolving is too strong a phrase. If it was evolving, there wouldn't be
a problem. It's not a process that's moving.

Fact is, there are tens of millions of fundamentalists with the same
mindset, all out running free.

If there is specific evidence that these remaining prisoners are
something more, put them on trial. Prove something, dispose of
properly. It worked at Nuremberg, it can work here. If there's no
evidence then, despite our suspicions, we have no rights to hold them.
It's really pretty simple.

Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:54:05
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:26fib3dc394vrc1rgi4drno56stmm4p8g6@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 07 Aug 2007 22:22:55 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org>
> wrote:
>
>>Some might say it's an ad hoc and still-evolving solution to vicious and
>>feral attacks based on an asymmetry which exploits the freedoms of an
>>advanced civilization against itself. Not citizens. Not soldiers. No
>>clear prior examples to follow.
>
> Evolving is too strong a phrase. If it was evolving, there wouldn't be
> a problem. It's not a process that's moving.
>
> Fact is, there are tens of millions of fundamentalists with the same
> mindset, all out running free.

Are these other fundamentalists running around the world murdering
innocents?

> If there is specific evidence that these remaining prisoners are
> something more, put them on trial. Prove something, dispose of
> properly. It worked at Nuremberg, it can work here. If there's no
> evidence then, despite our suspicions, we have no rights to hold them.
> It's really pretty simple.

Kill the brutes, kill them all! A trial is way too good for them.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 08 Aug 2007 04:52:39
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote in message
news:13bidnn1qidco1f@corp.supernews.com...
>> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
>>> No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
>>> out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
>>> American Constitution again??
>>> hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
>>> definition of POWs?
>
> Clive George wrote:
>> Ok, so they aren't POWs. Which means they must be normal prisoners, and
>> should be treated as such - with the normal trial, etc. And this should
>> be done by somebody with juristiction in the area.
>>
>> If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the
>> Americans holding them?
>
> Some might say it's an ad hoc and still-evolving solution to vicious and
> feral attacks based on an asymmetry which exploits the freedoms of an
> advanced civilization against itself. Not citizens. Not soldiers. No clear
> prior examples to follow.

No clear example being set either - no shining beacon for people to be proud
of and for the world to follow. Sure, it's only a couple of hundred people.
But it's a couple of hundred examples for the folk who are going to see the
US as an evil country, and who do rather more than write tetchy emails about
it.

> I'm reminded of Norman Mailer, who 'discovered' a violent felon with
> supposed writing skills. After Mailer got him out from under the jury's
> sentence, the 'poor soul' sliced a waiter to death with a knife in NYC. I
> think the taxpaying waiter's rights were abridged but, hey, people's
> viewpoints differ.

"Courts release felon shock". It's not exactly an isolated case, is it?
People reoffend when they get out of prison, people get let off on
technicalities, people don't get charged in the first case. (Income tax
evasion the best they could come up with for a certain famous person?)

There is one important difference : said violent felon didn't have many more
people being inspired to attack the US because of his treatment.

And I'm prepared to put up with the problems that arise from eg assumption
of innocence, trial by jury, due process, as the alternatives are far
worse - police state, etc.

(Did you know that your fine country won't give people a visa waiver if
they've ever been arrested? Not charged, not found guilty, but arrested -
which can legitimately happen on the uncorroborated word of one person.)

clive

Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:50:28
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote in message
news:13bifhnkl3a0i52@corp.supernews.com...
> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote in message
> news:13bidnn1qidco1f@corp.supernews.com...
>>> "A Muzi" <am@yellowjersey.org> wrote
>>>> No expert, but I keep a copy on my desk. Where's that section on
>>>> out-of-uniform enemy combatants overseas and their 'rights' under the
>>>> American Constitution again??
>>>> hint: Why does Geneva require uniforms, chain of command etc for
>>>> definition of POWs?
>>
>> Clive George wrote:
>>> Ok, so they aren't POWs. Which means they must be normal prisoners, and
>>> should be treated as such - with the normal trial, etc. And this should
>>> be done by somebody with juristiction in the area.
>>>
>>> If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the
>>> Americans holding them?
>>
>> Some might say it's an ad hoc and still-evolving solution to vicious and
>> feral attacks based on an asymmetry which exploits the freedoms of an
>> advanced civilization against itself. Not citizens. Not soldiers. No
>> clear prior examples to follow.
>
> No clear example being set either - no shining beacon for people to be
> proud of and for the world to follow. Sure, it's only a couple of hundred
> people. But it's a couple of hundred examples for the folk who are going
> to see the US as an evil country, and who do rather more than write tetchy
> emails about it.
>
>> I'm reminded of Norman Mailer, who 'discovered' a violent felon with
>> supposed writing skills. After Mailer got him out from under the jury's
>> sentence, the 'poor soul' sliced a waiter to death with a knife in NYC. I
>> think the taxpaying waiter's rights were abridged but, hey, people's
>> viewpoints differ.
>
> "Courts release felon shock". It's not exactly an isolated case, is it?
> People reoffend when they get out of prison, people get let off on
> technicalities, people don't get charged in the first case. (Income tax
> evasion the best they could come up with for a certain famous person?)
>
> There is one important difference : said violent felon didn't have many
> more people being inspired to attack the US because of his treatment.
>
> And I'm prepared to put up with the problems that arise from eg assumption
> of innocence, trial by jury, due process, as the alternatives are far
> worse - police state, etc.
>
> (Did you know that your fine country won't give people a visa waiver if
> they've ever been arrested? Not charged, not found guilty, but arrested -
> which can legitimately happen on the uncorroborated word of one person.)
>
> clive

Hey, Clive, did anyone ever tell you in your life that you are a fucking
idiot? Well I am telling you now - you god damn fucking idiot!

Hells Bells, everyone in the world knows that Norman Mailer is one of the
biggest assholes who ever lived. God - when is he ever going to die! He must
be in his 80's by now!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 07 Aug 2007 23:44:13
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 23:44:45 +0100, "Clive George"
<clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote:

>If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the Americans
>holding them?
>
>clive

Therein lies the gotcha Clive. The Constitution allows for the defense
of the United States. Invading Afghanistan following 9-11 was clearly
allowed under that. As such, they are in fact enemy combatants, as
there is no other status for them to hold as non_US citizens arrested
on non-US soil without warrant.

FWIW, the constitution has no provision for the Iraqi invasion, but
that's another story.

Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:21:24
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

still me? wrote:
> ...
> FWIW, the constitution has no provision for the Iraqi invasion, but
> that's another story.

The US Constitution does have a provision for the invasion of Iraq:

"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:43:23
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba6e0c$0$22967$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> still me? wrote:
>> ...
>> FWIW, the constitution has no provision for the Iraqi invasion, but
>> that's another story.
>
> The US Constitution does have a provision for the invasion of Iraq:
>
> "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
> States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
> of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."

There is no more ridiculous a figure in the world than a Bush hater like Tom
Sherman. If only we had had Gore or Kerry, all would be right with the
world! Maybe Hillary will lead us out of the quagmire!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:01:45
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46ba6e0c$0$22967$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> still me? wrote:
>>> ...
>>> FWIW, the constitution has no provision for the Iraqi invasion, but
>>> that's another story.
>> The US Constitution does have a provision for the invasion of Iraq:
>>
>> "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
>> States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
>> of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
>
> There is no more ridiculous a figure in the world than a Bush hater like Tom
> Sherman. If only we had had Gore or Kerry, all would be right with the
> world! Maybe Hillary will lead us out of the quagmire!

Hillary the former and currently closeted Republican?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:54:30
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba8590$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>> message news:46ba6e0c$0$22967$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> still me? wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> FWIW, the constitution has no provision for the Iraqi invasion, but
>>>> that's another story.
>>> The US Constitution does have a provision for the invasion of Iraq:
>>>
>>> "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
>>> States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
>>> of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
>>
>> There is no more ridiculous a figure in the world than a Bush hater like
>> Tom Sherman. If only we had had Gore or Kerry, all would be right with
>> the world! Maybe Hillary will lead us out of the quagmire!
>
> Hillary the former and currently closeted Republican?

You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the wife of
Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 09 Aug 2007 00:03:42
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46ba8590$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>> message news:46ba6e0c$0$22967$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>> still me? wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> FWIW, the constitution has no provision for the Iraqi invasion, but
>>>>> that's another story.
>>>> The US Constitution does have a provision for the invasion of Iraq:
>>>>
>>>> "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
>>>> States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
>>>> of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
>>> There is no more ridiculous a figure in the world than a Bush hater like
>>> Tom Sherman. If only we had had Gore or Kerry, all would be right with
>>> the world! Maybe Hillary will lead us out of the quagmire!
>> Hillary the former and currently closeted Republican?
>
> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the wife of
> Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.

Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Aug 2007 01:27:05
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba9415$0$28429$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>> message news:46ba8590$0$16383$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>>> message news:46ba6e0c$0$22967$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>>> still me? wrote:
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>> FWIW, the constitution has no provision for the Iraqi invasion, but
>>>>>> that's another story.
>>>>> The US Constitution does have a provision for the invasion of Iraq:
>>>>>
>>>>> "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United
>>>>> States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and
>>>>> Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and
>>>>> Misdemeanors."
>>>> There is no more ridiculous a figure in the world than a Bush hater
>>>> like Tom Sherman. If only we had had Gore or Kerry, all would be right
>>>> with the world! Maybe Hillary will lead us out of the quagmire!
>>> Hillary the former and currently closeted Republican?
>>
>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the wife of
>> Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>
> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.

Bill Clinton was saddled with a Republican Congress for most of his terms.
And so he compromised some in order to get something done. But we KNOW he
was a liberal at heart, don't we. Hey, they do not call him the first Negro
President for nothing. But B. Hussein Obama may actually become the first
Negro President, even though he is half White.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:10:23
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Edward Dolan wrote:

>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.

> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.

Red herring. (Hint: he was sued for sexual harrassment by Paula Jones, and
LIED UNDER OATH in the course of his defense. He also coerced perjury from
Monica Lewinsky. Then there's Kathleen "forced to rub his" Willy and Anita
Broderick and...well, at least one other. These matters were NOT about sex
or affairs; they were about illegal, abusive behavior and lies and worse to
cover it up. Monica was just...a vessel.)

Bill "I suppose they should be grateful he didn't Vince Foster 'em" S.

Date: 09 Aug 2007 09:49:25
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

In article <46baafce$0$8024$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> >> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
> >> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>
> > Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>
> Red herring.

You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy initiatives.
Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful Republican
presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a policy perspective
rather than a party affiliation perspective. Clinton only looked
liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were insane.

Date: 11 Aug 2007 07:08:03
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-27C15C.09492509082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <46baafce$0$8024$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> > Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>> >> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>> >> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>>
>> > Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>>
>> Red herring.
>
> You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
> conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
> Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
> quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy initiatives.
> Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful Republican
> presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a policy perspective
> rather than a party affiliation perspective. Clinton only looked
> liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were insane.

Newt Gingrich is a genius compared to any other politician. I constantly
marvel at this high intelligence and his grasp of the issues. He is our
Winston Churchill if only we could get him into the White House.

But the American people are way too stupid to ever know shit from shinola.
Hells Bells, Tim McNamara proves that every time he posts his traitorous and
cowardly liberal messages to these newsgroups. Christ, I am ashamed to be
from the same state as him (Minnesota).

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 09 Aug 2007 08:49:34
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46baafce$0$8024$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>>
>>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>>
>> Red herring.
>
> You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
> conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
> Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
> quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy
> initiatives. Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful
> Republican presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a policy
> perspective rather than a party affiliation perspective. Clinton
> only looked liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were insane.

So why is he (Clinton) such a rock star among every liberal group out there?
Blind political partisanship (party-based)?

Date: 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:49:34 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

>Tim McNamara wrote:
>> In article <46baafce$0$8024$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>
>>>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>>>
>>>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>>>
>>> Red herring.
>>
>> You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
>> conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
>> Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
>> quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy
>> initiatives. Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful
>> Republican presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a policy
>> perspective rather than a party affiliation perspective. Clinton
>> only looked liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were insane.
>
>So why is he (Clinton) such a rock star among every liberal group out there?
>Blind political partisanship (party-based)?

Because the somewhat-liberal outnumber the moonbat-left. The Moonbat faction
hates the Clintons even more than they hate Republicans - hasn't changed much
since the early seventies really, it's the "liberal establishment" that's the
enemy of the people's revolution. Anyway, somewhat-liberals are a lot closer to
the fat part of the bell curve and although it's easy to be misled by the
relative noise levels they vastly outnumber the whackoes.

Bill Clinton, after some serious missteps got his balance and basically governed
as a moderate. Republican partisans hated him for stealing their issues as much
as the carpet chewers hated him for, well, the same thing.

Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full terms since
television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their party to be
dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and protest
sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.

Ron

Date: 11 Aug 2007 04:11:14
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

>Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full terms since
>television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their party to be
>dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and protest
>sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>
While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
(since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
election). Duh.

They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is the
fact that Bush is a moron, has violated the Constitution multiple
times, got us into a pointless war, and has the most corrupt
administration since Nixon. Even all that is probably just enough to
make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).

Date: 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:11:14 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:

>On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full terms since
>>television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their party to be
>>dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and protest
>>sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>>
>While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
>Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
>party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
>you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
>(since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
>election). Duh.

I'll claim a little artistic leeway on that description - more for color than
precision, but only somewhate exaggerated.

>They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
>cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is the
>fact that Bush is a moron, has violated the Constitution multiple
>times, got us into a pointless war, and has the most corrupt
>administration since Nixon. Even all that is probably just enough to
>make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
>candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).

The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but inasmuch
as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted. I actually
consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit short in
the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than the last
two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her she will
likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough leftish
coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.

Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I mean the
real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and cows, not
Chicago. They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even now there
aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades the
Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England liberals.

George Foreman says fights are about styles and tactics, who has the right style
to counter the other guy's game, who uses his particular skills to advantage.
Let's see how this plays out.

Ron

Date: 12 Aug 2007 23:10:20
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:

>The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but inasmuch
>as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.

Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
So, running against him will work as a strategy.

>I actually
>consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit short in
>the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than the last
>two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her she will
>likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough leftish
>coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.

She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I mean the
>real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and cows, not
>Chicago.

They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.

>They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even now there
>aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades the
>Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England liberals.

Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans.

>George Foreman says fights are about styles and tactics, who has the right style
>to counter the other guy's game, who uses his particular skills to advantage.
>Let's see how this plays out.

>Ron

Date: 12 Aug 2007 18:55:01
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but inasmuch
>> as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
>
> Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
> So, running against him will work as a strategy.
>
>> I actually
>> consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit short in
>> the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than the last
>> two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her she will
>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough leftish
>> coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>
> She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
> with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
> loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I mean the
>> real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and cows, not
>> Chicago.
>
> They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
> don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
> Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
>
>> They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>> same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even now there
>> aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades the
>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England liberals.
>
> Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
> that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....

On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home
at election time.

The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
see that things are not going right for them.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
�Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.� - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 14 Aug 2007 01:40:12
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46bf91be$0$30102$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "still me" wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but
>>> inasmuch
>>> as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
>>
>> Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
>> So, running against him will work as a strategy.
>>> I actually
>>> consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit
>>> short in
>>> the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than
>>> the last
>>> two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
>>> she will
>>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
>>> leftish
>>> coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>>
>> She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
>> with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
>> loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
>>> mean the
>>> real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
>>> cows, not
>>> Chicago.
>>
>> They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
>> don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
>> Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
>>> They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>>> same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even
>>> now there
>>> aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades
>>> the
>>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England
>>> liberals.
>>
>> Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
>> that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
>
> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have started
> to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves economically by
> voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid lip services to
> their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home at election time.
>
> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
> see that things are not going right for them.

Well, I have not had to step over any dead bodies lying in the streets
lately, so that is a good sign. I wonder why it is that all the rest of the
world wants to come to America if the working poor are so god damn poor!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 14 Aug 2007 19:08:51
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46bf91be$0$30102$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> "still me" wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
>>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but
>>>> inasmuch
>>>> as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
>>> Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
>>> So, running against him will work as a strategy.
>>>> I actually
>>>> consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit
>>>> short in
>>>> the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than
>>>> the last
>>>> two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
>>>> she will
>>>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
>>>> leftish
>>>> coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>>> She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
>>> with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
>>> loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>>>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
>>>> mean the
>>>> real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
>>>> cows, not
>>>> Chicago.
>>> They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
>>> don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
>>> Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
>>>> They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>>>> same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even
>>>> now there
>>>> aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades
>>>> the
>>>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England
>>>> liberals.
>>> Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
>>> that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have started
>> to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves economically by
>> voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid lip services to
>> their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home at election time.
>>
>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>> see that things are not going right for them.
>
> Well, I have not had to step over any dead bodies lying in the streets
> lately, so that is a good sign. I wonder why it is that all the rest of the
> world wants to come to America if the working poor are so god damn poor!

The US (and to lesser but still significant extent, Europe) has used its
military and economic power to increase poverty in countries primarily
inhabited by darker skinned people.

Do you notice many Western Europeans wanting to come to the US, besides
the odd laissez-faire capitalist? Despite a lower per capita GNP, the
lower and middle classes are much better off.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 15 Aug 2007 04:51:09
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46c237ff$0$5914$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>> message news:46bf91be$0$30102$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> "still me" wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
>>>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but
>>>>> inasmuch
>>>>> as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
>>>> Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
>>>> So, running against him will work as a strategy.
>>>>> I actually
>>>>> consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit
>>>>> short in
>>>>> the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than
>>>>> the last
>>>>> two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
>>>>> she will
>>>>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
>>>>> leftish
>>>>> coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>>>> She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
>>>> with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
>>>> loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>>>>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
>>>>> mean the
>>>>> real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
>>>>> cows, not
>>>>> Chicago.
>>>> They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
>>>> don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
>>>> Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
>>>>> They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>>>>> same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even
>>>>> now there
>>>>> aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades
>>>>> the
>>>>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England
>>>>> liberals.
>>>> Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
>>>> that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
>>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>>> started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>>> economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
>>> lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home
>>> at election time.
>>>
>>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>>> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>>> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>>> see that things are not going right for them.
>>
>> Well, I have not had to step over any dead bodies lying in the streets
>> lately, so that is a good sign. I wonder why it is that all the rest of
>> the world wants to come to America if the working poor are so god damn
>> poor!
>
> The US (and to lesser but still significant extent, Europe) has used its
> military and economic power to increase poverty in countries primarily
> inhabited by darker skinned people.

Total nonsense of course. They would be even worse off if it weren't for the
largess of the US.

> Do you notice many Western Europeans wanting to come to the US, besides
> the odd laissez-faire capitalist? Despite a lower per capita GNP, the
> lower and middle classes are much better off.

Mr. Sherman may have a point here I must admit. I think the US will
increasingly have to become more and more like Europe. I am not opposed to
the welfare state. In fact, I think it is inevitable as long as folks can
vote. But we must be careful not to kill off entrepreneurs. Neither Mr.
Sherman nor myself belong to that class, but they are essential for human
progress.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 13 Aug 2007 10:41:33
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46bf91be$0$30102$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> "still me" wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but
>>> inasmuch
>>> as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
>>
>> Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
>> So, running against him will work as a strategy.
>>> I actually
>>> consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit
>>> short in
>>> the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than
>>> the last
>>> two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
>>> she will
>>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
>>> leftish
>>> coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>>
>> She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
>> with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
>> loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
>>> mean the
>>> real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
>>> cows, not
>>> Chicago.
>>
>> They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
>> don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
>> Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
>>> They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>>> same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even
>>> now there
>>> aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades
>>> the
>>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England
>>> liberals.
>>
>> Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
>> that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
>
> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have started
> to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves economically by
> voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid lip services to
> their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home at election time.
>
> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
> see that things are not going right for them.
>
> --

Reality appears to be somewhat different from the way Johnny Sunset sees the
rich and the not so rich. The Third Way, a strategy group to advance the
progressive agenda, found the following based on the 2004 election:

"The report examined exit polling data from 2004 federal races and makes
five main findings:

� White middle income voters (who constitute one-third of the electorate),
delivered landslide margins to Republicans. The economic tipping point � the
income level at which whites were more likely to vote Republican than
Democrat � was $23,700, not far above the poverty level. Moreover, white
middle class and white wealthy class voters conferred the same towering
majorities to Republicans.

a.. Unlike other voters, blacks conferred overwhelming majorities to
Democrats, regardless of income level.
a.. A rapidly growing Hispanic middle class is leaving the Democratic
Party.
a.. With the exception of those with graduate degrees, education level
does not predict voting behavior. Education level predicts income, which
predicts voting behavior.
a.. The entrance of married women into the middle class led to a dramatic
increase in Republican support."
http://www.third-way.com/

Keats

P.S. On Topic portion of post. President Bush said he would vacation in
France if he could ride his Mountain Bike there.

Date: 13 Aug 2007 20:35:57
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

(not Tom) Keats wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46bf91be$0$30102$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> "still me" wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
>>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but
>>>> inasmuch
>>>> as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
>>> Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
>>> So, running against him will work as a strategy.
>>>> I actually
>>>> consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit
>>>> short in
>>>> the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than
>>>> the last
>>>> two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
>>>> she will
>>>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
>>>> leftish
>>>> coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>>> She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
>>> with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
>>> loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>>>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
>>>> mean the
>>>> real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
>>>> cows, not
>>>> Chicago.
>>> They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
>>> don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
>>> Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
>>>> They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>>>> same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even
>>>> now there
>>>> aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades
>>>> the
>>>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England
>>>> liberals.
>>> Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
>>> that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have started
>> to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves economically by
>> voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid lip services to
>> their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home at election time.
>>
>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>> see that things are not going right for them.
>>
>> --
>
>
> Reality appears to be somewhat different from the way Johnny Sunset sees the
> rich and the not so rich. The Third Way, a strategy group to advance the
> progressive agenda, found the following based on the 2004 election:
>
> "The report examined exit polling data from 2004 federal races and makes
> five main findings:

That is the PAST. I was referring to the FUTURE. If Hurricane Katrina
had happened a year earlier, we would likely have President Kerry,
despite the voting irregularities of the 2004 election.

> > � White middle income voters (who constitute one-third of the electorate),
> delivered landslide margins to Republicans. The economic tipping point � the
> income level at which whites were more likely to vote Republican than
> Democrat � was $23,700, not far above the poverty level. Moreover, white
> middle class and white wealthy class voters conferred the same towering
> majorities to Republicans.

The "southern strategy" of covert racism was still working then.

> a.. Unlike other voters, blacks conferred overwhelming majorities to
> Democrats, regardless of income level.

See above.

> a.. A rapidly growing Hispanic middle class is leaving the Democratic
> Party.
> a.. With the exception of those with graduate degrees, education level
> does not predict voting behavior. Education level predicts income, which
> predicts voting behavior.

So the ploy of "lower taxes" fooled a lot of people, who were mislead by
the corporate media into ignoring the greater cuts in government
provided benefits (of all types, including those that mostly benefit the
middle class).

> a.. The entrance of married women into the middle class led to a dramatic
> increase in Republican support."
> http://www.third-way.com/
>
> Keats
>
> P.S. On Topic portion of post. President Bush said he would vacation in
> France if he could ride his Mountain Bike there.

Pity the French. I can't understand why anyone would want to Bush to
visit, considering that it requires "locking down" huge areas.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 14 Aug 2007 02:17:54
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote in message
news:equdnST8te8f5l3bnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46bf91be$0$30102$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> "still me" wrote:
>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
>>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but
>>>> inasmuch
>>>> as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
>>>
>>> Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
>>> So, running against him will work as a strategy.
>>>> I actually
>>>> consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit
>>>> short in
>>>> the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than
>>>> the last
>>>> two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
>>>> she will
>>>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
>>>> leftish
>>>> coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>>>
>>> She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
>>> with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
>>> loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>>>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
>>>> mean the
>>>> real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
>>>> cows, not
>>>> Chicago.
>>>
>>> They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
>>> don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
>>> Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
>>>> They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>>>> same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even
>>>> now there
>>>> aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades
>>>> the
>>>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England
>>>> liberals.
>>>
>>> Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
>>> that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
>>
>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>> started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>> economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid lip
>> services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home at
>> election time.
>>
>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>> see that things are not going right for them.
>>
>> --
>
>
> Reality appears to be somewhat different from the way Johnny Sunset sees
> the rich and the not so rich. The Third Way, a strategy group to advance
> the progressive agenda, found the following based on the 2004 election:
>
> "The report examined exit polling data from 2004 federal races and makes
> five main findings:
>
> � White middle income voters (who constitute one-third of the electorate),
> delivered landslide margins to Republicans. The economic tipping point �
> the income level at which whites were more likely to vote Republican than
> Democrat � was $23,700, not far above the poverty level. Moreover, white
> middle class and white wealthy class voters conferred the same towering
> majorities to Republicans.
>
> a.. Unlike other voters, blacks conferred overwhelming majorities to
> Democrats, regardless of income level.
> a.. A rapidly growing Hispanic middle class is leaving the Democratic
> Party.
> a.. With the exception of those with graduate degrees, education level
> does not predict voting behavior. Education level predicts income, which
> predicts voting behavior.
> a.. The entrance of married women into the middle class led to a dramatic
> increase in Republican support."

The primary cause of poverty in this nation is due to unconstrained fucking,
especially by teenagers who are unmarried. These women (girls really) are
then stuck with babies and do not have a chance of ever being anything but
poor. This kind of behavior goes on from one generation to the next. Keeping
your legs closed until marriage would virtually solved the poverty problem
in America. Thus spake Zarathustra!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 14 Aug 2007 18:59:10
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:equdnST8te8f5l3bnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
>> news:46bf91be$0$30102$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> "still me" wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
>>>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will, but
>>>>> inasmuch
>>>>> as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
>>>> Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
>>>> So, running against him will work as a strategy.
>>>>> I actually
>>>>> consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a bit
>>>>> short in
>>>>> the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person than
>>>>> the last
>>>>> two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
>>>>> she will
>>>>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
>>>>> leftish
>>>>> coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>>>> She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
>>>> with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
>>>> loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>>>>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
>>>>> mean the
>>>>> real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
>>>>> cows, not
>>>>> Chicago.
>>>> They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
>>>> don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
>>>> Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
>>>>> They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>>>>> same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all. Even
>>>>> now there
>>>>> aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades
>>>>> the
>>>>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New England
>>>>> liberals.
>>>> Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
>>>> that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
>>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>>> started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>>> economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid lip
>>> services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home at
>>> election time.
>>>
>>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>>> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>>> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>>> see that things are not going right for them.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> Reality appears to be somewhat different from the way Johnny Sunset sees
>> the rich and the not so rich. The Third Way, a strategy group to advance
>> the progressive agenda, found the following based on the 2004 election:
>>
>> "The report examined exit polling data from 2004 federal races and makes
>> five main findings:
>>
>> � White middle income voters (who constitute one-third of the electorate),
>> delivered landslide margins to Republicans. The economic tipping point �
>> the income level at which whites were more likely to vote Republican than
>> Democrat � was $23,700, not far above the poverty level. Moreover, white
>> middle class and white wealthy class voters conferred the same towering
>> majorities to Republicans.
>>
>> a.. Unlike other voters, blacks conferred overwhelming majorities to
>> Democrats, regardless of income level.
>> a.. A rapidly growing Hispanic middle class is leaving the Democratic
>> Party.
>> a.. With the exception of those with graduate degrees, education level
>> does not predict voting behavior. Education level predicts income, which
>> predicts voting behavior.
>> a.. The entrance of married women into the middle class led to a dramatic
>> increase in Republican support."
>
> The primary cause of poverty in this nation is due to unconstrained fucking,
> especially by teenagers who are unmarried. These women (girls really) are
> then stuck with babies and do not have a chance of ever being anything but
> poor. This kind of behavior goes on from one generation to the next. Keeping
> your legs closed until marriage would virtually solved the poverty problem
> in America. Thus spake Zarathustra!

[Yawn]

Fighting biology is stupid. The much more sexually liberal Benelux and
Scandinavian countries have much lower rates of teen pregnancy and
venereal diseases than the US. All "abstinence based sex education" does
is insure teens will be ignorant of how to protect themselves when they
do have sex.

On the other hand, "abstinence based sex education" appeals to the
non-thinking social conservatives when presented in a 30-second sound
bite - the actual outcome of the policy be damned.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 15 Aug 2007 04:37:58
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46c235ba$0$24006$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:equdnST8te8f5l3bnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>> message news:46bf91be$0$30102$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>> "still me" wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:52:55 -0400, RonSonic
>>>>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will,
>>>>>> but inasmuch
>>>>>> as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be largely wasted.
>>>>> Most of that candidates on the Rep side endorse most of his positions.
>>>>> So, running against him will work as a strategy.
>>>>>> I actually
>>>>>> consider Hillary to be a significant and substantial candidate - a
>>>>>> bit short in
>>>>>> the personal charm department maybe but a far more serious person
>>>>>> than the last
>>>>>> two stuffed senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her
>>>>>> she will
>>>>>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
>>>>>> leftish
>>>>>> coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>>>>> She brings all of Bill's baggage with her. His positives only help
>>>>> with the core audience. She might gain some women's votes but she
>>>>> loses those who would never vote for a women. I think she's a loser.
>>>>>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
>>>>>> mean the
>>>>>> real midwest where they still have some factories and railyards and
>>>>>> cows, not
>>>>>> Chicago.
>>>>> They need a real Southerner. I don't think Hillary qualifies. They
>>>>> don't seem to understand that the South has finally gotten over it's
>>>>> Lincoln era "we're not Republicans" bias and now votes Republican.
>>>>>> They keep getting alliances with union officials and think that's the
>>>>>> same as having the union vote and it isn't the same thing at all.
>>>>>> Even now there
>>>>>> aren't enough government workers for that to succeed. Over the
>>>>>> decades the
>>>>>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New
>>>>>> England liberals.
>>>>> Or looking at it the other way - the Dem's haven't yet figured out
>>>>> that a Northern Liberal is not going to win. Advantage Republicans....
>>>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>>>> started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>>>> economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
>>>> lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home
>>>> at election time.
>>>>
>>>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>>>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic
>>>> agenda implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing
>>>> better. Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that
>>>> bleat the regressive economic case, people will still look at their own
>>>> lives and see that things are not going right for them.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Reality appears to be somewhat different from the way Johnny Sunset sees
>>> the rich and the not so rich. The Third Way, a strategy group to
>>> advance the progressive agenda, found the following based on the 2004
>>> election:
>>>
>>> "The report examined exit polling data from 2004 federal races and makes
>>> five main findings:
>>>
>>> � White middle income voters (who constitute one-third of the
>>> electorate), delivered landslide margins to Republicans. The economic
>>> tipping point � the income level at which whites were more likely to
>>> vote Republican than Democrat � was $23,700, not far above the poverty
>>> level. Moreover, white middle class and white wealthy class voters
>>> conferred the same towering majorities to Republicans.
>>>
>>> a.. Unlike other voters, blacks conferred overwhelming majorities to
>>> Democrats, regardless of income level.
>>> a.. A rapidly growing Hispanic middle class is leaving the Democratic
>>> Party.
>>> a.. With the exception of those with graduate degrees, education level
>>> does not predict voting behavior. Education level predicts income, which
>>> predicts voting behavior.
>>> a.. The entrance of married women into the middle class led to a
>>> dramatic increase in Republican support."
>>
>> The primary cause of poverty in this nation is due to unconstrained
>> fucking, especially by teenagers who are unmarried. These women (girls
>> really) are then stuck with babies and do not have a chance of ever being
>> anything but poor. This kind of behavior goes on from one generation to
>> the next. Keeping your legs closed until marriage would virtually solved
>> the poverty problem in America. Thus spake Zarathustra!
>
> [Yawn]
>
> Fighting biology is stupid. The much more sexually liberal Benelux and
> Scandinavian countries have much lower rates of teen pregnancy and
> venereal diseases than the US. All "abstinence based sex education" does
> is insure teens will be ignorant of how to protect themselves when they do
> have sex.

Northern Europe does not have all the colored trash that the US has. As to
biology, it is easy enough to see that if you are going to devote your life
to fucking, you are going to have lots of problems, not only for yourself,
but for your society. Is colored trash worse than white trash? I would say
so based on what I have seen on cable TV.

> On the other hand, "abstinence based sex education" appeals to the
> non-thinking social conservatives when presented in a 30-second sound
> bite - the actual outcome of the policy be damned.

Just keep your god damn pecker in your pants, you confounded idiot, and half
the problems in the world would be solved overnight.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 14 Aug 2007 08:52:40
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net > wrote in message
news:EsOdnZiPOc3RylzbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
news:equdnST8te8f5l3bnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>> message

>>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>>> started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>>> economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
>>> lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home
>>> at election time.
>>>
>>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>>> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>>> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>>> see that things are not going right for them.
>>>
>>> --
>>
>>
>> Reality appears to be somewhat different from the way Johnny Sunset sees
>> the rich and the not so rich. The Third Way, a strategy group to advance
>> the progressive agenda, found the following based on the 2004 election:
>>
>> "The report examined exit polling data from 2004 federal races and makes
>> five main findings:
>>
>> . White middle income voters (who constitute one-third of the
>> electorate), delivered landslide margins to Republicans. The economic
>> tipping point - the income level at which whites were more likely to vote
>> Republican than Democrat - was $23,700, not far above the poverty level.
>> Moreover, white middle class and white wealthy class voters conferred the
>> same towering majorities to Republicans.
>>
>> a.. Unlike other voters, blacks conferred overwhelming majorities to
>> Democrats, regardless of income level.
>> a.. A rapidly growing Hispanic middle class is leaving the Democratic
>> Party.
>> a.. With the exception of those with graduate degrees, education level
>> does not predict voting behavior. Education level predicts income, which
>> predicts voting behavior.
>> a.. The entrance of married women into the middle class led to a
>> dramatic increase in Republican support."
>
> The primary cause of poverty in this nation is due to unconstrained
> fucking, especially by teenagers who are unmarried. These women (girls
> really) are then stuck with babies and do not have a chance of ever being
> anything but poor. This kind of behavior goes on from one generation to
> the next. Keeping your legs closed until marriage would virtually solved
> the poverty problem in America. Thus spake Zarathustra!
>

Others, EXCULDING, of course, the likes of Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Left
Secular Progressives, many democrats, and other assorted poverity pimps,
have said pretty much the same thing. Here's how Walter Williams,
syndicated columnist and Professor of Economics at George Mason University,
put it:

"Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high
school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married.
Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum
wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate
from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our country
there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education
program available to increase your skills.
Statistically this is true. Obviously avoiding poverty are choices best
made early in life. Obviously, you can't let yourself be sucked into
victimhood by those whose self interest it is to have you in poverty so they
can be your poverty pimp, or have you in their voter constituency, or just
feel good about themselves such as some social workers and other non-
helpful do-gooders. The choices to not be poor come easy and natural for
most people brought up in a non-poverty family, but if you are born into
poverty you will most likely need outside influence to get you off the
poverty track in as much as there are powerful forces working from within
to keep you in place.

Keats

Date: 14 Aug 2007 19:02:11
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

(not Tom) Keats wrote:
> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
> news:EsOdnZiPOc3RylzbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
> news:equdnST8te8f5l3bnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>> message
>
>>>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>>>> started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>>>> economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
>>>> lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home
>>>> at election time.
>>>>
>>>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>>>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>>>> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>>>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>>>> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>>>> see that things are not going right for them.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> Reality appears to be somewhat different from the way Johnny Sunset sees
>>> the rich and the not so rich. The Third Way, a strategy group to advance
>>> the progressive agenda, found the following based on the 2004 election:
>>>
>>> "The report examined exit polling data from 2004 federal races and makes
>>> five main findings:
>>>
>>> . White middle income voters (who constitute one-third of the
>>> electorate), delivered landslide margins to Republicans. The economic
>>> tipping point - the income level at which whites were more likely to vote
>>> Republican than Democrat - was $23,700, not far above the poverty level.
>>> Moreover, white middle class and white wealthy class voters conferred the
>>> same towering majorities to Republicans.
>>>
>>> a.. Unlike other voters, blacks conferred overwhelming majorities to
>>> Democrats, regardless of income level.
>>> a.. A rapidly growing Hispanic middle class is leaving the Democratic
>>> Party.
>>> a.. With the exception of those with graduate degrees, education level
>>> does not predict voting behavior. Education level predicts income, which
>>> predicts voting behavior.
>>> a.. The entrance of married women into the middle class led to a
>>> dramatic increase in Republican support."
>> The primary cause of poverty in this nation is due to unconstrained
>> fucking, especially by teenagers who are unmarried. These women (girls
>> really) are then stuck with babies and do not have a chance of ever being
>> anything but poor. This kind of behavior goes on from one generation to
>> the next. Keeping your legs closed until marriage would virtually solved
>> the poverty problem in America. Thus spake Zarathustra!
>>
>
> Others, EXCULDING, of course, the likes of Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton, Left
> Secular Progressives, many democrats, and other assorted poverity pimps,
> have said pretty much the same thing. Here's how Walter Williams,
> syndicated columnist and Professor of Economics at George Mason University,
> put it:
>
> "Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high
> school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married.
> Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum
> wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate
> from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our country
> there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education
> program available to increase your skills.
> Statistically this is true. Obviously avoiding poverty are choices best
> made early in life. Obviously, you can't let yourself be sucked into
> victimhood by those whose self interest it is to have you in poverty so they
> can be your poverty pimp, or have you in their voter constituency, or just
> feel good about themselves such as some social workers and other non-
> helpful do-gooders. The choices to not be poor come easy and natural for
> most people brought up in a non-poverty family, but if you are born into
> poverty you will most likely need outside influence to get you off the
> poverty track in as much as there are powerful forces working from within
> to keep you in place.

Another person who obviously knows no inner city black people and
therefore has no understanding of how the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow
has produced a dysfunctional culture.

Rich white people created the problem, then they turn around and blame
the victims.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 15 Aug 2007 04:24:09
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46c2366e$0$24006$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> (not Tom) Keats wrote:
>> "Edward Dolan" <edolan@iw.net> wrote in message
>> news:EsOdnZiPOc3RylzbnZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@prairiewave.com...
>> news:equdnST8te8f5l3bnZ2dnUVZ_g2dnZ2d@comcast.com...
>>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>>> message
>>
>>>>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>>>>> started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>>>>> economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
>>>>> lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home
>>>>> at election time.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>>>>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic
>>>>> agenda implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing
>>>>> better. Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that
>>>>> bleat the regressive economic case, people will still look at their
>>>>> own lives and see that things are not going right for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> Reality appears to be somewhat different from the way Johnny Sunset
>>>> sees the rich and the not so rich. The Third Way, a strategy group to
>>>> advance the progressive agenda, found the following based on the 2004
>>>> election:
>>>>
>>>> "The report examined exit polling data from 2004 federal races and
>>>> makes five main findings:
>>>>
>>>> . White middle income voters (who constitute one-third of the
>>>> electorate), delivered landslide margins to Republicans. The economic
>>>> tipping point - the income level at which whites were more likely to
>>>> vote Republican than Democrat - was $23,700, not far above the poverty
>>>> level. Moreover, white middle class and white wealthy class voters
>>>> conferred the same towering majorities to Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> a.. Unlike other voters, blacks conferred overwhelming majorities to
>>>> Democrats, regardless of income level.
>>>> a.. A rapidly growing Hispanic middle class is leaving the Democratic
>>>> Party.
>>>> a.. With the exception of those with graduate degrees, education level
>>>> does not predict voting behavior. Education level predicts income,
>>>> which predicts voting behavior.
>>>> a.. The entrance of married women into the middle class led to a
>>>> dramatic increase in Republican support."
>>> The primary cause of poverty in this nation is due to unconstrained
>>> fucking, especially by teenagers who are unmarried. These women (girls
>>> really) are then stuck with babies and do not have a chance of ever
>>> being anything but poor. This kind of behavior goes on from one
>>> generation to the next. Keeping your legs closed until marriage would
>>> virtually solved the poverty problem in America. Thus spake Zarathustra!
>>>
>>
>> Others, EXCULDING, of course, the likes of Jessie Jackson, Al Sharpton,
>> Left Secular Progressives, many democrats, and other assorted poverity
>> pimps, have said pretty much the same thing. Here's how Walter
>> Williams, syndicated columnist and Professor of Economics at George Mason
>> University, put it:
>>
>> "Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from
>> high school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay
>> married. Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying
>> the minimum wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If
>> you graduate from high school today with a B or C average, in most places
>> in our country there's a low-cost or financially assisted
>> post-high-school education program available to increase your skills.
>> Statistically this is true. Obviously avoiding poverty are choices best
>> made early in life. Obviously, you can't let yourself be sucked into
>> victimhood by those whose self interest it is to have you in poverty so
>> they can be your poverty pimp, or have you in their voter constituency,
>> or just feel good about themselves such as some social workers and other
>> non- helpful do-gooders. The choices to not be poor come easy and
>> natural for most people brought up in a non-poverty family, but if you
>> are born into poverty you will most likely need outside influence to get
>> you off the poverty track in as much as there are powerful forces working
>> from within to keep you in place.
>
> Another person who obviously knows no inner city black people and
> therefore has no understanding of how the legacy of slavery and Jim Crow
> has produced a dysfunctional culture.

That is all ancient history, you confounded idiot! Black People? Fuck 'em I
say!

> Rich white people created the problem, then they turn around and blame the
> victims.

Blame the perpetrators why don't you! And if they happen to be Black, then
so much the better. Most of them are nothing but god damn criminals who
would be better off dead! I say fuck 'em!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 15 Aug 2007 19:52:07
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> ...
> That is all ancient history, you confounded idiot! Black People? Fuck 'em I
> say!...

Not that Mr. Ed would get so lucky.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 15 Aug 2007 03:45:34
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:52:40 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote:

>"Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from high
>school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married.
>Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the minimum
>wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate
>from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our country
>there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education
>program available to increase your skills.

>Statistically this is true. Obviously avoiding poverty are choices best
>made early in life. Obviously, you can't let yourself be sucked into
>victimhood by those whose self interest it is to have you in poverty so they
>can be your poverty pimp, or have you in their voter constituency, or just
>feel good about themselves such as some social workers and other non-
>helpful do-gooders. The choices to not be poor come easy and natural for
>most people brought up in a non-poverty family, but if you are born into
>poverty you will most likely need outside influence to get you off the
>poverty track in as much as there are powerful forces working from within
>to keep you in place.

Nice theory, but it doesn't wash. I'm no fan of endless, wasteful
social programs, but the very people promoting the financial
assistance programs you cite are the Democrats - who you accuse of
having some farfetched conspiracy to keep people in poverty.

Logic just defeated you.

Date: 14 Aug 2007 23:51:41
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:njt4c3l67efodrocmdepqqcnolpla4i96d@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 08:52:40 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>"Avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science. First, graduate from
>>high
>>school. Second, get married before you have children, and stay married.
>>Third, work at any kind of job, even one that starts out paying the
>>minimum
>>wage. And, finally, avoid engaging in criminal behavior. If you graduate
>>from high school today with a B or C average, in most places in our
>>country
>>there's a low-cost or financially assisted post-high-school education
>>program available to increase your skills.
>
>>Statistically this is true. Obviously avoiding poverty are choices best
>>made early in life. Obviously, you can't let yourself be sucked into
>>victimhood by those whose self interest it is to have you in poverty so
>>they
>>can be your poverty pimp, or have you in their voter constituency, or
>>just
>>feel good about themselves such as some social workers and other non-
>>helpful do-gooders. The choices to not be poor come easy and natural for
>>most people brought up in a non-poverty family, but if you are born into
>>poverty you will most likely need outside influence to get you off the
>>poverty track in as much as there are powerful forces working from within
>>to keep you in place.
>
> Nice theory, but it doesn't wash. I'm no fan of endless, wasteful
> social programs, but the very people promoting the financial
> assistance programs you cite are the Democrats - who you accuse of
> having some farfetched conspiracy to keep people in poverty.
>
> Logic just defeated you.

Can you point me to any congressional democrat promoting the Bush
administration's Department of Education? Most of them seem to be like
you - never uttering a positive word.

As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science.
Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and stay
married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal. Nothing
too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and I'll
show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this language
isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.

Keats

Date: 15 Aug 2007 13:34:05
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:51:41 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote:

>Can you point me to any congressional democrat promoting the Bush
>administration's Department of Education? Most of them seem to be like
>you - never uttering a positive word.

Don't assume people are Democrats just because they can objectively
recognize that Bush is a neo fascist, neo con moron puppet without a
clue who has caused great harm to the USA that will take decades to
repair.

I haven't seen any talk from either party about education. Bush has
his "no child left behind" but I haven't seem anyone except him hyping
that. In addition, the only hype I've seen out of that is the
ill-designed concept of standardized testing. That just leads to
standardized education and teaching to the test. The fact that some
urban school systems are failing should not be used to penalize and
handicap suburban school systems that work - but that's the effect of
standardized testing.

>As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science.
>Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and stay
>married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal. Nothing
>too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and I'll
>show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this language
>isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.

You left out the part about "take a job, any job, at minimum wage"
(paraphrased) from your earlier post. That is a prescription for life
long poverty.

Date: 16 Aug 2007 11:13:56
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:7av5c354llerh6joqnrsdd9p6f4tc42ukd@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:51:41 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Can you point me to any congressional democrat promoting the Bush
>>administration's Department of Education? Most of them seem to be like
>>you - never uttering a positive word.
>
> Don't assume people are Democrats just because they can objectively
> recognize that Bush is a neo fascist, neo con moron puppet without a
> clue who has caused great harm to the USA that will take decades to
> repair.
>
> I haven't seen any talk from either party about education. Bush has
> his "no child left behind" but I haven't seem anyone except him hyping
> that. In addition, the only hype I've seen out of that is the
> ill-designed concept of standardized testing. That just leads to
> standardized education and teaching to the test. The fact that some
> urban school systems are failing should not be used to penalize and
> handicap suburban school systems that work - but that's the effect of
> standardized testing.

Why do I have the strong feeling that you belong to a teachers union?

>>As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science.
>>Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and stay
>>married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal.
>>Nothing
>>too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and
>>I'll
>>show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this language
>>isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.

>
> You left out the part about "take a job, any job, at minimum wage"
> (paraphrased) from your earlier post. That is a prescription for life
> long poverty.
>

I didn't know that a kid taking a minimum wage job also got a prescription
for life long poverty, but that could certainly explain why democrats and
other liberals are so determined to perpetuate the minimum wage system.

Date: 17 Aug 2007 03:55:24
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:13:56 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote:

>> I haven't seen any talk from either party about education. Bush has
>> his "no child left behind" but I haven't seem anyone except him hyping
>> that. In addition, the only hype I've seen out of that is the
>> ill-designed concept of standardized testing. That just leads to
>> standardized education and teaching to the test. The fact that some
>> urban school systems are failing should not be used to penalize and
>> handicap suburban school systems that work - but that's the effect of
>> standardized testing.
>
>
>Why do I have the strong feeling that you belong to a teachers union?

The only logical answer to that question is "because you don't have a
clue".

FWIW, I'm none too fond of unions in general or the teachers union in
particular. More importantly, it's obvious that you haven't seen the
hands-on effect of what happens when the state starts dictating
universal tests. It leads directly to state dictated curriculum, a
horrible idea. It ruins good schools that were doing their job, and it
doesn't make any difference in the schools that weren't doing their
job.

>>>As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science.
>>>Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and stay
>>>married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal.
>>>Nothing
>>>too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and
>>>I'll
>>>show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this language
>>>isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.
>
>
>>
>> You left out the part about "take a job, any job, at minimum wage"
>> (paraphrased) from your earlier post. That is a prescription for life
>> long poverty.
>>
>
>I didn't know that a kid taking a minimum wage job also got a prescription
>for life long poverty, but that could certainly explain why democrats and
>other liberals are so determined to perpetuate the minimum wage system.

Your quote doesn't apply that phrase to "kids".

Date: 17 Aug 2007 00:47:56
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:ma6ac3t5e3uv3dg395pt6i2g473km61eov@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:13:56 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>
>>> I haven't seen any talk from either party about education. Bush has
>>> his "no child left behind" but I haven't seem anyone except him hyping
>>> that. In addition, the only hype I've seen out of that is the
>>> ill-designed concept of standardized testing. That just leads to
>>> standardized education and teaching to the test. The fact that some
>>> urban school systems are failing should not be used to penalize and
>>> handicap suburban school systems that work - but that's the effect of
>>> standardized testing.
>>
>>
>>Why do I have the strong feeling that you belong to a teachers union?
>
> The only logical answer to that question is "because you don't have a
> clue".

The only clues I have are the ones you supply. And as far as logic goes I'm
not so sure you've got a clue.

>
> FWIW, I'm none too fond of unions in general or the teachers union in
> particular. More importantly, it's obvious that you haven't seen the
> hands-on effect of what happens when the state starts dictating
> universal tests. It leads directly to state dictated curriculum, a
> horrible idea. It ruins good schools that were doing their job, and it
> doesn't make any difference in the schools that weren't doing their
> job.
>
>>>>As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket
>>>>science.
>>>>Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and
>>>>stay
>>>>married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal.
>>>>Nothing
>>>>too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and
>>>>I'll
>>>>show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this
>>>>language
>>>>isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> You left out the part about "take a job, any job, at minimum wage"
>>> (paraphrased) from your earlier post. That is a prescription for life
>>> long poverty.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't know that a kid taking a minimum wage job also got a prescription
>>for life long poverty, but that could certainly explain why democrats and
>>other liberals are so determined to perpetuate the minimum wage system.
>
> Your quote doesn't apply that phrase to "kids".

Ok, so the quote was all inclusive and did include kids, young people,
middle aged people, older people, seniors, black people, white people,
yellow people, red people, brown people, pink people, fit people, unfit
people, average people, below average people, above average
people.............I could go on and on with this but maybe, just maybe
you've managed to get the idea.

So how does that change anything?

Keats (as Dr. Phil might say - I'm stupefied by this guest)

Date: 18 Aug 2007 07:20:52
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 00:47:56 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote:

>> The only logical answer to that question is "because you don't have a
>> clue".
>
>
>The only clues I have are the ones you supply. And as far as logic goes I'm
>not so sure you've got a clue.

Nice attempt to dodge your erroneous assumption based on your
ideological bias.

>>
>> Your quote doesn't apply that phrase to "kids".
>
>Ok, so the quote was all inclusive and did include kids, young people,
>middle aged people, older people, seniors, black people, white people,
>yellow people, red people, brown people, pink people, fit people, unfit
>people, average people, below average people, above average
>people.............I could go on and on with this but maybe, just maybe
>you've managed to get the idea.
>
>So how does that change anything?

Because taking a minimum wage job is a loser tactic guaranteed to
preserve your poverty, not change it.

Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:53:10
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:7av5c354llerh6joqnrsdd9p6f4tc42ukd@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 14 Aug 2007 23:51:41 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>Can you point me to any congressional democrat promoting the Bush
>>administration's Department of Education? Most of them seem to be like
>>you - never uttering a positive word.
>
> Don't assume people are Democrats just because they can objectively
> recognize that Bush is a neo fascist, neo con moron puppet without a
> clue who has caused great harm to the USA that will take decades to
> repair.

Still Me is nothing but a name caller. Just how pathetic can you get!

> I haven't seen any talk from either party about education. Bush has
> his "no child left behind" but I haven't seem anyone except him hyping
> that. In addition, the only hype I've seen out of that is the
> ill-designed concept of standardized testing. That just leads to
> standardized education and teaching to the test. The fact that some
> urban school systems are failing should not be used to penalize and
> handicap suburban school systems that work - but that's the effect of
> standardized testing.

We are spending a fortune on public education K-12 in this country and
getting damn little in return. We badly need private schools to compete with
the public schools. Vouchers are the only way to go.

>>As Walter Williams said avoiding long-term poverty is not rocket science.
>>Graduate from high school. Get married before you have children and stay
>>married. Get a job and increase your skills. Don't be a criminal.
>>Nothing
>>too complicated there, eh? Find me a democrat saying these things and
>>I'll
>>show you a extraordinarily good democrat. But unfortunately this language
>>isn't part of their talking points or of your own thoughts and speech.
>
> You left out the part about "take a job, any job, at minimum wage"
> (paraphrased) from your earlier post. That is a prescription for life
> long poverty.

Nope, it is merely a start on the ladder. Only a fucking idiot like you
would not know this.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 13 Aug 2007 13:20:53
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:55:01 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote:

>On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
>lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home
>at election time.

But they're easily fooled. As soon as the Rep's start their rhetoric
machine, the common man starts sucking it up. I give credit to the
Republicans for pushing this strategy over decades - the real rich get
richer and richer, the middle man gets a farthing. But, the people
keep sucking it up.

>The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>see that things are not going right for them.

I don't think "the people" are all that sharp. They typically ignore
the facts (since they never read and they live on sound bites) and
listen to the noise from the pols. At certain times they reach
overload and react, but I don't know if we've reached that point.

Date: 14 Aug 2007 01:56:09
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:bol0c31cp9i23s76gbl5bn84qn6orfndkl@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:55:01 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote:
>
>>On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>>started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>>economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
>>lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home
>>at election time.
>
> But they're easily fooled. As soon as the Rep's start their rhetoric
> machine, the common man starts sucking it up. I give credit to the
> Republicans for pushing this strategy over decades - the real rich get
> richer and richer, the middle man gets a farthing. But, the people
> keep sucking it up.
>
>>The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>>national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>>implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>>Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>>regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>>see that things are not going right for them.
>
> I don't think "the people" are all that sharp. They typically ignore
> the facts (since they never read and they live on sound bites) and
> listen to the noise from the pols. At certain times they reach
> overload and react, but I don't know if we've reached that point.

Has it ever occurred to you that we get the government that we deserve?

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 14 Aug 2007 18:54:13
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:bol0c31cp9i23s76gbl5bn84qn6orfndkl@4ax.com...
>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:55:01 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>> <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>>> started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>>> economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
>>> lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay home
>>> at election time.
>> But they're easily fooled. As soon as the Rep's start their rhetoric
>> machine, the common man starts sucking it up. I give credit to the
>> Republicans for pushing this strategy over decades - the real rich get
>> richer and richer, the middle man gets a farthing. But, the people
>> keep sucking it up.
>>
>>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic agenda
>>> implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are doing better.
>>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits that bleat the
>>> regressive economic case, people will still look at their own lives and
>>> see that things are not going right for them.
>> I don't think "the people" are all that sharp. They typically ignore
>> the facts (since they never read and they live on sound bites) and
>> listen to the noise from the pols. At certain times they reach
>> overload and react, but I don't know if we've reached that point.
>
> Has it ever occurred to you that we get the government that we deserve?

Wow! Ed Dolan is actually right about something.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 13 Aug 2007 07:53:30
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

still me wrote:
> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:55:01 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
> <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote:
>
>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>> started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>> economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
>> lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay
>> home at election time.
>
> But they're easily fooled. As soon as the Rep's start their rhetoric
> machine, the common man starts sucking it up. I give credit to the
> Republicans for pushing this strategy over decades - the real rich get
> richer and richer, the middle man gets a farthing. But, the people
> keep sucking it up.

As usual you have it exactly backwards. The "common man" as you call it
falls for the Dem's rhetoric -- and has over decades -- leading to dependent
places like New Orleans and impoverished inner cities. They are virtually
ALL run by Democrats, and have been for generations.

How well are they working?

>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic
>> agenda implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are
>> doing better. Even though the corporate media is dominated by
>> pundits that bleat the regressive economic case, people will still
>> look at their own lives and see that things are not going right for
>> them.
>
> I don't think "the people" are all that sharp. They typically ignore
> the facts (since they never read and they live on sound bites) and
> listen to the noise from the pols. At certain times they reach
> overload and react, but I don't know if we've reached that point.

When people won't leave their houses to escape hurricanes unless the
government shows up and walks 'em out -- or use millions of available
dollars to FIX THINGS instead of start "programs" -- you might be
right...but not in the way you think.

Date: 13 Aug 2007 20:19:02
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Bill Sornson wrote:
> still me wrote:
>> On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 18:55:01 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
>> <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On the other hand, maybe many of the blue collar evangelicals have
>>> started to figure out that not only are they screwing themselves
>>> economically by voting Republican, but the Republicans have only paid
>>> lip services to their social agenda. They may just decide to stay
>>> home at election time.
>> But they're easily fooled. As soon as the Rep's start their rhetoric
>> machine, the common man starts sucking it up. I give credit to the
>> Republicans for pushing this strategy over decades - the real rich get
>> richer and richer, the middle man gets a farthing. But, the people
>> keep sucking it up.
>
> As usual you have it exactly backwards. The "common man" as you call it
> falls for the Dem's rhetoric -- and has over decades -- leading to dependent
> places like New Orleans and impoverished inner cities. They are virtually
> ALL run by Democrats, and have been for generations.
>
> How well are they working?

Ever hear of "white flight", "redlining" and job discrimination? The
concentration of poor blacks in the inner cities is a creation of
privileged whites.

>>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic
>>> agenda implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are
>>> doing better. Even though the corporate media is dominated by
>>> pundits that bleat the regressive economic case, people will still
>>> look at their own lives and see that things are not going right for
>>> them.
>> I don't think "the people" are all that sharp. They typically ignore
>> the facts (since they never read and they live on sound bites) and
>> listen to the noise from the pols. At certain times they reach
>> overload and react, but I don't know if we've reached that point.
>
> When people won't leave their houses to escape hurricanes unless the
> government shows up and walks 'em out -- or use millions of available
> dollars to FIX THINGS instead of start "programs" -- you might be
> right...but not in the way you think.

What about when the local government uses weapons to keep black people
from crossing a bridge to get away from the natural disaster?

Hint: A lot of these people did not have private motor vehicles to leave in.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 14 Aug 2007 09:46:49
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

> What about when the local government uses weapons to keep black people
> from crossing a bridge to get away from the natural disaster?

Key word: LOCAL government. (The same one that had many hundreds of buses
that never got used.)

> Hint: A lot of these people did not have private motor vehicles to
> leave in.

There were days' warnings, if only Nagin had acted.

The worse thing that happened was that it APPEARED to not be so bad at
first. Everyone let down their guard, thinking they had dodged a bullet.
(Hell, Bourbon Street was biz as usual the day after.) THEN the levees gave
way and the waters rose.

The whole thing was a cluster-quack.

Date: 13 Aug 2007 22:47:09
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:53:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>As usual you have it exactly backwards. The "common man" as you call it
>falls for the Dem's rhetoric -- and has over decades -- leading to dependent
>places like New Orleans and impoverished inner cities. They are virtually
>ALL run by Democrats, and have been for generations.

Backwards? Why, because it doesn't agree with your ideological
infatuation and you refuse to take an objective look at the issue?

First, I think of the common man as a Joe Walsh's Ordinary Average
Guy. You're referencing the low income urban guy. The Dem's get them
because they sponsor all sorts of programs for them. The Dem's
actually care - the definition of bleeding heart.

The Republicans play it another way, throwing little tidbits and
rhetoric to the Ordinary Average Guy while reaping huge benefits for
the super rich. The Republicans play it much better.

>How well are they working?

Has nothing to do with this thread.

>When people won't leave their houses to escape hurricanes unless the
>government shows up and walks 'em out -- or use millions of available
>dollars to FIX THINGS instead of start "programs" -- you might be
>right...but not in the way you think.
>

"I won't leave my home unless forced to" is NOT a party specific
concept.

You really come across as a social class bigot.

Date: 14 Aug 2007 02:06:19
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:kjm1c31uh6rv1l4815j8nkjbesuemm52tq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:53:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>
>>As usual you have it exactly backwards. The "common man" as you call it
>>falls for the Dem's rhetoric -- and has over decades -- leading to
>>dependent
>>places like New Orleans and impoverished inner cities. They are virtually
>>ALL run by Democrats, and have been for generations.
>
> Backwards? Why, because it doesn't agree with your ideological
> infatuation and you refuse to take an objective look at the issue?
>
> First, I think of the common man as a Joe Walsh's Ordinary Average
> Guy. You're referencing the low income urban guy. The Dem's get them
> because they sponsor all sorts of programs for them. The Dem's
> actually care - the definition of bleeding heart.

Many thanks for the good laugh Still Me! The Dems do not care at all about
the poor. Hells Bells, they want to keep them poor forever so they can
establish their welfare state, over which they will preside forever of
course.

> The Republicans play it another way, throwing little tidbits and
> rhetoric to the Ordinary Average Guy while reaping huge benefits for
> the super rich. The Republicans play it much better.
>
>>How well are they working?
>
> Has nothing to do with this thread.
>
>>When people won't leave their houses to escape hurricanes unless the
>>government shows up and walks 'em out -- or use millions of available
>>dollars to FIX THINGS instead of start "programs" -- you might be
>>right...but not in the way you think.
>>
>
> "I won't leave my home unless forced to" is NOT a party specific
> concept.
>
> You really come across as a social class bigot.

You come across as one of the greatest idiots ever to infest Usenet.
Congratulations as these groups are rife with idiots who are almost your
equal, but not quite.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 13 Aug 2007 17:33:23
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

still clueless wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:53:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote (about WHAT???):

>> As usual you have it exactly backwards. The "common man" as you
>> call it falls for the Dem's rhetoric -- and has over decades --
>> leading to dependent places like New Orleans and impoverished inner
>> cities. They are virtually ALL run by Democrats, and have been for
>> generations.

> Backwards? Why, because it doesn't agree with your ideological
> infatuation and you refuse to take an objective look at the issue?

That why you DELETED what you wrote?!? LOL

> First, I think of the common man as a Joe Walsh's Ordinary Average
> Guy. You're referencing the low income urban guy. The Dem's get them
> because they sponsor all sorts of programs for them. The Dem's
> actually care - the definition of bleeding heart.

Bullshit. The Dems keep power ($) by leeping people down (dependent). Get
a clue.

> The Republicans play it another way, throwing little tidbits and
> rhetoric to the Ordinary Average Guy while reaping huge benefits for
> the super rich. The Republicans play it much better.

Delusional.

>> How well are they working?

> Has nothing to do with this thread.

Not the way YOU quote! LOL (Hint: this went with the paragraph about
cities way above. HTH.)

>> When people won't leave their houses to escape hurricanes unless the
>> government shows up and walks 'em out -- or use millions of available
>> dollars to FIX THINGS instead of start "programs" -- you might be
>> right...but not in the way you think.

> "I won't leave my home unless forced to" is NOT a party specific
> concept.

But...but...it was all GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT! Get a clue. (Also ask Mayor
"This Will Be A Chocolate City" why the hell hundreds of N.O. school buses
were left on a lot instead of getting people the hell out of harm's way.)

> You really come across as a social class bigot.

Just ask yourself how well "your way" is working in places like New Orleans.
Dependency ain't cutting it; time to try empowerment based on personal
responsibility coupled with opportunity. Only one problem with that: Dems
will not keep getting elected if this occurs.

Get a clue.

Date: 15 Aug 2007 03:59:35
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:33:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:

>> You really come across as a social class bigot.
>
>Just ask yourself how well "your way" is working in places like New Orleans.
>Dependency ain't cutting it; time to try empowerment based on personal
>responsibility coupled with opportunity. Only one problem with that: Dems
>will not keep getting elected if this occurs.
>
>Get a clue.

I have a clue. Your first problem is that you assume anyone who
opposes that a-hole of a President and his crony neo-con fascists who
are selling us down a river is a Democrat. Your second problem is that
you are the definition of the brainwashed masses that the neo's are
pulling along like lemmings.

I'd tell you about your third problem but the second one is already
preventing you from recognizing the first, so there's little point to
continuing.

Date: 14 Aug 2007 23:02:34
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

still me? wrote:
> ...
> I'd tell you about your third problem but the second one is already
> preventing you from recognizing the first, so there's little point to
> continuing.

butbutbut, the rest of us are curious!

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
"I didn't expect a kind of Spanish Inquisition"

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 14 Aug 2007 21:47:53
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

still me wrote:
> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 17:33:23 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>>> You really come across as a social class bigot.
>>
>> Just ask yourself how well "your way" is working in places like New
>> Orleans. Dependency ain't cutting it; time to try empowerment based
>> on personal responsibility coupled with opportunity. Only one
>> problem with that: Dems will not keep getting elected if this
>> occurs.
>>
>> Get a clue.
>
> I have a clue. Your first problem is that you assume anyone who
> opposes that a-hole of a President and his crony neo-con fascists who
> are selling us down a river is a Democrat. Your second problem is that
> you are the definition of the brainwashed masses that the neo's are
> pulling along like lemmings.
>
> I'd tell you about your third problem but the second one is already
> preventing you from recognizing the first, so there's little point to
> continuing.

Nonsequitur much? LOL

Bill "oh, and Flogger wants to know who you really are" S.

Date: 13 Aug 2007 20:25:06
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Bill Sornson wrote:
> still clueless wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 Aug 2007 07:53:30 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote (about WHAT???):
>
>
>>> As usual you have it exactly backwards. The "common man" as you
>>> call it falls for the Dem's rhetoric -- and has over decades --
>>> leading to dependent places like New Orleans and impoverished inner
>>> cities. They are virtually ALL run by Democrats, and have been for
>>> generations.
>
>> Backwards? Why, because it doesn't agree with your ideological
>> infatuation and you refuse to take an objective look at the issue?
>
> That why you DELETED what you wrote?!? LOL
>
>> First, I think of the common man as a Joe Walsh's Ordinary Average
>> Guy. You're referencing the low income urban guy. The Dem's get them
>> because they sponsor all sorts of programs for them. The Dem's
>> actually care - the definition of bleeding heart.
>
> Bullshit. The Dems keep power ($) by leeping people down (dependent). Get
> a clue.
>
>> The Republicans play it another way, throwing little tidbits and
>> rhetoric to the Ordinary Average Guy while reaping huge benefits for
>> the super rich. The Republicans play it much better.
>
> Delusional.
>
>>> How well are they working?
>
>> Has nothing to do with this thread.
>
> Not the way YOU quote! LOL (Hint: this went with the paragraph about
> cities way above. HTH.)
>
>>> When people won't leave their houses to escape hurricanes unless the
>>> government shows up and walks 'em out -- or use millions of available
>>> dollars to FIX THINGS instead of start "programs" -- you might be
>>> right...but not in the way you think.
>
>> "I won't leave my home unless forced to" is NOT a party specific
>> concept.
>
> But...but...it was all GEORGE BUSH'S FAULT! Get a clue. (Also ask Mayor
> "This Will Be A Chocolate City" why the hell hundreds of N.O. school buses
> were left on a lot instead of getting people the hell out of harm's way.)
>
>> You really come across as a social class bigot.
>
> Just ask yourself how well "your way" is working in places like New Orleans.
> Dependency ain't cutting it; time to try empowerment based on personal
> responsibility coupled with opportunity. Only one problem with that: Dems
> will not keep getting elected if this occurs.
>
> Get a clue.

Good advice there. The opportunity for a poor black child is NOT the
same as that of an upper class white child. Anyone that thinks so is
truly clueless.

The opportunity for "mut people" is not much better, with decreasing
support for decent public schools, early childhood education,
development and health care, decreasing wages and increasing college
tuition.

--
Tom "mut person" Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 15 Aug 2007 05:40:14
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46c0f85b$0$16378$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
[...]
> Good advice there. The opportunity for a poor black child is NOT the same
> as that of an upper class white child. Anyone that thinks so is truly
> clueless.

And that is as it shoud be. After all, why should not one's parents and
one's
grandparents confer privilege. It behooves one to be wellborn.

> The opportunity for "mut people" is not much better, with decreasing
> support for decent public schools, early childhood education, development
> and health care, decreasing wages and increasing college tuition.

Screw it! Let the poor and downtrodden do something to lift themselves up.
Instead, they mainly engage in fucking, drugs and criminality.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 12 Aug 2007 18:35:13
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:

> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic
> agenda implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are
> doing better.

You love just making up stuff, doncha? (Whattsa matter, your Google broke
or something?!?)

> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits
> that bleat the regressive economic case, people will still look at
> their own lives and see that things are not going right for them.

Record high home ownership, record low unemployment, high consumer
confidence, low inflation... Darn those pesky facts!

> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> �Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.� - gene daniels

It beats your Spam Line, I'll give you that...

Date: 12 Aug 2007 20:48:08
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>
>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic
>> agenda implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are
>> doing better.
>
> You love just making up stuff, doncha? (Whattsa matter, your Google broke
> or something?!?)

Real wages have dropped for all but the very top of the middle class,
while working hours grow longer.

If you think quality of life can be measured solely by the stock market
and per capita GNP, you are an idiot or a tool of the neo-feudal class.

>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits
>> that bleat the regressive economic case, people will still look at
>> their own lives and see that things are not going right for them.
>
> Record high home ownership, record low unemployment, high consumer
> confidence, low inflation... Darn those pesky facts!

Record high personal debt and lower home ownership equity.

Living wage jobs replaced by low wage jobs, requiring 2 to 3 times the
labor per family as 40 years ago.

More work and less free time for a lower wage.

Great wealth accumulation by less than 1% or the population at the
expense of the other 99%.

Only in the land of corporate talk radio and news are things going well.

>> --
>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>> �Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.� - gene daniels
>
> It beats your Spam Line, I'll give you that...

Hey Sorni, why don't you complain about the SPAM lines of other people
who are actually trying to sell something and personally profit by it?
Hypocrisy?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
�the bacteria people tuned in-as to bioengineering at the correct wave
Point� - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 14 Aug 2007 01:54:19
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46bfac40$0$19486$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>
>>> The Republicans have to deal with the fact that they have dominated
>>> national politics for a quarter century, had most of the economic
>>> agenda implemented, yet only those who were rich before hand are
>>> doing better.
>>
>> You love just making up stuff, doncha? (Whattsa matter, your Google
>> broke or something?!?)
>
> Real wages have dropped for all but the very top of the middle class,
> while working hours grow longer.
>
> If you think quality of life can be measured solely by the stock market
> and per capita GNP, you are an idiot or a tool of the neo-feudal class.
>
>>> Even though the corporate media is dominated by pundits
>>> that bleat the regressive economic case, people will still look at
>>> their own lives and see that things are not going right for them.
>>
>> Record high home ownership, record low unemployment, high consumer
>> confidence, low inflation... Darn those pesky facts!
>
> Record high personal debt and lower home ownership equity.
>
> Living wage jobs replaced by low wage jobs, requiring 2 to 3 times the
> labor per family as 40 years ago.
>
> More work and less free time for a lower wage.
>
> Great wealth accumulation by less than 1% or the population at the expense
> of the other 99%.
>
> Only in the land of corporate talk radio and news are things going well.

If you don't acquire an education and/or a skill, you deserve everything
that happens to you. Hells Bells, we need plenty of poor folks so that those
of us who are not poor can feel good about ourselves. Most folks are poor
because they are more into fucking than anything else. Why Mr. Sherman, an
educated professional civil engineer with a good job, sympathizes with such
slobs is one for the books!

>>> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
>>> �Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.� - gene daniels
>>
>> It beats your Spam Line, I'll give you that...
>
> Hey Sorni, why don't you complain about the SPAM lines of other people who
> are actually trying to sell something and personally profit by it?
> Hypocrisy?

Better yet, let us all get together and do something about the execrable
Peter Clinch of Dundee, Scotland. He has the worst signature of anyone on
Usenet. Others should learn to be modest and unassuming like me.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 11 Aug 2007 07:52:09
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

RonSonic wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:11:14 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two
>>> full terms since television and love him for it. Unfortunately
>>> they're allowing their party to be dragged off by the same
>>> collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and protest sex
>>> addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>>>
>> While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
>> Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
>> party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
>> you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
>> (since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
>> election). Duh.
>
> I'll claim a little artistic leeway on that description - more for
> color than precision, but only somewhate exaggerated.
>
>> They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
>> cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is
>> the fact that Bush is a moron, has violated the Constitution multiple
>> times, got us into a pointless war, and has the most corrupt
>> administration since Nixon. Even all that is probably just enough to
>> make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
>> candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).
>
> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will,
> but inasmuch as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be
> largely wasted. I actually consider Hillary to be a significant and
> substantial candidate - a bit short in the personal charm department
> maybe but a far more serious person than the last two stuffed
> senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her she will
> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
> leftish coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.

You're discounting the rockstar status of the Clinton name, plus the
outright fawning support of the mainstream media. (Note its absolute
refusal to ask her a pointed question about anything -- with the possible
exception of "soft" issues like gay marraige in the recent farcical
"debate".)

> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
> mean the real midwest where they still have some factories and
> railyards and cows, not Chicago. They keep getting alliances with
> union officials and think that's the same as having the union vote
> and it isn't the same thing at all. Even now there aren't enough
> government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades the
> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New
> England liberals.

That's one reason I doubt that Obama will be her VP choice. (That plus the
fact that his ONLY distinguishing trait is his race -- which is mixed at
that. If he were just another white freshman Senator, no one would know who
the heck he is.)

> George Foreman says fights are about styles and tactics, who has the
> right style to counter the other guy's game, who uses his particular
> skills to advantage. Let's see how this plays out.

Indeed. Should be interesting. (But it's still so freaking EARLY to even
be talking about!)

Date: 12 Aug 2007 01:16:06
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:46bdcd1b$0$16572$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> RonSonic wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:11:14 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
>>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two
>>>> full terms since television and love him for it. Unfortunately
>>>> they're allowing their party to be dragged off by the same
>>>> collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and protest sex
>>>> addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>>>>
>>> While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
>>> Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
>>> party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
>>> you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
>>> (since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
>>> election). Duh.
>>
>> I'll claim a little artistic leeway on that description - more for
>> color than precision, but only somewhate exaggerated.
>>
>>> They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
>>> cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is
>>> the fact that Bush is a moron, has violated the Constitution multiple
>>> times, got us into a pointless war, and has the most corrupt
>>> administration since Nixon. Even all that is probably just enough to
>>> make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
>>> candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).
>>
>> The Democrats can continue to run against Bush, and probably will,
>> but inasmuch as he won't be the other name on the ballot it'll be
>> largely wasted. I actually consider Hillary to be a significant and
>> substantial candidate - a bit short in the personal charm department
>> maybe but a far more serious person than the last two stuffed
>> senatorial shirts they trotted out. Unfortunately for her she will
>> likely come out of this insanely long primary having adopted enough
>> leftish coloration to leave her unelectable by the general public.
>
>
> You're discounting the rockstar status of the Clinton name, plus the
> outright fawning support of the mainstream media. (Note its absolute
> refusal to ask her a pointed question about anything -- with the possible
> exception of "soft" issues like gay marraige in the recent farcical
> "debate".)

Sorni has really hit the nail on the head. The liberal media gives Hillary
every break possible and NEVER asks her any tough questions.

>> Southerner would help, anybody from the Midwest wouldn't hurt, and I
>> mean the real midwest where they still have some factories and
>> railyards and cows, not Chicago. They keep getting alliances with
>> union officials and think that's the same as having the union vote
>> and it isn't the same thing at all. Even now there aren't enough
>> government workers for that to succeed. Over the decades the
>> Republican party has evolved into a creature that feeds on New
>> England liberals.
>
> That's one reason I doubt that Obama will be her VP choice. (That plus
> the fact that his ONLY distinguishing trait is his race -- which is mixed
> at that. If he were just another white freshman Senator, no one would
> know who the heck he is.)

Obama is going to self-destruct any day now. He is in way over his head.

>> George Foreman says fights are about styles and tactics, who has the
>> right style to counter the other guy's game, who uses his particular
>> skills to advantage. Let's see how this plays out.
>
> Indeed. Should be interesting. (But it's still so freaking EARLY to even
> be talking about!)

It is all going to be settled in Feb. when the big states weigh in.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 11 Aug 2007 07:34:55
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:c6dqb3hq77bcnhbs5qq17jik9p2k60cotm@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full terms
>>since
>>television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their party
>>to be
>>dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and
>>protest
>>sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>>
> While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
> Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
> party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
> you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
> (since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
> election). Duh.
>
> They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
> cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is the
> fact that Bush is a moron,

Not so. Bush does not take on the liberal media like he should, but he
probably figures they are all bunch of fucking idiots - which they are.

has violated the Constitution multiple
> times,

Fuck the g.d. Constitution!! How many times do I need to say this?

got us into a pointless war,

Better to fight the Islamic terrorists in Iraq then here at home.

and has the most corrupt
> administration since Nixon.

Nonsense. Nixon was a paragon of virtue. Hells Bells, I worshipped the
ground he walked on. He was almost as holy as ME!

Even all that is probably just enough to
> make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
> candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).

Obama will soon fade from view as he is totally unqualified. However,
Hillary could very well become the next President of the US. She will be
unsuccessful in that role as she is virulently hated by at least half the
nation.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 11 Aug 2007 08:09:02
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:c6dqb3hq77bcnhbs5qq17jik9p2k60cotm@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full terms
>>> since
>>> television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their party
>>> to be
>>> dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and
>>> protest
>>> sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>>>
>> While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
>> Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
>> party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
>> you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
>> (since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
>> election). Duh.
>>
>> They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
>> cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is the
>> fact that Bush is a moron,
>
> Not so. Bush does not take on the liberal media like he should, but he
> probably figures they are all bunch of fucking idiots - which they are.
>
> has violated the Constitution multiple
>> times,
>
> Fuck the g.d. Constitution!! How many times do I need to say this?
>
> got us into a pointless war,
>
> Better to fight the Islamic terrorists in Iraq then here at home.
>
> and has the most corrupt
>> administration since Nixon.
>
> Nonsense. Nixon was a paragon of virtue. Hells Bells, I worshipped the
> ground he walked on. He was almost as holy as ME!
>
> Even all that is probably just enough to
>> make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
>> candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).
>
> Obama will soon fade from view as he is totally unqualified. However,
> Hillary could very well become the next President of the US. She will be
> unsuccessful in that role as she is virulently hated by at least half the
> nation.

Hey Ed,

Your quoting is all messed up, with some text written by "still me"
appearing as if it was your original text. You should consider switching
to something better than "Outhouse Express" for a newsreader, or maybe
spending a little less time with Red Rose [1].

[1] <http://www.livingstoncellars.com/OurWines/subpage.asp?v=RRS >.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 11 Aug 2007 09:07:02
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46bda8d7$0$16390$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:c6dqb3hq77bcnhbs5qq17jik9p2k60cotm@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
>>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full
>>>> terms since
>>>> television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their
>>>> party to be
>>>> dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies
>>>> and protest
>>>> sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>>>>
>>> While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
>>> Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
>>> party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
>>> you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
>>> (since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
>>> election). Duh.
>>>
>>> They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
>>> cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is the
>>> fact that Bush is a moron,
>>
>> Not so. Bush does not take on the liberal media like he should, but he
>> probably figures they are all bunch of fucking idiots - which they are.
>>
>> has violated the Constitution multiple
>>> times,
>>
>> Fuck the g.d. Constitution!! How many times do I need to say this?
>>
>> got us into a pointless war,
>>
>> Better to fight the Islamic terrorists in Iraq then here at home.
>>
>> and has the most corrupt
>>> administration since Nixon.
>>
>> Nonsense. Nixon was a paragon of virtue. Hells Bells, I worshipped the
>> ground he walked on. He was almost as holy as ME!
>>
>> Even all that is probably just enough to
>>> make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
>>> candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).
>>
>> Obama will soon fade from view as he is totally unqualified. However,
>> Hillary could very well become the next President of the US. She will be
>> unsuccessful in that role as she is virulently hated by at least half the
>> nation.
>
> Hey Ed,
>
> Your quoting is all messed up, with some text written by "still me"
> appearing as if it was your original text. You should consider switching
> to something better than "Outhouse Express" for a newsreader, or maybe
> spending a little less time with Red Rose [1].

No, I broke up the original message into quite small parts so that I could
rip into it better, so that is normal for it to appear as it does. If you
read consecutively, there should be no confusion. There is no newsreader in
the world that would have done it any differently than Outlook Express
because of the way I broke up the original message.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 11 Aug 2007 12:53:14
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46bda8d7$0$16390$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>> news:c6dqb3hq77bcnhbs5qq17jik9p2k60cotm@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
>>>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full
>>>>> terms since
>>>>> television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their
>>>>> party to be
>>>>> dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies
>>>>> and protest
>>>>> sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>>>>>
>>>> While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
>>>> Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
>>>> party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
>>>> you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
>>>> (since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
>>>> election). Duh.
>>>>
>>>> They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
>>>> cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is the
>>>> fact that Bush is a moron,
>>> Not so. Bush does not take on the liberal media like he should, but he
>>> probably figures they are all bunch of fucking idiots - which they are.
>>>
>>> has violated the Constitution multiple
>>>> times,
>>> Fuck the g.d. Constitution!! How many times do I need to say this?
>>>
>>> got us into a pointless war,
>>>
>>> Better to fight the Islamic terrorists in Iraq then here at home.
>>>
>>> and has the most corrupt
>>>> administration since Nixon.
>>> Nonsense. Nixon was a paragon of virtue. Hells Bells, I worshipped the
>>> ground he walked on. He was almost as holy as ME!
>>>
>>> Even all that is probably just enough to
>>>> make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
>>>> candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).
>>> Obama will soon fade from view as he is totally unqualified. However,
>>> Hillary could very well become the next President of the US. She will be
>>> unsuccessful in that role as she is virulently hated by at least half the
>>> nation.
>> Hey Ed,
>>
>> Your quoting is all messed up, with some text written by "still me"
>> appearing as if it was your original text. You should consider switching
>> to something better than "Outhouse Express" for a newsreader, or maybe
>> spending a little less time with Red Rose [1].
>
> No, I broke up the original message into quite small parts so that I could
> rip into it better, so that is normal for it to appear as it does. If you
> read consecutively, there should be no confusion. There is no newsreader in
> the world that would have done it any differently than Outlook Express
> because of the way I broke up the original message.

Hey Ed,

If you are doing breaking the quoted text anywhere but at the end of a
line, you may have to fix the line breaks manually or add some
additional " >" characters at the front of the lines to indicate the
correct quoting hierarchy.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
�Twisting may help if yawl can chew gum and walk.� - gene daniels

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 12 Aug 2007 01:07:12
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46bdeb73$0$13829$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>> message news:46bda8d7$0$16390$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>> "still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:c6dqb3hq77bcnhbs5qq17jik9p2k60cotm@4ax.com...
>>>>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:21:02 -0400, RonSonic
>>>>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full
>>>>>> terms since
>>>>>> television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their
>>>>>> party to be
>>>>>> dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies
>>>>>> and protest
>>>>>> sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>>>>>>
>>>>> While I disagree with your characterization of the people who run the
>>>>> Dems, you are correct that they let the most liberal faction of the
>>>>> party control the candidates. They're too stupid to figure out that
>>>>> you have to run candidates who draw votes from more that your core
>>>>> (since the core was voting for you already, and that' only 45% in any
>>>>> election). Duh.
>>>>>
>>>>> They've already shown ther stupidity this time around - expect a
>>>>> cakewalk for the Rep's. The only thing they have going for them is the
>>>>> fact that Bush is a moron,
>>>> Not so. Bush does not take on the liberal media like he should, but he
>>>> probably figures they are all bunch of fucking idiots - which they are.
>>>>
>>>> has violated the Constitution multiple
>>>>> times,
>>>> Fuck the g.d. Constitution!! How many times do I need to say this?
>>>>
>>>> got us into a pointless war,
>>>>
>>>> Better to fight the Islamic terrorists in Iraq then here at home.
>>>>
>>>> and has the most corrupt
>>>>> administration since Nixon.
>>>> Nonsense. Nixon was a paragon of virtue. Hells Bells, I worshipped the
>>>> ground he walked on. He was almost as holy as ME!
>>>>
>>>> Even all that is probably just enough to
>>>>> make it a "contest" unless the Dem's dump Hillary and Obama and run a
>>>>> candidate that can draw votes from beyond their core (a Southerner).
>>>> Obama will soon fade from view as he is totally unqualified. However,
>>>> Hillary could very well become the next President of the US. She will
>>>> be unsuccessful in that role as she is virulently hated by at least
>>>> half the nation.
>>> Hey Ed,
>>>
>>> Your quoting is all messed up, with some text written by "still me"
>>> appearing as if it was your original text. You should consider switching
>>> to something better than "Outhouse Express" for a newsreader, or maybe
>>> spending a little less time with Red Rose [1].
>>
>> No, I broke up the original message into quite small parts so that I
>> could rip into it better, so that is normal for it to appear as it does.
>> If you read consecutively, there should be no confusion. There is no
>> newsreader in the world that would have done it any differently than
>> Outlook Express because of the way I broke up the original message.
>
> Hey Ed,
>
> If you are doing breaking the quoted text anywhere but at the end of a
> line, you may have to fix the line breaks manually or add some additional
> ">" characters at the front of the lines to indicate the correct quoting
> hierarchy.

Yes, Tom Sherman is right about this and I will do it in the future as I
NEVER want my words of wisdom confused with anyone else's stupid words.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 10 Aug 2007 00:26:54
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote in message
news:2j7nb3pvugrhk945so962golgrt89qhqgs@4ax.com...

> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full terms
> since
> television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their party
> to be
> dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and
> protest
> sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.

Oooh, so the Democrats are full of protest sex addicts? Where do I join up?
(What does a protest sex addict do? Lots of shagging while saying "ban the
bomb" and the like?)

cheers,
clive

Date: 09 Aug 2007 19:58:15
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

> "RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full
>> terms since
>> television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their
>> party to be
>> dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies
>> and protest
>> sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.

Clive George wrote:
> Oooh, so the Democrats are full of protest sex addicts? Where do I join
> up? (What does a protest sex addict do? Lots of shagging while saying
> "ban the bomb" and the like?)

Been there. Done that. You didn't miss much.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 09 Aug 2007 22:29:45
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:58:15 -0500, A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:

>> "RonSonic" <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full
>>> terms since
>>> television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their
>>> party to be
>>> dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies
>>> and protest
>>> sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.
>
>Clive George wrote:
>> Oooh, so the Democrats are full of protest sex addicts? Where do I join
>> up? (What does a protest sex addict do? Lots of shagging while saying
>> "ban the bomb" and the like?)
>
>Been there. Done that. You didn't miss much.

And why was it always the wrong women who thought it should be a top optional
event.

Ron

Date: 09 Aug 2007 18:24:36
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

RonSonic wrote:
> On Thu, 9 Aug 2007 08:49:34 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>> In article <46baafce$0$8024$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>>>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>>>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>>>>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>>>> Red herring.
>>> You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
>>> conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
>>> Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
>>> quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy
>>> initiatives. Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful
>>> Republican presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a policy
>>> perspective rather than a party affiliation perspective. Clinton
>>> only looked liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were insane.
>> So why is he (Clinton) such a rock star among every liberal group out there?
>> Blind political partisanship (party-based)?
>
> Because the somewhat-liberal outnumber the moonbat-left. The Moonbat faction
> hates the Clintons even more than they hate Republicans - hasn't changed much
> since the early seventies really, it's the "liberal establishment" that's the
> enemy of the people's revolution. Anyway, somewhat-liberals are a lot closer to
> the fat part of the bell curve and although it's easy to be misled by the
> relative noise levels they vastly outnumber the whackoes.
>
> Bill Clinton, after some serious missteps got his balance and basically governed
> as a moderate. Republican partisans hated him for stealing their issues as much
> as the carpet chewers hated him for, well, the same thing.
>
> Moderate Democrats know he's the only Dem to get elected to two full terms since
> television and love him for it. Unfortunately they're allowing their party to be
> dragged off by the same collection of leftover hippies, rage junkies and protest
> sex addicts that's been losing all those other elections for them.

Yeah, the Republicans are better at "purging" voter rolls and at
"counting" votes.

Of course, the 5 whackos that voted for Bush in 2000 must have known
they were doing wrong, since they said their decision should not be used
to establish future precedent.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:21:29
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

In article <46bb378e$0$12165$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <46baafce$0$8024$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> > Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was
> >>>> the wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
> >>
> >>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
> >>
> >> Red herring.
> >
> > You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
> > conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
> > Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
> > quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy
> > initiatives. Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful
> > Republican presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a
> > policy perspective rather than a party affiliation perspective.
> > Clinton only looked liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were
> > insane.
>
> So why is he (Clinton) such a rock star among every liberal group out
> there?

He's not. The right wing thinks he is, because they can only think in
black and white, but they are wrong (again).

> Blind political partisanship (party-based)?

In many cases, yes. He apparently has immense personal charm, or so I
am told, which may also account for it. I also think that Clinton
benefits from the contrast effect with the current President. By
comparison, the Clinton Administration was the shining city on the hill.

Date: 11 Aug 2007 07:15:59
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-423F48.13212909082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <46bb378e$0$12165$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> > In article <46baafce$0$8024$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>> > Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> >>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was
>> >>>> the wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>> >>
>> >>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>> >>
>> >> Red herring.
>> >
>> > You missed the point. Clinton from a policy perspective was quite
>> > conservative. I recently had a chat with someone who worked in
>> > Clinton's budget office, who stated that the Clinton Administration
>> > quietly de-funded hundreds of "liberal" programs and policy
>> > initiatives. Bill Clinton was arguably one of the most successful
>> > Republican presidents of the past 50 years, if examined from a
>> > policy perspective rather than a party affiliation perspective.
>> > Clinton only looked liberal by contrast because Gingrich et al were
>> > insane.
>>
>> So why is he (Clinton) such a rock star among every liberal group out
>> there?
>
> He's not. The right wing thinks he is, because they can only think in
> black and white, but they are wrong (again).
>
>> Blind political partisanship (party-based)?
>
> In many cases, yes. He apparently has immense personal charm, or so I
> am told, which may also account for it. I also think that Clinton
> benefits from the contrast effect with the current President. By
> comparison, the Clinton Administration was the shining city on the hill.

The Clinton Administration was all about sexual shenanigans from the get-go.
Fuck him, fuck Tim McNamara and fuck all liberal Dems.

Bush is a freaking Saint almost on my level compared to Bill Clinton.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:26:14
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

-snip Mr Lyme Disease-
Tim McNamara wrote:
> I also think that Clinton
> benefits from the contrast effect with the current President. By
> comparison, the Clinton Administration was the shining city on the hill.

First incidence of spewed coffee on keyboard today. That's funny!
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

Date: 09 Aug 2007 07:04:33
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>
>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>
>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>
> Red herring. (Hint: he was sued for sexual harrassment by Paula Jones, and
> LIED UNDER OATH in the course of his defense. He also coerced perjury from
> Monica Lewinsky. Then there's Kathleen "forced to rub his" Willy and Anita
> Broderick and...well, at least one other. These matters were NOT about sex
> or affairs; they were about illegal, abusive behavior and lies and worse to
> cover it up. Monica was just...a vessel.)
>
> Bill "I suppose they should be grateful he didn't Vince Foster 'em" S.

Other than not supporting the agenda of the "Christian Coalition" in
1996, what substantive differences were there in the platforms of Bill
Clinton and Bob Dole?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 09 Aug 2007 08:47:41
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Edward Dolan wrote:
>>
>>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was the
>>>> wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
>>
>>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
>>
>> Red herring. (Hint: he was sued for sexual harrassment by Paula
>> Jones, and LIED UNDER OATH in the course of his defense. He also
>> coerced perjury from Monica Lewinsky. Then there's Kathleen "forced
>> to rub his" Willy and Anita Broderick and...well, at least one
>> other. These matters were NOT about sex or affairs; they were about
>> illegal, abusive behavior and lies and worse to cover it up. Monica
>> was just...a vessel.) Bill "I suppose they should be grateful he didn't
>> Vince Foster 'em"
>> S.
>
> Other than not supporting the agenda of the "Christian Coalition" in
> 1996, what substantive differences were there in the platforms of Bill
> Clinton and Bob Dole?

The latter would not have further decimated the military for one thing, and
would have taken out OBL when the opportunity presented itself on a silver
platter for another.

HTH

Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:19:03
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

In article <46bb3718$0$3092$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> > Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>> Edward Dolan wrote:
> >>
> >>>> You had better get your head screwed on straight. Hillary was
> >>>> the wife of Bill, who was a liberal if nothing else.
> >>
> >>> Only on matters of reproductive/sexual behavior.
> >>
> >> Red herring. (Hint: he was sued for sexual harrassment by Paula
> >> Jones, and LIED UNDER OATH in the course of his defense. He also
> >> coerced perjury from Monica Lewinsky. Then there's Kathleen
> >> "forced to rub his" Willy and Anita Broderick and...well, at least
> >> one other. These matters were NOT about sex or affairs; they were
> >> about illegal, abusive behavior and lies and worse to cover it up.
> >> Monica was just...a vessel.) Bill "I suppose they should be
> >> grateful he didn't Vince Foster 'em" S.
> >
> > Other than not supporting the agenda of the "Christian Coalition"
> > in 1996, what substantive differences were there in the platforms
> > of Bill Clinton and Bob Dole?
>
> The latter would not have further decimated the military for one
> thing, and would have taken out OBL when the opportunity presented
> itself on a silver platter for another.

Oh bullshit. The outcome would have been no different. Clinton ordered
strikes and was aggressive about getting bin Laden. Hell, the
Republicans criticized him and his security team for being obsessed with
bin Laden and not with Hussein. Turns out that the Clinton team was
right and the Republicans were out to lunch. And they continued in that
befogged stupidity after taking charge in 2001, marginalizing the effort
to find and neutralize bin Laden and al Qaeda in favor of planning to
overthrow Saddam Hussein- the neocon's favorite hobbyhorse.

As far as "further decimating the military" goes:

http://tinyurl.com/2xwyle

http://tinyurl.com/353qq

http://tinyurl.com/yubyyq

http://tinyurl.com/27nstd

Less time listening to Rush, more time paying attention to reality would
do a world of good.

Date: 07 Aug 2007 08:25:43
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:isogb3dp9suijfelfddhpsjn3r2of1spu4@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 07:07:05 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>Yes I know. *Most* imprisoned terrorists are turned in by their
>>brother-in-laws who never liked them to begin with or were forced on into
>>the field of battle by *others* just like *most* inmates in any prison are
>>*innocent* of all charges. What we are doing to them is just plain
>>*mean*.
>>They've been humiliated enough.
>>
>>We should free them all, don't you think?
>
> If they are guilty, then they need to be tried and convicted. I don't
> have any problem with that. But, holding people indefinitely without
> charging them is against everything this country was founded on.
>

By far most of the Gutmo Bay (great name still me) enemy combatant detainees
have been released or sent back to their countries of origin. What's left
is about 200 of the worst of the worst.

Two hundred Moussaoui like farce trials would be a real hoot, but we hardly
have the time, money, or patience for it. So it seems to me the best
course would be to keep the detainee community together and resettle them in
the USA to start their new lives. We need to identify a nice liberal
community where the diversity the detainees bring to the community would be
celebrated by the residents. Where did you say you lived?

(not Tom) Keats

Date: 07 Aug 2007 23:44:35
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:25:43 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote:

>By far most of the Gutmo Bay (great name still me) enemy combatant detainees
>have been released or sent back to their countries of origin. What's left
>is about 200 of the worst of the worst.

Then try the other 200. They've been ther long enough.
>
>Two hundred Moussaoui like farce trials would be a real hoot, but we hardly
>have the time, money, or patience for it.

Different circumstances, different trial. But, the fact remains. They
are entitled to due process. If their guilty, hang 'em, if not, send
them home.

>So it seems to me the best
>course would be to keep the detainee community together and resettle them in
>the USA to start their new lives. We need to identify a nice liberal
>community where the diversity the detainees bring to the community would be
>celebrated by the residents. Where did you say you lived?

Sorry my friend, but you've read me wrong. The fact that I don't like
the recent Republican party, and that I believe in a strong
Constitution and a stronger Bill of Rights, doesn't make me a liberal.
It makes me a conservative. But, you're too neo-con to know that.
Unless you want to brand the Founding Fathers as liberals. Then I will
proudly stand beside them.

Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:25:40
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:06:44
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Edward Dolan wrote:
>
> The Constitution and Bill of Rights are just scraps of paper. All that
> matters to me is the Nation of America. We need to kill our enemies before
> they kill us. What is there about this that you do not understand?

"And the Lord spake, saying, 'First shalt thou take out the Holy Pin.
Then, shalt thou count to three. No more. No less. Three shalt be the
number thou shalt count, and the number of the counting shall be three.
Four shalt thou not count, nor either count thou two, excepting that
thou then proceed to three. Five is right out. Once the number three,
being the third number, be reached, then, lobbest thou thy Holy Hand
Grenade of Antioch towards thy foe, who, being naughty in My sight,
shall snuff it."

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 07 Aug 2007 21:03:52
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"still me" <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:i90ib39akova1bfdp429b7t2pah8vgps5g@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 08:25:43 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>>By far most of the Gutmo Bay (great name still me) enemy combatant
>>detainees
>>have been released or sent back to their countries of origin. What's left
>>is about 200 of the worst of the worst.
>
> Then try the other 200. They've been ther long enough.
>>
>>Two hundred Moussaoui like farce trials would be a real hoot, but we
>>hardly
>>have the time, money, or patience for it.
>
> Different circumstances, different trial. But, the fact remains. They
> are entitled to due process. If their guilty, hang 'em, if not, send
> them home.

If anything, each of the 200 unlawful enemy combatant trials would be more
difficult than Moussaoui's trail, which, by the way, took over four years to
get started with a cost of tens of millions dollars. How do the unlawful
enemy combatants get due process in our domestic courts when they were
caputured on foreign soil, weren't read their rights, or properly arrested,
or served with search or arrest warrents, and aren't citizens. Your idea to
try them, hang them if guilty, or send them home if not quilty seems naive.

The legal status of unlawful enemy combatants and their treatment needs to
be resolved so that everyone will have a clear understanding in as much as
were are going to be dealing with Islamic jihad for years to come. Let's
set the ground rules and stop the whining.

>
>>So it seems to me the best
>>course would be to keep the detainee community together and resettle them
>>in
>>the USA to start their new lives. We need to identify a nice liberal
>>community where the diversity the detainees bring to the community would
>>be
>>celebrated by the residents. Where did you say you lived?
>

I take it you didn't really go for my suggestion to resettle these unlawful
enemy jihadists in your community.

> Sorry my friend, but you've read me wrong. The fact that I don't like
> the recent Republican party, and that I believe in a strong
> Constitution and a stronger Bill of Rights, doesn't make me a liberal.
> It makes me a conservative. But, you're too neo-con to know that.
> Unless you want to brand the Founding Fathers as liberals. Then I will
> proudly stand beside them.
>
>

I trust the founding fathers would have some ideas about the differences
between domestic criminals and non-citizens who are unlawful Islamic enemy
jihad combatants captured on foreign soil.

(not Tom) Keats

Date: 08 Aug 2007 20:54:59
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
> ...
> If anything, each of the 200 unlawful enemy combatant trials would be more
> difficult than Moussaoui's trail, which, by the way, took over four years to
> get started with a cost of tens of millions dollars....

What is that, a couple days profit on no-bid Iraqi "rebuilding" contracts?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:32:49
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba67db$0$20226$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>> ...
>> If anything, each of the 200 unlawful enemy combatant trials would be
>> more difficult than Moussaoui's trail, which, by the way, took over four
>> years to get started with a cost of tens of millions dollars....
>
> What is that, a couple days profit on no-bid Iraqi "rebuilding" contracts?

Here is Tom Sherman in all his blazing asshole-ness! Hey, you got to be a
liberal Commie sympathizer and a Palestinian Islamophile in order to get
this fucking stupid!

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:48:31
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba67db$0$20226$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>> ...
>> If anything, each of the 200 unlawful enemy combatant trials would be
>> more difficult than Moussaoui's trail, which, by the way, took over four
>> years to get started with a cost of tens of millions dollars....
>
> What is that, a couple days profit on no-bid Iraqi "rebuilding" contracts?
>
> --

No, it's what the Moussaoui circus trial cost us and has nothing to do with
any contract to rebuild anything in Iraq.

I don't know about the profits on Iraq rebuilding contracts, but I trust the
democrats will investigate every cent spent in for every single one of them.
And if anything is out of the ordinary they will certainly let us know
before the upcoming election.

My sense of the matter is that you are an anti-profit kind of guy. I could
be wrong, but I doubt it.

(not Tom) Keats

Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:54:02
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

(Not Tom) Keats wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in message
> news:46ba67db$0$20226$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>> ...
>>> If anything, each of the 200 unlawful enemy combatant trials would be
>>> more difficult than Moussaoui's trail, which, by the way, took over four
>>> years to get started with a cost of tens of millions dollars....
>>
>> What is that, a couple days profit on no-bid Iraqi "rebuilding" contracts?
>>
>> --
>
> No, it's what the Moussaoui circus trial cost us and has nothing to do with
> any contract to rebuild anything in Iraq.
>
> I don't know about the profits on Iraq rebuilding contracts, but I trust the
> democrats will investigate every cent spent in for every single one of them.
> And if anything is out of the ordinary they will certainly let us know
> before the upcoming election.
>
> My sense of the matter is that you are an anti-profit kind of guy. I could
> be wrong, but I doubt it.

Since the political right in the US has always whined so much about
taxes and "government waste", I thought I would help them out by
bringing attention to an example of wasted tax money.

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:30:15
From: Keats
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba75b2$0$16345$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>> message news:46ba67db$0$20226$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>> ...
>>>> If anything, each of the 200 unlawful enemy combatant trials would be
>>>> more difficult than Moussaoui's trail, which, by the way, took over
>>>> four years to get started with a cost of tens of millions dollars....
> >>
>>> What is that, a couple days profit on no-bid Iraqi "rebuilding"
>>> contracts?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> No, it's what the Moussaoui circus trial cost us and has nothing to do
>> with any contract to rebuild anything in Iraq.
>>
>> I don't know about the profits on Iraq rebuilding contracts, but I trust
>> the democrats will investigate every cent spent in for every single one
>> of them. And if anything is out of the ordinary they will certainly let
>> us know before the upcoming election.
>>
>> My sense of the matter is that you are an anti-profit kind of guy. I
>> could be wrong, but I doubt it.
>
> Since the political right in the US has always whined so much about taxes
> and "government waste", I thought I would help them out by bringing
> attention to an example of wasted tax money.
>
> --

I'm fine with that. If there is anything I hate it's wasted taxpayer money.
It could be buying food, books, and other necessary things for children if
it were back in the hands of their parents.

I bet you've never complained about the political left wasting tax money. I
could be wrong, but I doubt it.

(not Tom) Keats

Date: 08 Aug 2007 20:37:05
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Keats wrote:
> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
> message news:46ba75b2$0$16345$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>> "Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com> wrote in
>>> message news:46ba67db$0$20226$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
>>>> (Not Tom) Keats wrote:
>>>>> ...
>>>>> If anything, each of the 200 unlawful enemy combatant trials
>>>>> would be more difficult than Moussaoui's trail, which, by the
>>>>> way, took over four years to get started with a cost of tens of
>>>>> millions dollars....
>>>>
>>>> What is that, a couple days profit on no-bid Iraqi "rebuilding"
>>>> contracts?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> No, it's what the Moussaoui circus trial cost us and has nothing to
>>> do with any contract to rebuild anything in Iraq.
>>>
>>> I don't know about the profits on Iraq rebuilding contracts, but I
>>> trust the democrats will investigate every cent spent in for every
>>> single one of them. And if anything is out of the ordinary they
>>> will certainly let us know before the upcoming election.
>>>
>>> My sense of the matter is that you are an anti-profit kind of guy. I
>>> could be wrong, but I doubt it.
>>
>> Since the political right in the US has always whined so much about
>> taxes and "government waste", I thought I would help them out by
>> bringing attention to an example of wasted tax money.
>>
>> --
>
> I'm fine with that. If there is anything I hate it's wasted taxpayer
> money. It could be buying food, books, and other necessary things for
> children if it were back in the hands of their parents.
>
> I bet you've never complained about the political left wasting tax
> money. I could be wrong, but I doubt it.

FWIW (not much to blind ideologues), the deficit as a percentage of GNP is
already below the average for the last 40 years, and shrinking even more
much faster than was predicted. (Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary
to reap the benefits and claim credit.)

Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:08:38
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Bill Sornson wrote:
> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...

Hillary Clinton is a corporatist and no friend of labor. Why does the
political right hate her so much?

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:32:13
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...

> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist

You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its stock?
LOL

> and no friend of labor.

Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.

> Why does the
> political right hate her so much?

For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint: lies and
opportunism.)

Date: 09 Aug 2007 09:56:34
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

In article <46ba98cd$0$29728$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>
> > Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>
> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
> stock? LOL
>
> > and no friend of labor.
>
> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>
> > Why does the political right hate her so much?
>
> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
> lies and opportunism.)

I'm to the left politically (slightly to the left of the late Paul
Wellstone, to put it in some kind of perspective) and I don't like
Hilary Clinton. She's a strident, annoying conservative masquerading as
a Democrat. I don't know how I am going to vote if she becomes the
Democratic candidate. There are no Republican candidates I can vote
for- they are all loonies- and I won't vote for H Clinton. A conundrum.

Date: 11 Aug 2007 06:36:53
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-BADB97.09563409082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <46ba98cd$0$29728$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> > Bill Sornson wrote:
>> >> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>>
>> > Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>>
>> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
>> stock? LOL
>>
>> > and no friend of labor.
>>
>> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>>
>> > Why does the political right hate her so much?
>>
>> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
>> lies and opportunism.)
>
> I'm to the left politically (slightly to the left of the late Paul
> Wellstone, to put it in some kind of perspective) and I don't like
> Hilary Clinton.

Paul Wellstone was one of the greatest idiots ever to come out of Minnesota.
I believe he was a professor of political science at some miserable college.
That right there ought to tell you everything you would ever have to know
about him. When he died in a plane crash, I thought good riddance to bad
rubbish!

She's a strident, annoying conservative masquerading as
> a Democrat. I don't know how I am going to vote if she becomes the
> Democratic candidate. There are no Republican candidates I can vote
> for- they are all loonies- and I won't vote for H Clinton. A conundrum.

Hillary is indeed one sorry bitch! I can certainly agree with Tim McNamara
on that much at least.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 09 Aug 2007 08:34:29
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46ba98cd$0$29728$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>>
>>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>>
>> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
>> stock? LOL
>>
>>> and no friend of labor.
>>
>> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>>
>>> Why does the political right hate her so much?
>>
>> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
>> lies and opportunism.)
>
> I'm to the left politically (slightly to the left of the late Paul
> Wellstone, to put it in some kind of perspective) and I don't like
> Hilary Clinton. She's a strident, annoying conservative masquerading
> as a Democrat. I don't know how I am going to vote if she becomes the
> Democratic candidate. There are no Republican candidates I can vote
> for- they are all loonies- and I won't vote for H Clinton. A
> conundrum.

You'll do what practically all Dems will do: you'll vote for Ms. Strident.
Even if there's a 3rd party candidate you like. Sad but true.

Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:03:01
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

In article <46bb3404$0$31262$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <46ba98cd$0$29728$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> > Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >
> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
> >>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
> >>
> >>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
> >>
> >> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
> >> stock? LOL
> >>
> >>> and no friend of labor.
> >>
> >> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
> >>
> >>> Why does the political right hate her so much?
> >>
> >> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
> >> lies and opportunism.)
> >
> > I'm to the left politically (slightly to the left of the late Paul
> > Wellstone, to put it in some kind of perspective) and I don't like
> > Hilary Clinton. She's a strident, annoying conservative
> > masquerading as a Democrat. I don't know how I am going to vote if
> > she becomes the Democratic candidate. There are no Republican
> > candidates I can vote for- they are all loonies- and I won't vote
> > for H Clinton. A conundrum.
>
> You'll do what practically all Dems will do: you'll vote for Ms.
> Strident. Even if there's a 3rd party candidate you like. Sad but
> true.

Not just practically all Democrats but everybody who feels strong party
affiliation. I don't feel a strong party affiliation, though. I'm a
liberal, not a Democrat. I vote Democrat more often, but I have cast a
lot of votes for Republicans and a few independents and third party
candidates. Like many people, I try to select the person I think is
best for the job based on the information I have available to me. If
it's Hillary vs. Romnianison I will probably vote Green. Hell, the
Democrats have let themselves become little more than the moderate wing
of the Republican Party. Cracks me up when people describe the Dems as
"liberals." ROFL!

Interestingly many of the "liberal" changes in US law came under
Republican presidents: significant parts of the environmental
protection laws, creation of the EPA, Title IX. And then later the
Republicans keep trying to gut their own achievements...

Amusing (to me) further off-topic story. It must have been in 1994 that
I voted in the Republican primary in Minnesota. We had a decent,
moderate Republican governor named Arne Carlson who was in all
likelihood not going to be endorsed by the part for re-election, because
the party was controlled by a few right wing nutbars especially a guy
named Allen Quist (who IIRC did win the endorsement). I liked the job
Carlson had done in his first term, so I wanted to cast a vote in
support of him. I didn't care for the Democratic frontrunners so I
wanted to have a good alternative on the ballot. Carlson did win
re-election without his party's endorsement and had a second term as a
reasonable, effective governor under whose leadership the state did
well. Then we elected Jesse Ventura and it went to hell in a handbasket
but that's for another time. Here's the part I find amusing:

Of course, in a primary you can only vote within one party, so I had to
make other choices for other candidates. As much as I could I chose the
person I thought would be the best of the available options. In the
primary for Attorney General, I spotted a name I thought I knew and
voted for her. Turned out it was a name similar to another well-known
person and my memory had betrayed me. And it further turned out that
the memories of a *lot* of voters had done the same and she won the
primary. It further transpired that this person really was a nut; the
Republican Party chairman very honorably came out and stated that while
she had won the primary, she was not fit for office as far as the
Republican Party was concerned and they would not support her and
encouraged voters to select someone else. It was a good day for the
Republican Party in Minnesota, I thought, to show that kind of
refreshing forthrightness. The party has declined in recent years in
terms of its ethics, but one can hope for a return to integrity at some
point.

Date: 11 Aug 2007 06:53:54
From: Edward Dolan
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

"Tim McNamara" <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote in message
news:timmcn-3DDF27.13030109082007@news.iphouse.com...
> In article <46bb3404$0$31262$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> > In article <46ba98cd$0$29728$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>> > Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> >>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> >>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>> >>
>> >>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>> >>
>> >> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its
>> >> stock? LOL
>> >>
>> >>> and no friend of labor.
>> >>
>> >> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.
>> >>
>> >>> Why does the political right hate her so much?
>> >>
>> >> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint:
>> >> lies and opportunism.)
>> >
>> > I'm to the left politically (slightly to the left of the late Paul
>> > Wellstone, to put it in some kind of perspective) and I don't like
>> > Hilary Clinton. She's a strident, annoying conservative
>> > masquerading as a Democrat. I don't know how I am going to vote if
>> > she becomes the Democratic candidate. There are no Republican
>> > candidates I can vote for- they are all loonies- and I won't vote
>> > for H Clinton. A conundrum.
>>
>> You'll do what practically all Dems will do: you'll vote for Ms.
>> Strident. Even if there's a 3rd party candidate you like. Sad but
>> true.
>
> Not just practically all Democrats but everybody who feels strong party
> affiliation. I don't feel a strong party affiliation, though. I'm a
> liberal, not a Democrat. I vote Democrat more often, but I have cast a
> lot of votes for Republicans and a few independents and third party
> candidates. Like many people, I try to select the person I think is
> best for the job based on the information I have available to me. If
> it's Hillary vs. Romnianison I will probably vote Green. Hell, the
> Democrats have let themselves become little more than the moderate wing
> of the Republican Party. Cracks me up when people describe the Dems as
> "liberals." ROFL!
>
> Interestingly many of the "liberal" changes in US law came under
> Republican presidents: significant parts of the environmental
> protection laws, creation of the EPA, Title IX. And then later the
> Republicans keep trying to gut their own achievements...
>
> Amusing (to me) further off-topic story. It must have been in 1994 that
> I voted in the Republican primary in Minnesota. We had a decent,
> moderate Republican governor named Arne Carlson who was in all
> likelihood not going to be endorsed by the part for re-election, because
> the party was controlled by a few right wing nutbars especially a guy
> named Allen Quist (who IIRC did win the endorsement). I liked the job
> Carlson had done in his first term, so I wanted to cast a vote in
> support of him. I didn't care for the Democratic frontrunners so I
> wanted to have a good alternative on the ballot. Carlson did win
> re-election without his party's endorsement and had a second term as a
> reasonable, effective governor under whose leadership the state did
> well. Then we elected Jesse Ventura and it went to hell in a handbasket
> but that's for another time. Here's the part I find amusing:
>
> Of course, in a primary you can only vote within one party, so I had to
> make other choices for other candidates. As much as I could I chose the
> person I thought would be the best of the available options. In the
> primary for Attorney General, I spotted a name I thought I knew and
> voted for her. Turned out it was a name similar to another well-known
> person and my memory had betrayed me. And it further turned out that
> the memories of a *lot* of voters had done the same and she won the
> primary. It further transpired that this person really was a nut; the
> Republican Party chairman very honorably came out and stated that while
> she had won the primary, she was not fit for office as far as the
> Republican Party was concerned and they would not support her and
> encouraged voters to select someone else. It was a good day for the
> Republican Party in Minnesota, I thought, to show that kind of
> refreshing forthrightness. The party has declined in recent years in
> terms of its ethics, but one can hope for a return to integrity at some
> point.

Carlson is the kind of faceless bureaucrat that mumbskulls like Tim McNamara
vote for on a regular basis. When any one comes along who shows signs of
real leadership he takes to the tall grass. However, Ventura proved a major
disappointment. I never voted for him because I KNEW that all professional
wrestlers were assholes.

I would like to see more of a Populist Party and/or a Green Party if such a
thing is possible in America. I do agree with Tim McNamara that there is not
really all that much difference between the Dems and the Repubs, at least
not here in freaking Minnesota.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

Date: 08 Aug 2007 23:52:43
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!

Bill "Sorni" Sornson wrote:
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> ...(Just in time for -- God Forbid! -- Hillary...
>
>> Hillary Clinton is a corporatist
>
> You mean because she trashes Exxon-Mobil while secretly owning its stock?
> LOL
>
>> and no friend of labor.
>
> Yeah, but Labor doesn't recognize this.

Actually, the Republican's better hope that Hillary Clinton wins the
Democratic nomination, since she turns off labor more than any
Democratic candidate since Joe Lieberman (who has been elected in large
part by cross-voting Republicans).

>> Why does the
>> political right hate her so much?
>
> For the same reason the political left loves her so much. (Hint: lies and
> opportunism.)

If Sorni knew what he was talking about he would know that no one on the
US left likes Hillary Clinton (and they didn't like Bill either).

--
Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
The weather is here, wish you were beautiful

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com