| |
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: 15 Aug 2007 09:33:12
From: John Kane
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
On Aug 15, 4:11 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me > wrote:
> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> >>>>> Bill Sornson <as...@ask.me> wrote:
> >>>>>> So far, no takers... (Sort of like how AlGore won't debate /any/
> >>>>>> leading climatologist or meteorologist on the subject.)
>
> >>>> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> >>>>> I gotta a question for you that I want to take over to email. So
> >>>>> I'm asking ya: what's your email. Better yet, drop me a line at
> >>> further:
> >>>> Well, Bill, since you won't contact me offline, here she goes:
> >>>> Please name a leading climatologist or meteorologist (or
> >>>> hydrologist, etc) who would disagree with Al Gore so that there
> >>>> could be a debate.
>
> >> A Muzi wrote:
> >>> Dennis Avery, the latest challenger in the long running ad series,
> >>> "Why Won't Al Gore Debate Me?" . Sheesh, don't you read the papers?
>
> > Print paper? No. I get 75% of my news online. Thanks to AdBlock, I
> > haven't seen a disruptive ad in a couple of years. The rest of my
> > news comes from Time and Foreign Policy magazines.
>
> You asked a question that is EASILY answered online. GOOGLE IT, GENIUS.
>
> > Bill Sornson wrote:
> >> I'd scrolled past this and then couldn't find it. Just GOOGLE it,
> >> fewgawdsake! (Anything works, like "leading meteorologists global
> >> warming not manmade" or "...hoax" or whatever. Sheesh.)
>
> > Dennis Avery? This guy?
> >http://www.cgfi.org/about/davery_bio.htm
>
> > Seems to me he's an agricultural analyst. But let's keep going:
>
> > I can think of ONE guy at MIT (Richard Lindzen) who still hasn't come
> > to terms with reality.
>
> You're nuts. Canada's first PhD climatologist and UA/Birmingham's leading
> climate expert are just two off-hand.
Who dey?
John Kane, Kingston ON Canada
|
| | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:58:01
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
John Kane wrote:
> On Aug 15, 4:11 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>> Canada's first PhD climatologist and UA/Birmingham's
>> leading climate expert are just two off-hand.
> Who dey?
Dey two leading scientists who don't drink Kool-aid, dat's who.
Bill "Google for names and positions; it's really easy!" S.
|
| | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 21:56:38
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> John Kane wrote:
>> On Aug 15, 4:11 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>
>>> Canada's first PhD climatologist and UA/Birmingham's
>>> leading climate expert are just two off-hand.
>
>> Who dey?
>
> Dey two leading scientists who don't drink Kool-aid, dat's who.
>
> Bill "Google for names and positions; it's really easy!" S.
>
>
Ok, Bill, since your too lazy to even support your own position, here's
a paper from John Christy of UAB (published March of last year).
http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg611a/christy_et_al.pdf
And gasp! The paper concludes:
"Our results indicate that the central San Joaquin Valley has
experienced a significant rise of minimum temperatures
(~3°C in JJA and SON), a rise that is not detectable in
the adjacent Sierra Nevada. Our working hypothesis is
that the rapid valley warming is caused by the massive
growth in irrigated agriculture. Such human engineering
of the environment has changed a high-albedo desert
into a darker, moister, vegetated plain, thus altering
the surface energy balance in a way we suggest has
created the results found in this study"
I guess humans can affect the Earth after all. Bill, I guess you
wouldn't know that since you can't be bothered to actually read a
science article. Or am I wrong? Can you link to me to a science paper
that supports your position?
\\paul
|
| | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 19:33:42
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> John Kane wrote:
>>> On Aug 15, 4:11 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>>> Canada's first PhD climatologist and UA/Birmingham's
>>>> leading climate expert are just two off-hand.
>>
>>> Who dey?
>>
>> Dey two leading scientists who don't drink Kool-aid, dat's who.
>>
>> Bill "Google for names and positions; it's really easy!" S.
>>
>>
>
> Ok, Bill, since your too lazy to even support your own position,
> here's a paper from John Christy of UAB (published March of last
> year).
> http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg611a/christy_et_al.pdf
>
> And gasp! The paper concludes:
>
> "Our results indicate that the central San Joaquin Valley has
> experienced a significant rise of minimum temperatures
> (~3°C in JJA and SON), a rise that is not detectable in
> the adjacent Sierra Nevada. Our working hypothesis is
> that the rapid valley warming is caused by the massive
> growth in irrigated agriculture. Such human engineering
> of the environment has changed a high-albedo desert
> into a darker, moister, vegetated plain, thus altering
> the surface energy balance in a way we suggest has
> created the results found in this study"
>
> I guess humans can affect the Earth after all. Bill, I guess you
> wouldn't know that since you can't be bothered to actually read a
> science article. Or am I wrong? Can you link to me to a science
> paper that supports your position?
LOL You keep moving the goalpost, Myron. (Hint: that's not the UAB
scientist who writes extensively on the hoax that is manmade GW. And you
didn't "demand" papers initially either.)
BTW, ask that man where the SJ thermometer is located. On a tile roof or
next to an AC exhaust?
Why was 1934 (not 1998 as claimed for last few years) the warmest year on
record?
Why are the polar ice caps shrinking...ON MARS?
Why did PREVIOUS Ice Ages end? (Maybe George "Ooga" Bush drove a caveman
car.)
Why did the Washington Post run a story about climate warming...in 1922?
Why does AlGore live like a pharaoh and lecture the little people to walk
and take transit?
Go plant a tree. I fart in your general direction... MYRON. LOL
PS: 25 years ago it was the coming Ice Age. Wait another 20 now and it
will be again. Betcha.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 07:23:48
From: John Forrest Tomlinson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007 19:33:42 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:
>BTW, ask that man where the SJ thermometer is located. On a tile roof or
>next to an AC exhaust?
>
>Why was 1934 (not 1998 as claimed for last few years) the warmest year on
>record?
>
>Why are the polar ice caps shrinking...ON MARS?
>
>Why did PREVIOUS Ice Ages end? (Maybe George "Ooga" Bush drove a caveman
>car.)
>
>Why did the Washington Post run a story about climate warming...in 1922?
>
>Why does AlGore live like a pharaoh and lecture the little people to walk
>and take transit?
>
>Go plant a tree. I fart in your general direction... MYRON. LOL
>
>PS: 25 years ago it was the coming Ice Age. Wait another 20 now and it
>will be again. Betcha.
You're a parody of a dittohead. Whatver the "liberal" people think
you must doubt.
But you forgot one "what about" -- "What about Clinton!!??? What
about Clinton??!!"
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************
|
| | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 05:48:22
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> John Kane wrote:
>>>> On Aug 15, 4:11 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>> Canada's first PhD climatologist and UA/Birmingham's
>>>>> leading climate expert are just two off-hand.
>>>> Who dey?
>>> Dey two leading scientists who don't drink Kool-aid, dat's who.
>>>
>>> Bill "Google for names and positions; it's really easy!" S.
>>>
>>>
>> Ok, Bill, since your too lazy to even support your own position,
>> here's a paper from John Christy of UAB (published March of last
>> year).
>> http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg611a/christy_et_al.pdf
>>
>> And gasp! The paper concludes:
>>
>> "Our results indicate that the central San Joaquin Valley has
>> experienced a significant rise of minimum temperatures
>> (~3°C in JJA and SON), a rise that is not detectable in
>> the adjacent Sierra Nevada. Our working hypothesis is
>> that the rapid valley warming is caused by the massive
>> growth in irrigated agriculture. Such human engineering
>> of the environment has changed a high-albedo desert
>> into a darker, moister, vegetated plain, thus altering
>> the surface energy balance in a way we suggest has
>> created the results found in this study"
>>
>> I guess humans can affect the Earth after all. Bill, I guess you
>> wouldn't know that since you can't be bothered to actually read a
>> science article. Or am I wrong? Can you link to me to a science
>> paper that supports your position?
>
> LOL You keep moving the goalpost, Myron. (Hint: that's not the UAB
> scientist who writes extensively on the hoax that is manmade GW. And you
> didn't "demand" papers initially either.)
Straw man...
You said UA's leading climate expert. I posted a paper -- on MY
webspace -- that he recently published. Maybe in your mind he's not
UABs leader, but that's his damn title...GOOGLE IT! No wait, I'm not
too lazy to support my own statements:
"...In November 2000 Gov. Don Siegelman appointed him to be Alabama's
State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall
scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy
developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed
from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the
Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional Scientific
Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to receive a Special
Award by the American Meteorological Society "for developing a global,
precise record of earth's temperature from operational polar-orbiting
satellites, fundamentally advancing our ability to monitor climate." In
January 2002 Christy was inducted as a Fellow of the American
Meteorological Society..."
It goes on about national committees and testifying for congress, but
you get the idea.
> BTW, ask that man where the SJ thermometer is located. On a tile roof or
> next to an AC exhaust?
I'm pretty sure it's in the paper...if you'd read it.
> Why was 1934 (not 1998 as claimed for last few years) the warmest year on
> record?
Lot's of reasons. Ever hear of the Central Limit Theorem? It's a great
place to start if you never had a data analysis class during your
undergraduate or graduate school.
> Why are the polar ice caps shrinking...ON MARS?
Lot's of reasons. Do you have any idea why ice caps (and man's
contribution to their retreat) are such a big deal? (search terms:
albedo, feedback mechanisms).
> Why did PREVIOUS Ice Ages end? (Maybe George "Ooga" Bush drove a caveman
> car.)
I see what your daft technique is hinting at. Let me let you in on a
little secret: No one...not a single published scientist or engineer
denies natural cycles. But I guess you can't accept that type of point
of view (a scientific one?).
> Why did the Washington Post run a story about climate warming...in 1922?
It was probably hot as balls. Weather man says the heat is saying that
and "the humdity is coming back" here in Alanta. The heat index is
supposed to be ~107 deg F (42 deg C) here today. When it's that hot,
it's all anyone can talk about.
> Why does AlGore live like a pharaoh and lecture the little people to walk
> and take transit?
What does he have to do with any thing? If politicians didn't care
about this, would you?
> Go plant a tree. I fart in your general direction... MYRON. LOL
Is that the best you got? Sad. My email inbox seems to indicate no
sense of surprise from others that you took a conversation that was
trying to be civil and private, and turned it into a public flamewar.
> PS: 25 years ago it was the coming Ice Age. Wait another 20 now and it
> will be again. Betcha.
Let me let you in on another secret: The 'climate change conspiracy'
will certainly bring about one thing: new technology. Even you can
admit that new technology creates jobs, boosts the economy, and
contributes to the long-term success of many job sectors. Bringing
about sustainable, cleaner technologies will only benefit everyone in
the long run (even if currently unnecessary). There's an African fable
about an old man, on the brink of death, planting fig trees in the field
so that his grand children may one day in the future eat.
Over and Out.
\\paul
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 16 Aug 2007 08:53:05
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>>> John Kane wrote:
>>>>> On Aug 15, 4:11 am, "Bill Sornson" <as...@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>> Canada's first PhD climatologist and UA/Birmingham's
>>>>>> leading climate expert are just two off-hand.
>>>>> Who dey?
>>>> Dey two leading scientists who don't drink Kool-aid, dat's who.
>>>>
>>>> Bill "Google for names and positions; it's really easy!" S.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Ok, Bill, since your too lazy to even support your own position,
>>> here's a paper from John Christy of UAB (published March of last
>>> year).
>>> http://www.prism.gatech.edu/~gtg611a/christy_et_al.pdf
>>>
>>> And gasp! The paper concludes:
>>>
>>> "Our results indicate that the central San Joaquin Valley has
>>> experienced a significant rise of minimum temperatures
>>> (~3°C in JJA and SON), a rise that is not detectable in
>>> the adjacent Sierra Nevada. Our working hypothesis is
>>> that the rapid valley warming is caused by the massive
>>> growth in irrigated agriculture. Such human engineering
>>> of the environment has changed a high-albedo desert
>>> into a darker, moister, vegetated plain, thus altering
>>> the surface energy balance in a way we suggest has
>>> created the results found in this study"
>>>
>>> I guess humans can affect the Earth after all. Bill, I guess you
>>> wouldn't know that since you can't be bothered to actually read a
>>> science article. Or am I wrong? Can you link to me to a science
>>> paper that supports your position?
>>
>> LOL You keep moving the goalpost, Myron. (Hint: that's not the UAB
>> scientist who writes extensively on the hoax that is manmade GW. And you
>> didn't "demand" papers initially either.)
>
> Straw man...
Bull. Go back and read the thread. That wasn't your initial question.
HOWEVER, I was wrong about the campus; it's UAH (Huntsville), not UAB. My
bad. Take your pick between Roy Spencer
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roy_Spencer) and John Christy ("I've often
heard it said that there's a consensus of thousands of scientists on the
global warming issue and that humans are causing a catastrophic change to
the climate system. Well I am one scientist, and there are many that simply
think that is not true.").
> You said UA's leading climate expert. I posted a paper -- on MY
> webspace -- that he recently published. Maybe in your mind he's not
> UABs leader, but that's his damn title...GOOGLE IT! No wait, I'm not
> too lazy to support my own statements:
>
> "...In November 2000 Gov. Don Siegelman appointed him to be Alabama's
> State Climatologist. In 1989 Dr. Roy W. Spencer (then a NASA/Marshall
> scientist and now a Principle Research Scientist at UAH) and Christy
> developed a global temperature data set from microwave data observed
> from satellites beginning in 1979. For this achievement, the
> Spencer-Christy team was awarded NASA's Medal for Exceptional
> Scientific Achievement in 1991. In 1996, they were selected to
> receive a Special Award by the American Meteorological Society "for
> developing a global, precise record of earth's temperature from
> operational polar-orbiting satellites, fundamentally advancing our
> ability to monitor climate." In January 2002 Christy was inducted as
> a Fellow of the American Meteorological Society..."
>
> It goes on about national committees and testifying for congress, but
> you get the idea.
Sure, and then they both appeared in
http://en.wikipedia.org:80/wiki/The_Great_Global_Warming_Swindle and
suddenly were pariahs in the GGWH (Great Global Warming Hoax) world.
>> BTW, ask that man where the SJ thermometer is located. On a tile
>> roof or next to an AC exhaust?
>
> I'm pretty sure it's in the paper...if you'd read it.
>
>> Why was 1934 (not 1998 as claimed for last few years) the warmest
>> year on record?
>
> Lot's of reasons. Ever hear of the Central Limit Theorem? It's a
> great place to start if you never had a data analysis class during
> your undergraduate or graduate school.
So why was it so important for the GW proponents to have it be 1998 (AND try
to cover it up when it was shown to be wrong)?
>> Why are the polar ice caps shrinking...ON MARS?
>
> Lot's of reasons. Do you have any idea why ice caps (and man's
> contribution to their retreat) are such a big deal? (search terms:
> albedo, feedback mechanisms).
The POINT, Myron, is that GW happens with no help from man whatsoever. If
it's happeing on Mars, why is it so shocking that it's occurring here?
> Why did PREVIOUS Ice Ages end? (Maybe George "Ooga" Bush drove a
>> caveman car.)
>
> I see what your daft technique is hinting at. Let me let you in on a
> little secret: No one...not a single published scientist or engineer
> denies natural cycles. But I guess you can't accept that type of
> point of view (a scientific one?).
So why is this one different? WHy all the emotionalism about it? Why is it
so AWFUL AND ALARMING now? Answer: political agendas. Period.
>> Why did the Washington Post run a story about climate warming...in
>> 1922?
>
> It was probably hot as balls. Weather man says the heat is saying
> that and "the humdity is coming back" here in Alanta. The heat index
> is supposed to be ~107 deg F (42 deg C) here today. When it's that
> hot, it's all anyone can talk about.
And then it was Global Cooling, and Global Warming, and Cooling. Go look at
Newsweek from whenever it was in the '70s. It was their cover story!
Shocking and Alarming!
>
>> Why does AlGore live like a pharaoh and lecture the little people to
>> walk and take transit?
>
> What does he have to do with any thing? If politicians didn't care
> about this, would you?
Politicians?!? So they're the end-all and be-all in Myron's World?
>
>> Go plant a tree. I fart in your general direction... MYRON. LOL
>
> Is that the best you got? Sad. My email inbox seems to indicate no
> sense of surprise from others that you took a conversation that was
> trying to be civil and private, and turned it into a public flamewar.
Oh, fuck you. You tried to bait me into some private exchange -- sorry, I
have zero interest in you much less corresponding with you -- and when I
didn't take it YOU began public, personal flaming. At least keep your facts
straight if you're going to be a professional whiner.
How's this: I'm done with you. You buy all the hype and hysteria; I don't.
All I pointed out originally was that Junk Science dot com had issued a
challenge; AND that AlGore won't debate ANY leading GW skeptics (scientist
or just writer like Chris Horner). Those are FACTS. Sorry they threaten
Myron's Impending Doom Template {tm} so much.
Buh-bye.
>
>> PS: 25 years ago it was the coming Ice Age. Wait another 20 now
>> and it will be again. Betcha.
>
> Let me let you in on another secret: The 'climate change conspiracy'
> will certainly bring about one thing: new technology. Even you can
> admit that new technology creates jobs, boosts the economy, and
> contributes to the long-term success of many job sectors. Bringing
> about sustainable, cleaner technologies will only benefit everyone in
> the long run (even if currently unnecessary). There's an African
> fable about an old man, on the brink of death, planting fig trees in
> the field so that his grand children may one day in the future eat.
Nice story. Too bad the alarmists will do their damnedest to destroy the
economy in the name of ecology (read: CONTROL), and that poor people will
suffer the most. New technology is great, but strangling regulations and
new laws will greatly DECREASE JOBS as companies cut back due to increased
costs and inability to conform. Of course, if Hillary gets elected all the
sudden this will greatly ease, so...we'll see.
>
> Over and Out.
If only...
|
| |
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: 09 Aug 2007 07:50:39
From: DI
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...
>
Apart from that, It's not illegal to make money from oil. Kyoto was
designed to wreck the U.S. economy. What's to deny about climate change,
it's in one of it's natural cycles that's been happening for millions of
years. Iraq for oil, dream on, where is it?
|
| | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 08:58:41
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
DI wrote:
> "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...
>>
>
> Apart from that, It's not illegal to make money from oil. Kyoto was
> designed to wreck the U.S. economy. What's to deny about climate
> change, it's in one of it's natural cycles that's been happening for
> millions of years. Iraq for oil, dream on, where is it?
Junk Science is offering a hundred grand to anyone who can prove GW is
caused by man -- and they don't mean just on Mars, either!
So far, no takers... (Sort of like how AlGore won't debate /any/ leading
climatologist or meteorologist on the subject.)
|
| | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 19:43:02
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> So far, no takers... (Sort of like how AlGore won't debate /any/ leading
> climatologist or meteorologist on the subject.)
Bill,
I gotta a question for you that I want to take over to email. So I'm
asking ya: what's your email. Better yet, drop me a line at
phobson
@ gatech
dot edu
\\paul
|
| | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 20:19:25
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> So far, no takers... (Sort of like how AlGore won't debate /any/
>> leading climatologist or meteorologist on the subject.)
>
> Bill,
>
> I gotta a question for you that I want to take over to email. So I'm
> asking ya: what's your email. Better yet, drop me a line at
>
> phobson
> @ gatech
> dot edu
Well, Bill, since you won't contact me offline, here she goes:
Please name a leading climatologist or meteorologist (or hydrologist,
etc) who would disagree with Al Gore so that there could be a debate.
Thanks.
\\paul
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 21:14:50
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>> So far, no takers... (Sort of like how AlGore won't debate /any/
>>> leading climatologist or meteorologist on the subject.)
> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>> I gotta a question for you that I want to take over to email. So I'm
>> asking ya: what's your email. Better yet, drop me a line at
further:
> Well, Bill, since you won't contact me offline, here she goes:
> Please name a leading climatologist or meteorologist (or hydrologist,
> etc) who would disagree with Al Gore so that there could be a debate.
Dennis Avery, the latest challenger in the long running ad series, "Why
Won't Al Gore Debate Me?" . Sheesh, don't you read the papers?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | |
Date: 14 Aug 2007 22:03:56
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
Andrew Muzi wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>> So far, no takers... (Sort of like how AlGore won't debate /any/
>>>> leading climatologist or meteorologist on the subject.)
>
> > Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>>> I gotta a question for you that I want to take over to email. So I'm
>>> asking ya: what's your email. Better yet, drop me a line at
> further:
>> Well, Bill, since you won't contact me offline, here she goes:
>> Please name a leading climatologist or meteorologist (or hydrologist,
>> etc) who would disagree with Al Gore so that there could be a debate.
>
> Dennis Avery, the latest challenger in the long running ad series, "Why
> Won't Al Gore Debate Me?" . Sheesh, don't you read the papers?
This reminds me, where is our former resident climatologist, James Annan?
--
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 19:49:26
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
A Muzi wrote:
>>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>> So far, no takers... (Sort of like how AlGore won't debate /any/
>>>> leading climatologist or meteorologist on the subject.)
>
>> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>>> I gotta a question for you that I want to take over to email. So
>>> I'm asking ya: what's your email. Better yet, drop me a line at
> further:
>> Well, Bill, since you won't contact me offline, here she goes:
>> Please name a leading climatologist or meteorologist (or hydrologist,
>> etc) who would disagree with Al Gore so that there could be a debate.
>
> Dennis Avery, the latest challenger in the long running ad series,
> "Why Won't Al Gore Debate Me?" . Sheesh, don't you read the papers?
I'd scrolled past this and then couldn't find it. Just GOOGLE it,
fewgawdsake! (Anything works, like "leading meteorologists global warming
not manmade" or "...hoax" or whatever. Sheesh.)
Also, http://www.junkscience.com/ is where the challenge is. Why doesn't
PMH enter?!? LOL
|
| | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 02:14:02
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
>>>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>> So far, no takers... (Sort of like how AlGore won't debate /any/
>>>>> leading climatologist or meteorologist on the subject.)
>>> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>>>> I gotta a question for you that I want to take over to email. So
>>>> I'm asking ya: what's your email. Better yet, drop me a line at
>> further:
>>> Well, Bill, since you won't contact me offline, here she goes:
>>> Please name a leading climatologist or meteorologist (or hydrologist,
>>> etc) who would disagree with Al Gore so that there could be a debate.
> A Muzi wrote:
>> Dennis Avery, the latest challenger in the long running ad series,
>> "Why Won't Al Gore Debate Me?" . Sheesh, don't you read the papers?
Print paper? No. I get 75% of my news online. Thanks to AdBlock, I
haven't seen a disruptive ad in a couple of years. The rest of my news
comes from Time and Foreign Policy magazines.
Bill Sornson wrote:
> I'd scrolled past this and then couldn't find it. Just GOOGLE it,
> fewgawdsake! (Anything works, like "leading meteorologists global warming
> not manmade" or "...hoax" or whatever. Sheesh.)
Dennis Avery? This guy?
http://www.cgfi.org/about/davery_bio.htm
Seems to me he's an agricultural analyst. But let's keep going:
I can think of ONE guy at MIT (Richard Lindzen) who still hasn't come to
terms with reality. One of my professors (Marc Steiglitz) discussed the
issue with him and about 15 other actual experts. Lindzen's strategy
simple: move this issue around to something that's not your field.
Example: Marc does land-atmospheric thermodynamic coupling in hydrology
modeling (TOPMODEL framework, mostly). So Marc naturally brings up the
millions of dollars oil companies have lost due to the longer summers
delaying the freezing of the tundra (thus delaying the construction of
ice roads to allow drilling). Lindzen shifts the discussion to biology.
Only this time, one of the 15 other folks is a biologist. Oops...try
again...Nope, there's an actual expert in the field around too. He
never made a valid point.
> Also, http://www.junkscience.com/ is where the challenge is. Why doesn't
> PMH enter?!? LOL
Did you seriously just link to that sight? Pathetic indeed.
\\paul
|
| | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 01:11:07
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>>>>> Bill Sornson <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>>> So far, no takers... (Sort of like how AlGore won't debate /any/
>>>>>> leading climatologist or meteorologist on the subject.)
>
>
>>>> Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>>>>> I gotta a question for you that I want to take over to email. So
>>>>> I'm asking ya: what's your email. Better yet, drop me a line at
>>> further:
>>>> Well, Bill, since you won't contact me offline, here she goes:
>>>> Please name a leading climatologist or meteorologist (or
>>>> hydrologist, etc) who would disagree with Al Gore so that there
>>>> could be a debate.
>
>> A Muzi wrote:
>>> Dennis Avery, the latest challenger in the long running ad series,
>>> "Why Won't Al Gore Debate Me?" . Sheesh, don't you read the papers?
>
> Print paper? No. I get 75% of my news online. Thanks to AdBlock, I
> haven't seen a disruptive ad in a couple of years. The rest of my
> news comes from Time and Foreign Policy magazines.
You asked a question that is EASILY answered online. GOOGLE IT, GENIUS.
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> I'd scrolled past this and then couldn't find it. Just GOOGLE it,
>> fewgawdsake! (Anything works, like "leading meteorologists global
>> warming not manmade" or "...hoax" or whatever. Sheesh.)
>
> Dennis Avery? This guy?
> http://www.cgfi.org/about/davery_bio.htm
>
> Seems to me he's an agricultural analyst. But let's keep going:
>
> I can think of ONE guy at MIT (Richard Lindzen) who still hasn't come
> to terms with reality.
You're nuts. Canada's first PhD climatologist and UA/Birmingham's leading
climate expert are just two off-hand. GOOGLE for it, genius. (BTW, Avery
is Andrew's person. You can't even reply in a coherent manner.)
>> Also, http://www.junkscience.com/ is where the challenge is. Why
>> doesn't PMH enter?!? LOL
>
> Did you seriously just link to that sight? Pathetic indeed.
What's pathetic is your reading comprehension and posting skills. (Hint: I
referenced that challenge days ago, and drew your pathetic little plea.
Duly ignored. I did not link to it to ANSWER you; I linked to it to
elucidate that to which I'd referred. HTH.)
BTW, if it's such a slam dunk then why don't you -- or someone who actually
DOES read a paper LOL -- take their challenge and win a cool hundy grand?
Go on, P. Myron -- GET THE DOUGH! Put up or shut up, genius.
|
| | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 10:27:01
From: Paul Myron Hobson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
Bill Sornson wrote:
> You asked a question that is EASILY answered online. GOOGLE IT, GENIUS.
If you think that kind of question is easily answered online, now I know
where you get your ideas ("well, it's on clownpenis.fart, it must be
true!). Cite some peer-reviewd journal articles for me, big guy.
>> Bill Sornson wrote:
>>> I'd scrolled past this and then couldn't find it. Just GOOGLE it,
>>> fewgawdsake! (Anything works, like "leading meteorologists global
>>> warming not manmade" or "...hoax" or whatever. Sheesh.)
>> Dennis Avery? This guy?
>> http://www.cgfi.org/about/davery_bio.htm
>>
>> Seems to me he's an agricultural analyst. But let's keep going:
>>
>> I can think of ONE guy at MIT (Richard Lindzen) who still hasn't come
>> to terms with reality.
>
> You're nuts. Canada's first PhD climatologist and UA/Birmingham's leading
> climate expert are just two off-hand. GOOGLE for it, genius. (BTW, Avery
> is Andrew's person. You can't even reply in a coherent manner.)
So the burden of proof to support your claim is on me? If you're so
certain of your stance, why don't you stand up to the plate, chief, and
contest the Nova Scotia borehole data? Or the ice cores...
>>> Also, http://www.junkscience.com/ is where the challenge is. Why
>>> doesn't PMH enter?!? LOL
>> Did you seriously just link to that sight? Pathetic indeed.
>
> What's pathetic is your reading comprehension and posting skills. (Hint: I
> referenced that challenge days ago, and drew your pathetic little plea.
> Duly ignored. I did not link to it to ANSWER you; I linked to it to
> elucidate that to which I'd referred. HTH.)
> BTW, if it's such a slam dunk then why don't you -- or someone who actually
> DOES read a paper LOL -- take their challenge and win a cool hundy grand?
Funny, you totally snipped the part where I explained that there is ONE
credible climate change skeptic and his arguments don't hold water and
couldn't provide names of anyone else. hmmn...
> Go on, P. Myron -- GET THE DOUGH! Put up or shut up, genius.
Right.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 09:02:55
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> Bill Sornson wrote:
>> You asked a question that is EASILY answered online. GOOGLE IT,
>> GENIUS.
>
> If you think that kind of question is easily answered online, now I
> know where you get your ideas ("well, it's on clownpenis.fart, it
> must be true!). Cite some peer-reviewd journal articles for me, big
> guy.
Well there ya go. If the "science" is "settled", then why don't you go to
Junk Science and TAKE THEIR CHALLENGE? You'll be rich and famous enough to
stop blathering on Usenet.
Or maybe I forgot: animated polar bears with violin music background
apparently passes for peer-reviewed in Myron World. (Hell, it's downright
silly that it's even considered "documentary" instead of biased,
agenda-driven BS.)
HAND (nice breeze out there)
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 15 Aug 2007 17:41:01
From: Clive George
Subject: Re: we need is a president who rides a bike
|
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote in message
news:46c323b0$0$4098$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Well there ya go. If the "science" is "settled", then why don't you go to
> Junk Science and TAKE THEIR CHALLENGE? You'll be rich and famous enough
> to stop blathering on Usenet.
Have you actually read their challenge? It's not just based on the science -
if it was, I think their money would have gone by now.
clive
|
| |
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 15:55:30
From: DI
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
"donquijote1954" <nolionnoproblem@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1186587446.637205.33650@g4g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> 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
>
>
I can assure you there's a better life out there if you would get rid of
this obsession you have.
|
| | |
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: 07 Aug 2007 10:31:20
From: Neil Brooks
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:13:15 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com > wrote:
>
>"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?
Do you have any reason to believe that he's listening to anybody that
IS NOT God these days?
Doesn't seem like it....
|
| | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:38:09
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
Neil Brooks wrote:
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 12:13:15 -0500, "Keats" <keats@nospam.com> wrote:
>
>> "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?
>
> Do you have any reason to believe that he's listening to anybody that
> IS NOT God these days?
>
> Doesn't seem like it....
Dick Cheney is God?
--
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 20:24:03
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: 07 Aug 2007 13:01:37
From: DI
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.
Surely the Dems have a better plan than this, like maybe making post birth
abortion legal, then they could all be killed in the name of population
control. Of Course, they must have someone else to do their work for
them, they don't have the balls to try it themselves.
You had better be careful. if you get rid of all Republicans, who's going to
work and pay the taxes necessary to support the Democratic Social Programs
you propose? Not Democrats.
|
| | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 23:39:46
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 13:01:37 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
>Surely the Dems have a better plan than this,
They don't plan, surely that's evident.
> like maybe making post birth
>abortion legal, then they could all be killed in the name of population
>control. Of Course, they must have someone else to do their work for
>them, they don't have the balls to try it themselves.
Ah, the ever popular "you don't have the nerve to kill your own
enemies" argument. Always a winner.
>You had better be careful. if you get rid of all Republicans, who's going to
>work and pay the taxes necessary to support the Democratic Social Programs
>you propose? Not Democrats.
I'm not sure when I proposed any social programs... but as soon as you
find out where, you be sure to let me know, OK? (good hunting,
knee-jerk-reaction boy).
|
| | | | |
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!
|
"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.
Karl Rove resigned today. So you must have already experienced great
changes for the better in your world. The ship of state is moving your way
now. So stop the whining, OK?
Keats
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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!
|
"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?
>> 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.
>
>> 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!"
Keats
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
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 20:35:47
From: Neil Brooks
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:
>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.
The implication there: that the violent felon had his day in court, a
fair trial, and was sentenced.
Let's get to that point ... and then continue the discussion.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 18:49:37
From: DI
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
"Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk > wrote in message
news:13bhtgs2ivr3u9a@corp.supernews.com...
>>
> If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the Americans
> holding them?
>
> clive
Because they are trying to kill us, the only 2 ways to prevent them from
doing that is to hold them or kill them. Would you feel better if we were
to line them up and start shooting?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:23:06
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
DI who? wrote:
> "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:13bhtgs2ivr3u9a@corp.supernews.com...
>
>> If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the Americans
>> holding them?
>>
>> clive
>
> Because they are trying to kill us...
And you believe everything a government official says (or just the
Republican ones)?
--
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 23:16:25
From: A Muzi
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
>> "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
>>> If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the
>>> Americans holding them?
> DI who? wrote:
>> Because they are trying to kill us...
Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> And you believe everything a government official says (or just the
> Republican ones)?
The President photoshopped all those beheadings to make the poor little
darlings look bad? Suicide bombers are fiction? Missiles into schools
and AK spray into buses all fantasy?
Tell it to Mrs Pearl...
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 09:44:14
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
In article <13bl5832iiv1087@corp.supernews.com >,
A Muzi <am@yellowjersey.org > wrote:
> >> "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote
> >>> If they're not covered by the American Constitution, why are the
> >>> Americans holding them?
>
> > DI who? wrote:
> >> Because they are trying to kill us...
>
> Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman wrote:
> > And you believe everything a government official says (or just the
> > Republican ones)?
>
> The President photoshopped all those beheadings to make the poor
> little darlings look bad? Suicide bombers are fiction? Missiles into
> schools and AK spray into buses all fantasy?
>
> Tell it to Mrs Pearl...
Those situations were created or exacerbated as a consequence of the
Shrub's rash and incompetent foreign policy and malfeasance in the
VPOTUS office and staff. There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to GWB's
destabilization of Iraq. Bush has created a religio-civil war in Iraq
and may have destabilized an entire region which could fall into the
hands of Islamist radicals to the detriment of the entire world. Not to
mention arming our enemies through incompetence, losing track of IIRC
190000 weapons, and planning to arm even more of them in Saudi Arabia
(oh yeah, that's where the 9/11 attackers mostly came from).
The invasion of Afghanistan was logically defensible. The Taliban
directly aided and abetted al Qaeda in their attack on the US. The
overthrow of the Taliban and the creation of a more reasonable
government was a reasonable action, and one which successfully
destabilized al Qaeda. It was, however, a huge tactical error to
flipflop on that, abandon the effort before the job was done and invade
Iraq. It was an obvious fuckup before it happened, but the Bush boys
were determined not to be affected by reality.
We see clearly the dire consequences of Bush's and his team's rank
incompetence. Policy based on fantasy- whether in tax policy, energy
policy or security policy- is a bad thing. The world is less stable,
the US is far less secure and the way forward is far more dangerous than
it was before the post turtle took office. Hell, al Qaeda doesn't have
to do anything further to bring down the US- they can just let the
Republicans do it for them.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 08:52:32
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to
> GWB's destabilization of Iraq.
So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in justifying her
vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed, yet gets a total pass for
it.
Bill "Hill lied, people died" S.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 13:07:37
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
In article <46bb383f$0$20529$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
>
> > There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to GWB's destabilization of
> > Iraq.
>
> So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in justifying
> her vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed, yet gets a total
> pass for it.
The Senate was given doctored, skewed and fabricated information on
which to make their decision. In short, they were lied to and
manipulated. Personally I think they should have been astute enough to
see that, since it was bloody obvious to those of us outside the
Beltway, and I do hold the Senate accountable for that. The
Administration's claims didn't pass the smell test at the time, which of
course ended up being substantiated by later events.
Hillary doesn't get a free pass with me on this issue- one of the
reasons I won't vote for her.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 11:43:11
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <46bb383f$0$20529$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>
>>> There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to GWB's destabilization of
>>> Iraq.
>>
>> So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in justifying
>> her vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed, yet gets a total
>> pass for it.
>
> The Senate was given doctored, skewed and fabricated information on
> which to make their decision. In short, they were lied to and
> manipulated. Personally I think they should have been astute enough
> to see that, since it was bloody obvious to those of us outside the
> Beltway, and I do hold the Senate accountable for that. The
> Administration's claims didn't pass the smell test at the time, which
> of course ended up being substantiated by later events.
>
> Hillary doesn't get a free pass with me on this issue- one of the
> reasons I won't vote for her.
She went /beyond/ Admin claims -- prolly because of inside info from Hubby.
(Hell, read his 1998 speech about Saddam Hussein sometime.)
Again, she gets a PASS (from the mainstream media at least) for this.
Bill "Hillary Lied, People Died" S.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 17:18:16
From: Tim McNamara
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
In article <46bb603e$0$12240$4c368faf@roadrunner.com >,
"Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > In article <46bb383f$0$20529$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
> > Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
> >
> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
> >>
> >>> There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to GWB's destabilization of
> >>> Iraq.
> >>
> >> So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in
> >> justifying her vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed,
> >> yet gets a total pass for it.
> >
> > The Senate was given doctored, skewed and fabricated information on
> > which to make their decision. In short, they were lied to and
> > manipulated. Personally I think they should have been astute
> > enough to see that, since it was bloody obvious to those of us
> > outside the Beltway, and I do hold the Senate accountable for that.
> > The Administration's claims didn't pass the smell test at the
> > time, which of course ended up being substantiated by later events.
> >
> > Hillary doesn't get a free pass with me on this issue- one of the
> > reasons I won't vote for her.
>
> She went /beyond/ Admin claims -- prolly because of inside info from
> Hubby. (Hell, read his 1998 speech about Saddam Hussein sometime.)
>
> Again, she gets a PASS (from the mainstream media at least) for this.
The mainstream media owned and operated by high-dollar Republican
contributors? That mainstream media? The one that abdicated all
responsibility in looking in the Candidate Bush's background of
incompetence prior to the 2000 election and gave him a free pass? The
mainstream media that failed to bother to look into the veracity of the
Bush Administration's claims during it's rush to war? The mainstream
media that didn't bother to challenge the Bush Administration's obvious
outrageous lies, high crimes and misdemeanors until after the public
finally managed to wise up? That mainstream media?
Given that I see Hillary's votes on the issue reported in the media all
the time, I think you're dreaming. Most of the media is firmly
entrenched with the new right. Whether the voters will care about
Hillary's votes for war is a different issue the electorate being prone
to a short memory.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 22:34:09
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:18:16 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net > wrote:
>In article <46bb603e$0$12240$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>
>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> > In article <46bb383f$0$20529$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>> > Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Tim McNamara wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to GWB's destabilization of
>> >>> Iraq.
>> >>
>> >> So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in
>> >> justifying her vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed,
>> >> yet gets a total pass for it.
>> >
>> > The Senate was given doctored, skewed and fabricated information on
>> > which to make their decision. In short, they were lied to and
>> > manipulated. Personally I think they should have been astute
>> > enough to see that, since it was bloody obvious to those of us
>> > outside the Beltway, and I do hold the Senate accountable for that.
>> > The Administration's claims didn't pass the smell test at the
>> > time, which of course ended up being substantiated by later events.
>> >
>> > Hillary doesn't get a free pass with me on this issue- one of the
>> > reasons I won't vote for her.
>>
>> She went /beyond/ Admin claims -- prolly because of inside info from
>> Hubby. (Hell, read his 1998 speech about Saddam Hussein sometime.)
>>
>> Again, she gets a PASS (from the mainstream media at least) for this.
>
>The mainstream media owned and operated by high-dollar Republican
>contributors? That mainstream media? The one that abdicated all
>responsibility in looking in the Candidate Bush's background of
>incompetence prior to the 2000 election and gave him a free pass? The
>mainstream media that failed to bother to look into the veracity of the
>Bush Administration's claims during it's rush to war? The mainstream
>media that didn't bother to challenge the Bush Administration's obvious
>outrageous lies, high crimes and misdemeanors until after the public
>finally managed to wise up? That mainstream media?
The same one that loudly and repeatedly reported every single thing you are
griping about in that last paragraph.
>Given that I see Hillary's votes on the issue reported in the media all
>the time, I think you're dreaming. Most of the media is firmly
>entrenched with the new right. Whether the voters will care about
>Hillary's votes for war is a different issue the electorate being prone
>to a short memory.
As much as I disagree with her on so many things, she had been consistent and
reasonable on the Iraq war. She saw the same intel on her hubby's desk as Bush
saw on his and she knew it and was mostly honest about it. This bizarre primary
season put an end to that.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 14:09:41
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:34:09 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
>>The mainstream media owned and operated by high-dollar Republican
>>contributors? That mainstream media? The one that abdicated all
>>responsibility in looking in the Candidate Bush's background of
>>incompetence prior to the 2000 election and gave him a free pass? The
>>mainstream media that failed to bother to look into the veracity of the
>>Bush Administration's claims during it's rush to war? The mainstream
>>media that didn't bother to challenge the Bush Administration's obvious
>>outrageous lies, high crimes and misdemeanors until after the public
>>finally managed to wise up? That mainstream media?
>
>The same one that loudly and repeatedly reported every single thing you are
>griping about in that last paragraph.
Have to agree. I don't read off beat media. But, it was very obvious
that the Administration was ignoring all evidence that Sadaam didn't
have WMD's and just pushing rhetoric. And the public was buying the
rhetoric. After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
doused the nuclear connection. It was reported, it was ignored by most
people. Two UN WMD inspectors had reported finding nothing, then been
verbally kicked around by the administration, and that was ignored.
Two or three days before Bush ordered us into Iraq (it was looking
imminent), the Chileans introduced a resolution to delay 30 days and
do one last inspection - Bush refused to wait 30 days, no doubt
fearing that they would once again find no WMD's and he'd be out of
excuses to invade Iraq.
All this was reported. It was obvious to anyone who can reason that
Bush was bent on invading Iraq no matter what the evidence. The public
(once again) displayed their ability to listen to the President spew
nonsense and went for the ride instead of looking at what the media
was reporting.
>>Given that I see Hillary's votes on the issue reported in the media all
>>the time, I think you're dreaming. Most of the media is firmly
>>entrenched with the new right. Whether the voters will care about
>>Hillary's votes for war is a different issue the electorate being prone
>>to a short memory.
>
>As much as I disagree with her on so many things, she had been consistent and
>reasonable on the Iraq war. She saw the same intel on her hubby's desk as Bush
>saw on his and she knew it and was mostly honest about it. This bizarre primary
>season put an end to that.
Reasonable? She was a typical "bend with the wind" politician who
caved and voted with the current public sway, see above. She was not
unique in that regard, but she is notable. As for the intelligence,
Bush had further intelligence showing that they had yet to find any
evidence of anything in Iraq, but that makes no difference. Bush lied,
repeatedly, obviously, and dopes like Hillary went along for the ride.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 09:17:26
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
still me wrote:
> After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
> doused the nuclear connection.
ROTFL (Even the biased 9-11 Commission Report nails him for being a liar.)
ROTFL
Good stuff!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 12:48:12
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:17:26 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
>still me wrote:
>
>> After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
>> doused the nuclear connection.
>
>ROTFL (Even the biased 9-11 Commission Report nails him for being a liar.)
>ROTFL
>
>Good stuff!
The obviously fake document ploy was a good one. Back in my days of
investigating life and health insurance claims I made a bundle off of a bogus
Haitian Acte de Deces that named me as having died in Port au Prince. Opposing
counsel of course argued that the existence of a fake document does not preclude
the existence of the real thing. But in all the gambit worked as well for Joe
Wilson as it did for me.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 10:04:51
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
RonSonic wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:17:26 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>> still me wrote:
>>
>>> After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
>>> doused the nuclear connection.
>>
>> ROTFL (Even the biased 9-11 Commission Report nails him for being a
>> liar.) ROTFL
>>
>> Good stuff!
>
> The obviously fake document ploy was a good one. Back in my days of
> investigating life and health insurance claims I made a bundle off of
> a bogus Haitian Acte de Deces that named me as having died in Port au
> Prince. Opposing counsel of course argued that the existence of a
> fake document does not preclude the existence of the real thing. But
> in all the gambit worked as well for Joe Wilson as it did for me.
I hear CBS News is hiring.
Bill "FYI" S.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 03:55:04
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:04:51 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:
>But
>> in all the gambit worked as well for Joe Wilson as it did for me.
Righto! Joe made it all up. That's why the ADministration worked so
hard to discredit him.
Oh... wait... his information was correct. Gee, I sense a problem with
your suggestions about him. In fact, oh my Gawd, the Administration
may have worked to discredit a man telling the truth who was exposing
their phony reason for invading Iraq.
I can't believe this. It's shocking!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 21:20:36
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
still me wrote:
> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:04:51 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
> wrote:
>
>> But
>>> in all the gambit worked as well for Joe Wilson as it did for me.
>
> Righto! Joe made it all up. That's why the ADministration worked so
> hard to discredit him.
>
> Oh... wait... his information was correct. Gee, I sense a problem with
> your suggestions about him. In fact, oh my Gawd, the Administration
> may have worked to discredit a man telling the truth who was exposing
> their phony reason for invading Iraq.
>
> I can't believe this. It's shocking!
Do you /ever/ read real news accounts of events? You're like reading a BLOG
DIGEST tonight! LOL
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 20:12:39
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:04:51 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me > wrote:
>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 09:17:26 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> still me wrote:
>>>
>>>> After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
>>>> doused the nuclear connection.
>>>
>>> ROTFL (Even the biased 9-11 Commission Report nails him for being a
>>> liar.) ROTFL
>>>
>>> Good stuff!
>>
>> The obviously fake document ploy was a good one. Back in my days of
>> investigating life and health insurance claims I made a bundle off of
>> a bogus Haitian Acte de Deces that named me as having died in Port au
>> Prince. Opposing counsel of course argued that the existence of a
>> fake document does not preclude the existence of the real thing. But
>> in all the gambit worked as well for Joe Wilson as it did for me.
>
>I hear CBS News is hiring.
>
>Bill "FYI" S.
My fake documents are real fake documents. They accept phonies and are of no
interest to me.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 10 Aug 2007 11:08:13
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 14:09:41 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:34:09 -0400, RonSonic
><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>>The mainstream media owned and operated by high-dollar Republican
>>>contributors? That mainstream media? The one that abdicated all
>>>responsibility in looking in the Candidate Bush's background of
>>>incompetence prior to the 2000 election and gave him a free pass? The
>>>mainstream media that failed to bother to look into the veracity of the
>>>Bush Administration's claims during it's rush to war? The mainstream
>>>media that didn't bother to challenge the Bush Administration's obvious
>>>outrageous lies, high crimes and misdemeanors until after the public
>>>finally managed to wise up? That mainstream media?
>>
>>The same one that loudly and repeatedly reported every single thing you are
>>griping about in that last paragraph.
>
>Have to agree. I don't read off beat media. But, it was very obvious
>that the Administration was ignoring all evidence that Sadaam didn't
>have WMD's and just pushing rhetoric. And the public was buying the
>rhetoric. After all, Joe Wilson, the Administration's own rep, had
>doused the nuclear connection.
Joe Wilson was not a rep of the administration but of a faction within CIA
that'd been there since long ago. Further he did nothing to discredit the Niger
angle. It was reported and rightly ignored.
> It was reported, it was ignored by most
>people. Two UN WMD inspectors had reported finding nothing, then been
>verbally kicked around by the administration, and that was ignored.
>Two or three days before Bush ordered us into Iraq (it was looking
>imminent), the Chileans introduced a resolution to delay 30 days and
>do one last inspection - Bush refused to wait 30 days, no doubt
>fearing that they would once again find no WMD's and he'd be out of
>excuses to invade Iraq.
>
>All this was reported. It was obvious to anyone who can reason that
>Bush was bent on invading Iraq no matter what the evidence. The public
>(once again) displayed their ability to listen to the President spew
>nonsense and went for the ride instead of looking at what the media
>was reporting.
>
>>>Given that I see Hillary's votes on the issue reported in the media all
>>>the time, I think you're dreaming. Most of the media is firmly
>>>entrenched with the new right. Whether the voters will care about
>>>Hillary's votes for war is a different issue the electorate being prone
>>>to a short memory.
>>
>>As much as I disagree with her on so many things, she had been consistent and
>>reasonable on the Iraq war. She saw the same intel on her hubby's desk as Bush
>>saw on his and she knew it and was mostly honest about it. This bizarre primary
>>season put an end to that.
>
>Reasonable? She was a typical "bend with the wind" politician who
>caved and voted with the current public sway, see above. She was not
>unique in that regard, but she is notable. As for the intelligence,
>Bush had further intelligence showing that they had yet to find any
>evidence of anything in Iraq, but that makes no difference. Bush lied,
>repeatedly, obviously, and dopes like Hillary went along for the ride.
Actually the evidence is in that Saddam was working every possible angle, just
that we haven't found any vast stockpiles of illegal weaponry. Remember Saddam's
own generals thought they had the stuff. If a country's own military thinks they
have chemical weapons any foreign intelligence agency is going to be fooled.
Saddam played a bluff and held his cards too long. He played it well enough to
fool pretty well everyone. Remember the Germany that refused to assist us
against Saddam, they had quadrupled their supply of smallpox vaccine based on
their intelligence from Iraq. So the questionable intelligence was there for
everyone including Hillary and Bill and GWB.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 03:59:39
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 11:08:13 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
>Actually the evidence is in that Saddam was working every possible angle, just
>that we haven't found any vast stockpiles of illegal weaponry. Remember Saddam's
>own generals thought they had the stuff. If a country's own military thinks they
>have chemical weapons any foreign intelligence agency is going to be fooled.
Puullllezzse! Don't tell me you are still trying the "we haven't found
the WMD's yet". Even GWB gave up on that one. You really are
embarrassing yourself.
>Saddam played a bluff and held his cards too long. He played it well enough to
>fool pretty well everyone. Remember the Germany that refused to assist us
>against Saddam, they had quadrupled their supply of smallpox vaccine based on
>their intelligence from Iraq. So the questionable intelligence was there for
>everyone including Hillary and Bill and GWB.
>
Total BS. Stop making excuses. It was clear as day that Bush had only
one agenda - invade Iraq no matter what the evidence.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 22:09:15
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
RonSonic wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:18:16 -0500, Tim McNamara
> <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <46bb603e$0$12240$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> In article <46bb383f$0$20529$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to GWB's destabilization of
>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>>
>>>>> So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in
>>>>> justifying her vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed,
>>>>> yet gets a total pass for it.
>>>>
>>>> The Senate was given doctored, skewed and fabricated information on
>>>> which to make their decision. In short, they were lied to and
>>>> manipulated. Personally I think they should have been astute
>>>> enough to see that, since it was bloody obvious to those of us
>>>> outside the Beltway, and I do hold the Senate accountable for that.
>>>> The Administration's claims didn't pass the smell test at the
>>>> time, which of course ended up being substantiated by later events.
>>>>
>>>> Hillary doesn't get a free pass with me on this issue- one of the
>>>> reasons I won't vote for her.
>>>
>>> She went /beyond/ Admin claims -- prolly because of inside info from
>>> Hubby. (Hell, read his 1998 speech about Saddam Hussein sometime.)
>>>
>>> Again, she gets a PASS (from the mainstream media at least) for
>>> this.
>>
>> The mainstream media owned and operated by high-dollar Republican
>> contributors? That mainstream media? The one that abdicated all
>> responsibility in looking in the Candidate Bush's background of
>> incompetence prior to the 2000 election and gave him a free pass?
>> The mainstream media that failed to bother to look into the veracity
>> of the Bush Administration's claims during it's rush to war? The
>> mainstream media that didn't bother to challenge the Bush
>> Administration's obvious outrageous lies, high crimes and
>> misdemeanors until after the public finally managed to wise up?
>> That mainstream media?
>
> The same one that loudly and repeatedly reported every single thing
> you are griping about in that last paragraph.
Exactly right.
>> Given that I see Hillary's votes on the issue reported in the media
>> all the time, I think you're dreaming. Most of the media is firmly
>> entrenched with the new right. Whether the voters will care about
>> Hillary's votes for war is a different issue the electorate being
>> prone to a short memory.
>
> As much as I disagree with her on so many things, she had been
> consistent and reasonable on the Iraq war. She saw the same intel on
> her hubby's desk as Bush saw on his and she knew it and was mostly
> honest about it. This bizarre primary season put an end to that.
Exactly right.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 09 Aug 2007 23:34:03
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
RonSonic wrote:
> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:18:16 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>> In article <46bb603e$0$12240$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
>> "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>
>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>> In article <46bb383f$0$20529$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>, "Bill
>>>> Sornson" <askme@ask.me> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Tim McNamara wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> There was no "al Qaeda in Iraq" prior to GWB's destabilization of
>>>>>> Iraq.
>>>>> So why did Hillary claim there was on the Senate floor in
>>>>> justifying her vote? She went /beyond/ what the Admin claimed,
>>>>> yet gets a total pass for it.
>>>> The Senate was given doctored, skewed and fabricated information on
>>>> which to make their decision. In short, they were lied to and
>>>> manipulated. Personally I think they should have been astute
>>>> enough to see that, since it was bloody obvious to those of us
>>>> outside the Beltway, and I do hold the Senate accountable for that.
>>>> The Administration's claims didn't pass the smell test at the
>>>> time, which of course ended up being substantiated by later events.
>>>>
>>>> Hillary doesn't get a free pass with me on this issue- one of the
>>>> reasons I won't vote for her.
>>> She went /beyond/ Admin claims -- prolly because of inside info from
>>> Hubby. (Hell, read his 1998 speech about Saddam Hussein sometime.)
>>>
>>> Again, she gets a PASS (from the mainstream media at least) for this.
>> The mainstream media owned and operated by high-dollar Republican
>> contributors? That mainstream media? The one that abdicated all
>> responsibility in looking in the Candidate Bush's background of
>> incompetence prior to the 2000 election and gave him a free pass? The
>> mainstream media that failed to bother to look into the veracity of the
>> Bush Administration's claims during it's rush to war? The mainstream
>> media that didn't bother to challenge the Bush Administration's obvious
>> outrageous lies, high crimes and misdemeanors until after the public
>> finally managed to wise up? That mainstream media?
>
> The same one that loudly and repeatedly reported every single thing you are
> griping about in that last paragraph.
>
>> Given that I see Hillary's votes on the issue reported in the media all
>> the time, I think you're dreaming. Most of the media is firmly
>> entrenched with the new right. Whether the voters will care about
>> Hillary's votes for war is a different issue the electorate being prone
>> to a short memory.
>
> As much as I disagree with her on so many things, she had been consistent and
> reasonable on the Iraq war. She saw the same intel on her hubby's desk as Bush
> saw on his and she knew it and was mostly honest about it. This bizarre primary
> season put an end to that.
I am thinking the results of the US Civil War were in some ways
unfortunate. The current country could be divided with the Upper Midwest
and New England could become the The Reality Based States of America,
the West could be the Small Government Libertarian States of America,
and the South could be the Feudal States of America. With some
migration, people would be happier since they could live with their own
kind.
--
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: 10 Aug 2007 10:06:32
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 23:34:03 -0500, "Tom \"Johnny Sunset\" Sherman"
<sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote:
>RonSonic wrote:
>> On Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:18:16 -0500, Tim McNamara <timmcn@bitstream.net> wrote:
>
>I am thinking the results of the US Civil War were in some ways
>unfortunate. The current country could be divided with the Upper Midwest
>and New England could become the The Reality Based States of America,
>the West could be the Small Government Libertarian States of America,
>and the South could be the Feudal States of America. With some
>migration, people would be happier since they could live with their own
>kind.
You are onto something there. The states comprising the Union having been able
to prevail by reason of industrial capacity and immigrant conscripts, continue
to believe that they maintain some right to demand the resources of the rest of
the country and command its citizenry. That they repeatedly lose in national
elections hasn't quite sunk in.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 04:01:29
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:06:32 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
>
>You are onto something there. The states comprising the Union having been able
>to prevail by reason of industrial capacity and immigrant conscripts, continue
>to believe that they maintain some right to demand the resources of the rest of
>the country and command its citizenry. That they repeatedly lose in national
>elections hasn't quite sunk in.
Damn immigrants. Oh, BTW, what native tribe are you?
>Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 08:55:32
From: RonSonic
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:01:29 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com > wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:06:32 -0400, RonSonic
><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You are onto something there. The states comprising the Union having been able
>>to prevail by reason of industrial capacity and immigrant conscripts, continue
>>to believe that they maintain some right to demand the resources of the rest of
>>the country and command its citizenry. That they repeatedly lose in national
>>elections hasn't quite sunk in.
>
>Damn immigrants. Oh, BTW, what native tribe are you?
Cherokee.
What's with the "damn immigrants" thing? That's Kunichean in it's near complete
irrelevence to the point. Previous military victory does not create a perpetual
right to dictate to the rest of the country.
Ron
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 23:01:39
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:55:32 -0400, RonSonic
<ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com > wrote:
> Previous military victory does not create a perpetual
>right to dictate to the rest of the country.
Oh, the irony!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 12 Aug 2007 18:59:53
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
"still me" wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:55:32 -0400, RonSonic
> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Previous military victory does not create a perpetual
>> right to dictate to the rest of the country.
>
>
> Oh, the irony!
I say let the former CSA states secede, and they have have their desired
neo-feudal theocracy. The "brain drain" of the educated fleeing combined
with the loss of economic support from the rest of the country will make
them regret their decision. Be careful what you wish for.
--
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 16:58:32
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
still me wrote:
> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:55:32 -0400, RonSonic
> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> Previous military victory does not create a perpetual
>> right to dictate to the rest of the country.
>
>
> Oh, the irony!
Nice context removal.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 13 Aug 2007 13:14:20
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Sun, 12 Aug 2007 16:58:32 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <askme@ask.me >
wrote:
>still me wrote:
>> On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 08:55:32 -0400, RonSonic
>> <ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Previous military victory does not create a perpetual
>>> right to dictate to the rest of the country.
>>
>>
>> Oh, the irony!
>
>Nice context removal.
Thank you. I think the statement deserves to try to stand on it's own.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 11 Aug 2007 04:04:10
From: Neil Brooks
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 04:01:29 GMT, still me <wheeledBob@yahoo.com >
wrote:
>On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 10:06:32 -0400, RonSonic
><ronsonic@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You are onto something there. The states comprising the Union having been able
>>to prevail by reason of industrial capacity and immigrant conscripts, continue
>>to believe that they maintain some right to demand the resources of the rest of
>>the country and command its citizenry. That they repeatedly lose in national
>>elections hasn't quite sunk in.
>
>Damn immigrants. Oh, BTW, what native tribe are you?
He's hedgehog, isn't he?
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 22:10:38
From: DI
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
"Tom "Johnny Sunset" Sherman" <sunsetss0003@invailid.com > wrote in message
news:46ba6e71$0$22967$88260bb3@free.teranews.com...
> DI who? wrote:
>> "Clive George" <clive@xxxx-x.fsnet.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:13bhtgs2ivr3u9a@corp.supernews.com...
>>
>
> And you believe everything a government official says (or just the
> Republican ones)?
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - Holstein-Friesland Bovinia
> The weather is here, wish you were beautiful
>
> --
A little of both, but nothing you would say.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 17:36:36
From: Neil Brooks
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:49:37 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
[snip]
> the only 2 ways
[snip]
Almost never the case.
We just need more creative thinkers in charge.
THAT is NOT a tall order at this point....
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 20:45:33
From: DI
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
"Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:nu3ib3pnv1n491vi65u44iohhs3p96vshr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:49:37 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
>> the only 2 ways
>
> [snip]
>
> Almost never the case.
>
> We just need more creative thinkers in charge.
>
> THAT is NOT a tall order at this point....
Well start thinking, how would you handle someone determined to kill you to
the point of blowing himself up.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 21:27:42
From: Tom \Johnny Sunset\ Sherman
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
DI who? wrote:
> "Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nu3ib3pnv1n491vi65u44iohhs3p96vshr@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:49:37 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> the only 2 ways
>> [snip]
>>
>> Almost never the case.
>>
>> We just need more creative thinkers in charge.
>>
>> THAT is NOT a tall order at this point....
>
> Well start thinking, how would you handle someone determined to kill you to
> the point of blowing himself up.
To answer with the serious this particular query deserves, since they
desire of the prisoners at Guantanamo Bay to kill "us" has not been
proved in a fair trial:
I would make them stay in the Comfy Chair until lunch time, with only a
cup of coffee at eleven!
--
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 03:59:00
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 20:45:33 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
>Well start thinking, how would you handle someone determined to kill you to
>the point of blowing himself up.
There's no way to handle them... and there are millions willing to do
the same. The only way to solve the situation is to seek more global
diplomatic solutions (something this Administration has shown itself
incapable of even understanding, let alone implementing. It will take
many years to correct their blunders). But even with those solutions,
you will never eliminate the fanatics of the world. There are plenty,
even here in the USA. You can only moderate their behavior by bringing
the vast majority people into the mainstream and out of the fringe.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 19:33:20
From: Neil Brooks
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 20:45:33 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
>
>"Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:nu3ib3pnv1n491vi65u44iohhs3p96vshr@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:49:37 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>>> the only 2 ways
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> Almost never the case.
>>
>> We just need more creative thinkers in charge.
>>
>> THAT is NOT a tall order at this point....
>
>Well start thinking, how would you handle someone determined to kill you to
>the point of blowing himself up.
Hm. How about a trial and -- if legitimately found guilty --
sentencing according to our laws?
Novel, huh?
I would probably also give a special order to whatever facility
they're housed in: no explosives.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 21:54:32
From: DI
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
"Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com > wrote in message
news:ioaib3pdr6jegbahhlahna9afsvvfqcplr@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 20:45:33 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>
>>
>>"Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>news:nu3ib3pnv1n491vi65u44iohhs3p96vshr@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:49:37 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>>> the only 2 ways
>>>
>>> [snip]
>>>
>>> Almost never the case.
>>>
>>> We just need more creative thinkers in charge.
>>>
>>> THAT is NOT a tall order at this point....
>>
>>Well start thinking, how would you handle someone determined to kill you
>>to
>>the point of blowing himself up.
>
> Hm. How about a trial and -- if legitimately found guilty --
> sentencing according to our laws?
>
> Novel, huh?
>
> I would probably also give a special order to whatever facility
> they're housed in: no explosives.
Novel, no, every Liberal Dem has already proposed the same thing. They're
terrorist, not domestic criminals.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 04:10:16
From: still me
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 21:54:32 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
>
>Novel, no, every Liberal Dem has already proposed the same thing. They're
>terrorist, not domestic criminals.
Your understanding of the Constitution is at best, meager.
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 20:11:38
From: Neil Brooks
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 21:54:32 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net > wrote:
>
>"Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ioaib3pdr6jegbahhlahna9afsvvfqcplr@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 20:45:33 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>news:nu3ib3pnv1n491vi65u44iohhs3p96vshr@4ax.com...
>>>> On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:49:37 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>>> the only 2 ways
>>>>
>>>> [snip]
>>>>
>>>> Almost never the case.
>>>>
>>>> We just need more creative thinkers in charge.
>>>>
>>>> THAT is NOT a tall order at this point....
>>>
>>>Well start thinking, how would you handle someone determined to kill you
>>>to
>>>the point of blowing himself up.
>>
>> Hm. How about a trial and -- if legitimately found guilty --
>> sentencing according to our laws?
>>
>> Novel, huh?
>>
>> I would probably also give a special order to whatever facility
>> they're housed in: no explosives.
>
>Novel, no, every Liberal Dem has already proposed the same thing. They're
>terrorist, not domestic criminals.
So put them in the really tight cells with a "T" on the door, rather
than a "DC."
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 08 Aug 2007 01:48:16
From: RBrickston
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
In article <2f9ui.13418$Vk6.8625@newsfe07.phx >, di9999@cox.net says...
>
> "Neil Brooks" <neil0502@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nu3ib3pnv1n491vi65u44iohhs3p96vshr@4ax.com...
> > On Tue, 7 Aug 2007 18:49:37 -0500, "DI" <di9999@cox.net> wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> >> the only 2 ways
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > Almost never the case.
> >
> > We just need more creative thinkers in charge.
> >
> > THAT is NOT a tall order at this point....
>
> Well start thinking, how would you handle someone determined to kill you to
> the point of blowing himself up.
>
>
>
OT: Hillary's Freudian Slip:
http://youtube.com/watch?v=vM1610W1Bms
|
| | | | | | | | | | | | | | | |
Date: 07 Aug 2007 19:07:19
From: Bill Sornson
Subject: Re: We Have a President That Rides A Bike Now!
|
RBrickston wrote:
> OT: Hillary's Freudian Slip:
>
> http://youtube.com/watch?v=vM1610W1Bms
LOL He's always on her mind!
|
| | | | | | | | | | | |
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
Sub
|
|
|
