OT, political: Move on, Bush.

[riverman]

I've been reading the campaign threads, and thinking about the National
Guard years, the staged photo op on the Aircraft carrier, the opportunistic
news reports about Osama Bin Laden, the changing story about WMD and the
like, and trying to get a solid grip on my feelings about Bush and the
current campaign. And trying to figure out why it seems so significant, why
I give Bush supporter's hollow arguments no credibility; even worse; feel
that they are proudly proclaiming their allegience to a new form of evil
empire, right here in America, right smack dab in the middle of what should
be the world's new shining city on the hill, but is rapidly becoming a
moral-less ghetto.

Its cronyism, plain and simple. The rub-it-in-your-face type of cronyism,
spoiled-rich-kid cronyism, the type that leaves you feeling betrayed,
violated and ruthlessly excluded. Its gangsterism, bullyism, and it is far
too similar to things I have seen in places that the US has prided itself in
being as unlike as is physically possible. But now it is us, and I am
ashamed.

The Russian Thugs who dominate the Baltics are cronys, the worst kind. The
Untouchables. They push the local businesses out, and joyride through the
economy, keeping the wealth in their own pockets, living at standards
unattainable by honest workers. And they gloat in public about it; drive
their BMWs into the ground and pay cash for another, wear ungodly expensive
clothing, live ruthlessly lavish lifestyles, and get a sadistic kick out of
how much pleasure they derive from the harm they do to others. They live by
the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules, meanwhile they are
protected by the headlock their clan has on the economy, the police, the
courts. The bedroom deals that companies like Enron and Halliburton made
with Bush and Cheny, and are now getting away with is exactly the same
thing. Pillage and run, and laugh gleefully while the government protects
you, and even shares in your loot. The Golden Rule. And Bush is letting,
even making, it happen. The Untouchables.

Africa is full of leaders who have devistated their countries for their own
benefit, and feed them hyperbole and rhetoric while people starve and
economies cave in. Cronyism is rife here: good-intentioned people gain
power, then fill the government offices and posts with friends and cronys
who are not necessarily the best person for the job, but are certainly the
best person at getting the boss re-elected, richer, or more perks and
priviledges. They get used to the perks, then start padding their pockets.
Take a democratic country, and start changing the laws. Rig, suspend or
stuff elections, eliminate opponents, start a war to give the people an
opiate, and once you have enough power to control the situation, use that
power to change the ground rules so that no one can displace you. In a
tyrant-savvy continent like Africa, it takes a very intelligent man to
become a power tyrant and crony. In a naive and trusting place like the US,
we just let them do it because its the last thing we'd expect. To have let
Bush implement such tyrannical and civil rights-violating rules as are
encompassed in the Patriot Act was negligent; to endorse it is treasonous.

You can always tell when a kid is lying to you: they keep changing their
story. Bush changes his story as fast as a kid caught shoplifting. First,
there were weapons; we had to start a war or we'd all be killed in our sleep
by nerve gases. Then there weren't weapons, but that's suddenly not the
reason we went to war. Then there were weapons programs, or the potential
for weapons programs. Now, it has nothing to do with weapons: he was an evil
man and had to go. For gods sake, lets be honest: we supported the war
because we wanted revenge. We wanted to kick someones ass for crashing
planes into the WTC, and Osama Bin Laden escaped us and Bush didn't know
where to go from there, so Rumsfield led him by the nose to implement a plan
he had drawn up years before, but could not implement. Bush fabricated or
fell for some tripe about WMD, led the gullible Americans by their Patriotic
Nerve right into battle, against the advice of dozens of more experienced,
more wise world leaders. Then it started backfiring, and he started changing
his story, and now tries to deny responsibility. In every business, being
the one who is 'responsible' means exactly that. Your guys give you false
information and you act on it, you're responsible. Time to fall on your
sword. But he won't, why not? Because he isn't fit to be a world leader, and
does not have the leadership skills or the intellect to make complex
decisions, and instead tries to drag us all down to his own level of
simplicity. Funny thing, is that many of us seem quite willing to go there.

You can tell the type of man a person is by looking at how they grew up.
During the younger days, when he should have been working hard at school,
developing his leadership training in the military or the Guard, and honing
his business acumen in the School of Hard Knocks and a Level Playing Field,
he was out partying, earning Cs, getting drunk or coked up, dodging his
responsibilities (there's that word again), having his ass covered by his
dad, and developing a network of cronies. Clever cronies that could later
use him as their tool to manipulate the American people so badly that they
would start two wars, alienate their global allies, tear up hard-won
environmental treaties, throw away civil rights, and give their hard-earned
retirement accounts to people who already have a hell of a lot more than
their share.

I have never felt so disenfranchised by my government as I do now. I have
never
felt that my president was so out of touch with the lifestyles and needs of
common
Americans as I do now, and I have never in my life expected that my
President would be a man
whom I could beat on an SAT exam.

Americans always tend to support their president: we see the presidency as
an indication of our liberty, our freedoms. Its the <Presidency> we support,

let's throw this self-serving, lying, responsibility-dodging, overpampered
spoiled rich kid out of office, and his cronies with him.

--riverman

[Larry]

riverman wrote:


> Americans always tend to support their president: we see the presidency as
> an indication of our liberty, our freedoms. Its the <Presidency> we support,
> let's throw this self-serving, lying, responsibility-dodging, overpampered
> spoiled rich kid out of office, and his cronies with him.

'Nuff said....

Larry

[Ken Fortenberry]

riverman wrote:
> ...
> Americans always tend to support their president: we see the presidency as
> an indication of our liberty, our freedoms. Its the <Presidency> we support,
>
> let's throw this self-serving, lying, responsibility-dodging, overpampered
> spoiled rich kid out of office, and his cronies with him.

Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
we deserve. I have little faith in my fellow Americans, most of them
don't even bother to vote and the ones who do are easily bamboozled.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
> riverman wrote:
> > ...
> > Americans always tend to support their president: we see the presidency as
> > an indication of our liberty, our freedoms. Its the <Presidency> we support,
> >
> > let's throw this self-serving, lying, responsibility-dodging, overpampered
> > spoiled rich kid out of office, and his cronies with him.
>
> Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
> we deserve. I have little faith in my fellow Americans, most of them
> don't even bother to vote and the ones who do are easily bamboozled.

Are they still easily bamboozled when a liberal Dem is elected, or do just the
smart ones vote in these circumstances? ;-)
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[rw]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:
>
> Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
> we deserve. I have little faith in my fellow Americans, most of them
> don't even bother to vote and the ones who do are easily bamboozled.

You are so right. Even when they do vote, they do stupid things like
voting for Ralph Nader.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Ken Fortenberry]

Tim J. wrote:

> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
>>
>>Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
>>we deserve. I have little faith in my fellow Americans, most of them
>>don't even bother to vote and the ones who do are easily bamboozled.
>
> Are they still easily bamboozled when a liberal Dem is elected, or do just the
> smart ones vote in these circumstances? ;-)

There are a lot of good reasons for a smart person to vote for Bush & Co.
For instance, if you earn over $500,000 a year, depend on the government
for sweetheart contracts and want to get filthy rich without bothersome
environmental regulations or being hassled by commie-symp union folks,
there's only one way for you to vote. I fully understand why these folks
vote the way they do and they are not easily bamboozled.

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Scott Seidman]

Ken Fortenberry > wrote in
m:

> Tim J. wrote:
>
>> "Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
>>>
>>>Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
>>>we deserve. I have little faith in my fellow Americans, most of them
>>>don't even bother to vote and the ones who do are easily bamboozled.
>>
>> Are they still easily bamboozled when a liberal Dem is elected, or do
>> just the smart ones vote in these circumstances? ;-)
>
> There are a lot of good reasons for a smart person to vote for Bush &
> Co. For instance, if you earn over $500,000 a year, depend on the
> government for sweetheart contracts and want to get filthy rich
> without bothersome environmental regulations or being hassled by
> commie-symp union folks, there's only one way for you to vote. I fully
> understand why these folks vote the way they do and they are not
> easily bamboozled.
>

Good points. Some might also be constantly butting up against those nasty
civil rights inconveniences.

Scott

[Charlie Choc]

On 26 Feb 2004 15:47:17 GMT, Scott Seidman
> wrote:

>Good points. Some might also be constantly butting up against those nasty
>civil rights inconveniences.
>
Aw now, Bush went out of his way to stop by for an MLK photo-op on his
way to a fund raiser here. How can he not be all about civil rights?
--
Charlie...

[RDL]

Oh please, you want "John Kerry" in office to deal with the ongoing
terrorist's crap? You vote for him, and I'll cancel your vote!



What a load of nonsense!



Richard




"riverman" > wrote in message
...
> I've been reading the campaign threads, and thinking about the National
> Guard years, the staged photo op on the Aircraft carrier, the
opportunistic
> news reports about Osama Bin Laden, the changing story about WMD and the
> like, and trying to get a solid grip on my feelings about Bush and the
> current campaign. And trying to figure out why it seems so significant,
why
> I give Bush supporter's hollow arguments no credibility; even worse; feel
> that they are proudly proclaiming their allegience to a new form of evil
> empire, right here in America, right smack dab in the middle of what
should
> be the world's new shining city on the hill, but is rapidly becoming a
> moral-less ghetto.
>
> Its cronyism, plain and simple. The rub-it-in-your-face type of cronyism,
> spoiled-rich-kid cronyism, the type that leaves you feeling betrayed,
> violated and ruthlessly excluded. Its gangsterism, bullyism, and it is far
> too similar to things I have seen in places that the US has prided itself
in
> being as unlike as is physically possible. But now it is us, and I am
> ashamed.
>
> The Russian Thugs who dominate the Baltics are cronys, the worst kind. The
> Untouchables. They push the local businesses out, and joyride through the
> economy, keeping the wealth in their own pockets, living at standards
> unattainable by honest workers. And they gloat in public about it; drive
> their BMWs into the ground and pay cash for another, wear ungodly
expensive
> clothing, live ruthlessly lavish lifestyles, and get a sadistic kick out
of
> how much pleasure they derive from the harm they do to others. They live
by
> the Golden Rule: he who has the gold, makes the rules, meanwhile they are
> protected by the headlock their clan has on the economy, the police, the
> courts. The bedroom deals that companies like Enron and Halliburton made
> with Bush and Cheny, and are now getting away with is exactly the same
> thing. Pillage and run, and laugh gleefully while the government protects
> you, and even shares in your loot. The Golden Rule. And Bush is letting,
> even making, it happen. The Untouchables.
>
> Africa is full of leaders who have devistated their countries for their
own
> benefit, and feed them hyperbole and rhetoric while people starve and
> economies cave in. Cronyism is rife here: good-intentioned people gain
> power, then fill the government offices and posts with friends and cronys
> who are not necessarily the best person for the job, but are certainly the
> best person at getting the boss re-elected, richer, or more perks and
> priviledges. They get used to the perks, then start padding their pockets.
> Take a democratic country, and start changing the laws. Rig, suspend or
> stuff elections, eliminate opponents, start a war to give the people an
> opiate, and once you have enough power to control the situation, use that
> power to change the ground rules so that no one can displace you. In a
> tyrant-savvy continent like Africa, it takes a very intelligent man to
> become a power tyrant and crony. In a naive and trusting place like the
US,
> we just let them do it because its the last thing we'd expect. To have let
> Bush implement such tyrannical and civil rights-violating rules as are
> encompassed in the Patriot Act was negligent; to endorse it is treasonous.
>
> You can always tell when a kid is lying to you: they keep changing their
> story. Bush changes his story as fast as a kid caught shoplifting. First,
> there were weapons; we had to start a war or we'd all be killed in our
sleep
> by nerve gases. Then there weren't weapons, but that's suddenly not the
> reason we went to war. Then there were weapons programs, or the potential
> for weapons programs. Now, it has nothing to do with weapons: he was an
evil
> man and had to go. For gods sake, lets be honest: we supported the war
> because we wanted revenge. We wanted to kick someones ass for crashing
> planes into the WTC, and Osama Bin Laden escaped us and Bush didn't know
> where to go from there, so Rumsfield led him by the nose to implement a
plan
> he had drawn up years before, but could not implement. Bush fabricated or
> fell for some tripe about WMD, led the gullible Americans by their
Patriotic
> Nerve right into battle, against the advice of dozens of more experienced,
> more wise world leaders. Then it started backfiring, and he started
changing
> his story, and now tries to deny responsibility. In every business, being
> the one who is 'responsible' means exactly that. Your guys give you false
> information and you act on it, you're responsible. Time to fall on your
> sword. But he won't, why not? Because he isn't fit to be a world leader,
and
> does not have the leadership skills or the intellect to make complex
> decisions, and instead tries to drag us all down to his own level of
> simplicity. Funny thing, is that many of us seem quite willing to go
there.
>
> You can tell the type of man a person is by looking at how they grew up.
> During the younger days, when he should have been working hard at school,
> developing his leadership training in the military or the Guard, and
honing
> his business acumen in the School of Hard Knocks and a Level Playing
Field,
> he was out partying, earning Cs, getting drunk or coked up, dodging his
> responsibilities (there's that word again), having his ass covered by his
> dad, and developing a network of cronies. Clever cronies that could later
> use him as their tool to manipulate the American people so badly that they
> would start two wars, alienate their global allies, tear up hard-won
> environmental treaties, throw away civil rights, and give their
hard-earned
> retirement accounts to people who already have a hell of a lot more than
> their share.
>
> I have never felt so disenfranchised by my government as I do now. I have
> never
> felt that my president was so out of touch with the lifestyles and needs
of
> common
> Americans as I do now, and I have never in my life expected that my
> President would be a man
> whom I could beat on an SAT exam.
>
> Americans always tend to support their president: we see the presidency as
> an indication of our liberty, our freedoms. Its the <Presidency> we
support,
>
> let's throw this self-serving, lying, responsibility-dodging, overpampered
> spoiled rich kid out of office, and his cronies with him.
>
> --riverman
>
>
>

[David Snedeker]

"RDL" > wrote in message
m...
> Oh please, you want "John Kerry" in office to deal with the ongoing
> terrorist's crap? You vote for him, and I'll cancel your vote!
>
> What a load of nonsense!
>
Is that you Dean? If so . . .

Oh come on Richard, lets not pretend that national security or democracy has
anything to do with your vote. You have made plain on many occasions your
preference for feudalism, oligarchy, and crony capitalism. That's what
ally's you and your Okie fascists to Bush. "Cancel your vote" ? . . . what
a joke! What you're more likely to do is figure out how to siphon money to
the RNCs dirty tricks affiliates. That would be more true to form.

Dave
War Profiteers should be Shot

[Bill P]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
m...

<SNIP>

Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
> we deserve.
<SNIP>

Ken Fortenberry

Truer words were never spoken! American apathy is running about 70% so
unless we get out the vote of 90% or better (collectively) we have absolute
NO ROOM TO BITCH!

It appears that as long as the average american joe cares only for his 40Hrs
each of employment and TV, some kind of assinie "ball" sports every weekend,
a 6-pak, and a car in the garage... he just doesn't seem to give a ****!!!

GET UR ASS OUT THERE IN NOVEMBER AND EFFIN' VOTE!! Demo or Republican,
VOTE!!!

Back to lurk mode....
Bill

[slenon]

>Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
>we deserve. I have little faith in my fellow Americans, most of them
>don't even bother to vote and the ones who do are easily bamboozled.
>Ken Fortenberry

The Apocalypse clock just ticked away another minute. I find myself
somewhat in agreement with Fortenberry.

But instead of bemoaning the fact, how do all of us act to get new voters
involved and older apathetic voters back into the habit of voting?

We can sit and complain, snipe and bitch all day long from now until
November. But if we don't personally find someway to get people back to the
polls, we've dropped a bit of the ball and shouldered a bit of the blame
ourselves.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Tim J.]

"slenon" wrote...
> >Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
> >we deserve. I have little faith in my fellow Americans, most of them
> >don't even bother to vote and the ones who do are easily bamboozled.
> >Ken Fortenberry
>
> The Apocalypse clock just ticked away another minute. I find myself
> somewhat in agreement with Fortenberry.

You poor sap. ;-)

> But instead of bemoaning the fact, how do all of us act to get new voters
> involved and older apathetic voters back into the habit of voting?
>
> We can sit and complain, snipe and bitch all day long from now until
> November. But if we don't personally find someway to get people back to the
> polls, we've dropped a bit of the ball and shouldered a bit of the blame
> ourselves.

<rant> I don't feel responsible in the least for other people not voting. Anyone
who has half a brain and sees the issues we are faced with today should vote and
it's THEIR responsibility to do so - not mine. Two of my children aren't
registered to vote, and *that* ****es me off. One of them like to talk about
political topics, but I refuse to discuss anything with him. If a person isn't
voting, I could care less what they have to say about politics.

I registered to vote at 18 and have voted in every state and national election
since. I just don't understand the apathy. Regardless of how lousy the two or
three candidates are put forward every few years, it's better to vote for the
lesser of two evils than not at all, and then bitch about the results
afterwards. <\rant>
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Ken Fortenberry]

David Snedeker wrote:
>
> Is that you Dean? If so . . .

Nah, it's not him. The poster formerly known as Dicky Dean is in
a jail in New Jersey awaiting a psychiatric evaluation.

http://tinyurl.com/3xeud

--
Ken Fortenberry

[Bill P]

"slenon" > wrote in message
. com...
> >Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
> >we deserve. I have little faith in my fellow Americans, most of them
> >don't even bother to vote and the ones who do are easily bamboozled.
> >Ken Fortenberry
>
> The Apocalypse clock just ticked away another minute. I find myself
> somewhat in agreement with Fortenberry.
>
> But instead of bemoaning the fact, how do all of us act to get new voters
> involved and older apathetic voters back into the habit of voting?
>
> We can sit and complain, snipe and bitch all day long from now until
> November. But if we don't personally find someway to get people back to
the
> polls, we've dropped a bit of the ball and shouldered a bit of the blame
> ourselves.
>
> --
> Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69

<SNIP>

Yes indeed!!! And I've been bitching for nearly 50 years now at those lazy,
apathetic slobs. I especially love it when I, after THEIR ****ing and
moaning about the administration in power, ask them if they voted in the
last election. When I get a negative answer my comment is, immediate and
cynical: "Then you got just who and what you deserved!! I may or may not
agree with your politics but I damned well have shown you one of the biggest
reasons this country is goin' to hell in a handbasket!" No one has ever
give me any crap back about it either!!

Please get out and VOTE!!

Cheers to y'all....
Bill P. Phx.Az

[Tim J.]

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote...
> David Snedeker wrote:
> >
> > Is that you Dean? If so . . .
>
> Nah, it's not him. The poster formerly known as Dicky Dean is in
> a jail in New Jersey awaiting a psychiatric evaluation.
>
> http://tinyurl.com/3xeud

<SPLORK!>
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[slenon]

>I registered to vote at 18 and have voted in every state and national
election
>since. I just don't understand the apathy. Regardless of how lousy the two
or
>three candidates are put forward every few years, it's better to vote for
the
>lesser of two evils than not at all, and then bitch about the results
>afterwards. <\rant>
>Tim

Like you, I vote in every election and I fail to see why anyone chooses to
fail to exercise that privilege. I've heard all the arguments that are
currently in use, too busy, too long a line, lost my card, the system's
rigged against ( fill in ______). To me, they all are invalid and translate
as "stupid/don't care."

I'll write my own name in if I can't stomach a person running unopposed.

It was always my understanding that if you don't vote, you have no right to
bitch about the outcome or the actions of the people elected. Most of the
time I vote for losing candidates in major elections. But it keeps the
winners from claiming unanimous victories.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Jeff Taylor]

"Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
om...

"he defecated in the diaper and fled on foot"

Lost my afternoon pop on that one... :)

Jeff T.

[daytripper]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 22:13:44 GMT, "slenon" >
wrote:

>>I registered to vote at 18 and have voted in every state and national
>election
>>since. I just don't understand the apathy. Regardless of how lousy the two
>or
>>three candidates are put forward every few years, it's better to vote for
>the
>>lesser of two evils than not at all, and then bitch about the results
>>afterwards. <\rant>
>>Tim
>
>Like you, I vote in every election and I fail to see why anyone chooses to
>fail to exercise that privilege. I've heard all the arguments that are
>currently in use, too busy, too long a line, lost my card, the system's
>rigged against ( fill in ______). To me, they all are invalid and translate
>as "stupid/don't care."
>
>I'll write my own name in if I can't stomach a person running unopposed.
>
>It was always my understanding that if you don't vote, you have no right to
>bitch about the outcome or the actions of the people elected. Most of the
>time I vote for losing candidates in major elections. But it keeps the
>winners from claiming unanimous victories.

If nothing else, the Current Regime appears to be doing all it can to
stimulate the turnout in November.

Ashcroft just filed for court orders demanding access to medical records from
Planned Parenthood clinics across the country...

/daytripper ()

[[email protected]]

On Thu, 26 Feb 2004 10:10:26 -0500, "Tim J."
> wrote:

>
>Are they still easily bamboozled when a liberal Dem is elected.

Yep. Been there, too. Got bamboozled about equally by both parties.
Very seldom vote for either party now, going instead to the splinter
parties.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[Ken Fortenberry]

rw wrote:
>
> You are so right. Even when they do vote, they do stupid things like
> voting for Ralph Nader.

http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0226-06.htm

[Larry]

> Truer words were never spoken! American apathy is running about 70% so
> unless we get out the vote of 90% or better (collectively) we have absolute
> NO ROOM TO BITCH!

> GET UR ASS OUT THERE IN NOVEMBER AND EFFIN' VOTE!! Demo or Republican,
> VOTE!!!

Try 85%...

If my memoryt serves me well, the turnout n the last Presidential
election was somewhere between 13-17% in most States.

[rw]

Larry wrote:
>
> If my memoryt serves me well, the turnout n the last Presidential
> election was somewhere between 13-17% in most States.

I'm afraid your aging memory is serving you no better than the rest of
your decrepit physical state. Voter turnout in the 2000 Presidential
election ranged from a high of 68.8% (Minnesota) to a low of 41%
(Hawaii). The median exceeded 50%.

In the last election in Stanley, in November, we had 71 voters out of a
total of population (by census) of 100.

This breast-beating over low voter turnout is stupid. Plenty of people
vote. I predict that the turnout in 2004 will exceed that of 2000,
mainly because people are so ****ed off at Bush.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

> rw wrote:
>
>>
>> You are so right. Even when they do vote, they do stupid things like
>> voting for Ralph Nader.
>
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0226-06.htm

The guy is voting for Kerry to spite Clinton? Give me a break. The
reason to vote for Kerry is to spite Bush.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Mike Connor]

"rw" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
<SNIP>
> > http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0226-06.htm
>
> The guy is voting for Kerry to spite Clinton? Give me a break. The
> reason to vote for Kerry is to spite Bush.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

No wonder you end up with such a clueless bunch. People here vote for
somebody in the hope that this will result in a better government.

TL
MC

[Larry L]

"rw" > wrote

..
>
> I'm afraid your aging memory is serving you no better than the rest of
> your decrepit physical state.

Since my state is known to be decrepit, I fear you may think that I am the
Larry to whom you are replying .... I'm not, ( but I am the decrepit one )

[Charlie Choc]

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 05:31:17 +0100, "Mike Connor"
> wrote:

>No wonder you end up with such a clueless bunch. People here vote for
>somebody in the hope that this will result in a better government.
>
The nominating process here eliminates that possibility.
--
Charlie...

[Tim J.]

"Charlie Choc" wrote...
> "Mike Connor" wrote:
>
> >No wonder you end up with such a clueless bunch. People here vote for
> >somebody in the hope that this will result in a better government.
> >
> The nominating process here eliminates that possibility.

Exactly. By the time we weed out anyone who has ever had an unpaid parking
ticket, smoked a joint, or had one too many beers, we're left with a surreal
bunch of wussies and/or liars. It seems that voters, too, are unable to recall
their past.
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[rw]

Larry L wrote:
> "rw" > wrote
>
> .
>
>>I'm afraid your aging memory is serving you no better than the rest of
>>your decrepit physical state.
>
>
> Since my state is known to be decrepit, I fear you may think that I am the
> Larry to whom you are replying .... I'm not, ( but I am the decrepit one )

Yes, I thought I was replying the Decrepit Larry. I guess it was just
Forgetful Larry. :-)

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[rw]

Mike Connor wrote:
> "rw" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> . ..
> <SNIP>
>
>>>http://www.commondreams.org/views04/0226-06.htm
>>
>>The guy is voting for Kerry to spite Clinton? Give me a break. The
>>reason to vote for Kerry is to spite Bush.
>>
>>--
>>Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>
>
> No wonder you end up with such a clueless bunch. People here vote for
> somebody in the hope that this will result in a better government.

They sure blew it in in 1932.

More recently, the Kohl government was mired in financial scandal.

If, by any chance, you're talking about Great Britain, Tony Blair may
not be quite a big a liar as Bush, but he's a more facile one.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Mike Connor]

"rw" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
<SNIP>
> They sure blew it in in 1932.
>
> More recently, the Kohl government was mired in financial scandal.
>
> If, by any chance, you're talking about Great Britain, Tony Blair may
> not be quite a big a liar as Bush, but he's a more facile one.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Oh they are all liars and cheats, it is extremely naive to expect otherwise,
it is basically a prerequisite for the job. This is not too bad as long as
they don´t do too much damage before they get thrown out again in favour of
the next totally useless bunch.

One must be grateful that some of the checks and controls in the system
prevent them from doing far worse.

This is inherent in a capitalist democracy. Like just about everybody else,
they strive to gain money and power, this is what they have been conditioned
to do. This is their main aim, "governing for the people" is at best
secondary. It is absurd to expect anything else.

TL
MC

[rw]

Mike Connor wrote:
> "rw" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> . ..
> <SNIP>
>
>>They sure blew it in in 1932.
>>
>>More recently, the Kohl government was mired in financial scandal.
>>
>>If, by any chance, you're talking about Great Britain, Tony Blair may
>>not be quite a big a liar as Bush, but he's a more facile one.
>>
>>--
>>Cut "to the chase" for my email address.
>
>
> Oh they are all liars and cheats, it is extremely naive to expect otherwise,
> it is basically a prerequisite for the job. This is not too bad as long as
> they don´t do too much damage before they get thrown out again in favour of
> the next totally useless bunch.
>
> One must be grateful that some of the checks and controls in the system
> prevent them from doing far worse.
>
> This is inherent in a capitalist democracy. Like just about everybody else,
> they strive to gain money and power, this is what they have been conditioned
> to do. This is their main aim, "governing for the people" is at best
> secondary. It is absurd to expect anything else.

Virtually every election is a choice between the lesser of two evils. I
don't trust any politician, but that doesn't mean I think our choices
between them don't matter. Some are worse than others. You have to keep
their feet to the fire. That's what elections are for.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[Mike Connor]

"rw" > schrieb im Newsbeitrag
. ..
<SNIP>
> Virtually every election is a choice between the lesser of two evils. I
> don't trust any politician, but that doesn't mean I think our choices
> between them don't matter. Some are worse than others. You have to keep
> their feet to the fire. That's what elections are for.
>
> --
> Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

Indeed, I have no argument with that, although there may well be more than
two evils involved.

Political and other standards in government have always been abysmal, it is
the nature of the beast. Even a few people with honesty and integrity,
assuming they ever got elected, (which is unlikely as the system actually
supports liars and cheats), are not going to change much.

Most politicians have two main aims, the first one is gaining power, and the
second one is retaining it at any cost. Money, and all the other stuff are
basically secondary, and the welfare of the people is way down the list
somewhere.

The old adage that "people seeking positions of power, should be
disqualified on those very grounds", is as valid as ever. I always forget
who said it, ( Some ancient greek philosopher, whose name constantly escapes
me). Things have not changed much since then.

TL
MC

[slenon]

rw:
>Virtually every election is a choice between the lesser of two evils. I
>don't trust any politician, but that doesn't mean I think our choices
>between them don't matter. Some are worse than others. You have to keep
>their feet to the fire. That's what elections are for.

Elections, and once upon a time, the free press. Now the legitimate press
is too busy covering celebrity affairs to dig up and verify much real dirt
on politicians.


--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[slenon]

>Ashcroft just filed for court orders demanding access to medical records
from
>Planned Parenthood clinics across the country...
>/daytripper ()

When all is said and done, Ashcroft will turn out to be the worst thing that
Bush II has unleashed upon this nation. Too bad he wasn't a snake handler,
a poor, unlucky one.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[Wolfgang]

"Bill P" > wrote in message
news:fzr%b.1463$h23.769@fed1read06...
>
> "Ken Fortenberry" > wrote in message
> m...
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
> > we deserve.
> <SNIP>
>
> Ken Fortenberry
>
> Truer words were never spoken!......

Bull****. People everywhere deserve good government. What they get, all
too often, is what they ask for.....or not. Obviously, it's not the same
thing.

Wolfgang
power corrupts......how do you excise corruption?

[Wolfgang]

"Tim J." > wrote in message
...
>
> ...Two of my children aren't
> registered to vote, and *that* ****es me off. One of them like to talk
about
> political topics, but I refuse to discuss anything with him. If a person
isn't
> voting, I could care less what they have to say about politics.....

I'll do you the favor of assuming that you mean you could care less about
what anyone has to say about politics if they don't vote AND they live in a
place where a vote matters. After all, history (as well as the world within
which we live now) is replete with examples of times and places in which a
vote was less than a shadow of a sham. Of course, that isn't the case here
and now. We got LOTS of good choices, ainna?

Wolfgang
who votes for jesse every time.

[Wolfgang]

"slenon" > wrote in message
m...

> Like you, I vote in every election and I fail to see why anyone chooses to
> fail to exercise that privilege.

Most certainly not your first......or your last......failure.

> I've heard all the arguments that are
> currently in use, too busy, too long a line, lost my card, the system's
> rigged against ( fill in ______).

To put it in its simplest terms, you have NEVER heard any of the arguments.

> To me, they all are invalid and translate
> as "stupid/don't care."

That's because you are stupid.

> I'll write my own name in if I can't stomach a person running unopposed.

Thus accomplishing.......what, exactly?

> It was always my understanding that if you don't vote, you have no right
to
> bitch about the outcome or the actions of the people elected.

That's because you are stupid.

> Most of the
> time I vote for losing candidates in major elections.

And that is a ringing endorsement for your philosophy because......?

> But it keeps the
> winners from claiming unanimous victories.

I see. So, you have, single-handedly, prevented unanimity in every major
election since arriving at the age of majority? You must be very proud.

Wolfgang
"...asshole get elected, 'cuz assholes get to vote..."--P.M.

[Wolfgang]

"Bill P" > wrote in message
news:1Jt%b.1482$h23.335@fed1read06...
>
> "slenon" > wrote in message
> . com...
> > >Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
> > >we deserve. I have little faith in my fellow Americans, most of them
> > >don't even bother to vote and the ones who do are easily bamboozled.
> > >Ken Fortenberry
> >
> > The Apocalypse clock just ticked away another minute. I find myself
> > somewhat in agreement with Fortenberry.
> >
> > But instead of bemoaning the fact, how do all of us act to get new
voters
> > involved and older apathetic voters back into the habit of voting?
> >
> > We can sit and complain, snipe and bitch all day long from now until
> > November. But if we don't personally find someway to get people back to
> the
> > polls, we've dropped a bit of the ball and shouldered a bit of the blame
> > ourselves.
> >
> > --
> > Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
>
> <SNIP>
>
> Yes indeed!!! And I've been bitching for nearly 50 years now at those
lazy,
> apathetic slobs. I especially love it when I, after THEIR ****ing and
> moaning about the administration in power, ask them if they voted in the
> last election. When I get a negative answer my comment is, immediate and
> cynical: "Then you got just who and what you deserved!! I may or may not
> agree with your politics but I damned well have shown you one of the
biggest
> reasons this country is goin' to hell in a handbasket!" No one has ever
> give me any crap back about it either!!

Jam it up your ass.....sideways.

> Please get out and VOTE!!

No.

> Cheers to y'all....
> Bill P. Phx.Az

Die.

Wolfgang
well.....another perfect record shattered.....so sad.

[Bill P]

Bill P said: "..we get what we deserve..."
Then;
> Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
> > we deserve.
> <SNIP>
>
> Ken Fortenberry
>
> Truer words were never spoken!......

Bull****. People everywhere deserve good government. What they get, all
too often, is what they ask for.....or not. Obviously, it's not the same
thing.

<Grin> Yes, Wolfgang ~ we do get it, collectively by voting, OR NOT
voting. You might be eloquent with words but your recollection of what I
said seems to suffer CRS. What the thread implied as well as said "People
get what they deserve"... by NOT VOTING! Are you suggesting that we be
"given" good government whether or not we vote for it? Erm... this smacks
of communism or socialism. Engage your brain before slipping your tongue
into gear. This is country is, is what a democracy IS about.
Or, perhaps you imply politicians swop sides after election. This is quite
true, but they can be voted right out again. That's the beauty of this
country and it's constitutional rights.

> > Yes indeed!!! And I've been bitching for nearly 50 years now at those
> > lazy, apathetic slobs. I especially love it when I, after THEIR ****ing
and
> > moaning about the administration in power, ask them if they voted in the
> > last election. When I get a negative answer my comment is, immediate
and
> > cynical: "Then you got just who and what you deserved!! I may or may
not
> > agree with your politics but I damned well have shown you one of the
> > biggest reasons this country is goin' to hell in a handbasket!" No one
has ever
> > give me any crap back about it either!!
>
> Jam it up your ass.....sideways.
****Eh, Wolfgang? I'll pass on this as you're being a bit angered by your
childish remark. Or should I say sophomoric.
>
> > Please get out and VOTE!!
>
> No.
****NOW you ARE being childish. WE that vote get what we deserve.... again:
"collectively." The majority rules and this is STILL the best country in
the world.
>
> > Cheers to y'all....
> > Bill P. Phx.Az
>
Die.
****Y'must have been apoplectic by now. Cool down, your lack of control is
being exposed.
>
> Wolfgang
> well.....another perfect record shattered.....so sad.
****So smug.... and self engratiating. Ho, hum........Pity.
>
>
Bill P

[[email protected]]

>> Truer words were never spoken! American apathy is running about 70% so
>> unless we get out the vote of 90% or better (collectively) we have absolute
>> NO ROOM TO BITCH!
>
>> GET UR ASS OUT THERE IN NOVEMBER AND EFFIN' VOTE!! Demo or Republican,
>> VOTE!!!


No. I don't want to encourage people who'd rather not vote to start
doing so. If they're too dumb to find the polling place, too
impatient to stand in line, too blase' to have an opinion, too
uninterested to have followed the pre-election news, too illiterate to
read the ticket (or too ashamed to ask the clerks to read it to them);
I really don't want them helping to choose who's going to run the
local, state, or federal government. It'd be like having blind people
choose the pictures to hang on the walls in one's home.
--

rbc:vixen,Minnow Goddess,Willow Watcher,and all that sort of thing.
Often taunted by trout.
Only a fool would refuse to believe in luck. Only a damn fool would rely on it.

http://www.visi.com/~cyli

[Bill P]

> No. I don't want to encourage people who'd rather not vote to start
> doing so. If they're too dumb to find the polling place, too
> impatient to stand in line, too blase' to have an opinion, too
> uninterested to have followed the pre-election news, too illiterate to
> read the ticket (or too ashamed to ask the clerks to read it to them);
> I really don't want them helping to choose who's going to run the
> local, state, or federal government. It'd be like having blind people
> choose the pictures to hang on the walls in one's home.
> --

Yes..... I gotta hand it to you... you're right in those reapects.
Bill

[Wolfgang]

"Bill P" > wrote in message
news:HxV%b.2286$h23.1017@fed1read06...
> Bill P said: "..we get what we deserve..."
> Then;
> > Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
> > > we deserve.
> > <SNIP>
> >
> > Ken Fortenberry
> >
> > Truer words were never spoken!......
>
> Bull****. People everywhere deserve good government. What they get, all
> too often, is what they ask for.....or not. Obviously, it's not the same
> thing.
>
> <Grin> Yes, Wolfgang ~ we do get it, collectively by voting, OR NOT
> voting. You might be eloquent with words but your recollection of what I
> said seems to suffer CRS. What the thread implied as well as said "People
> get what they deserve"... by NOT VOTING! Are you suggesting that we be
> "given" good government whether or not we vote for it? Erm... this smacks
> of communism or socialism. Engage your brain before slipping your tongue
> into gear. This is country is, is what a democracy IS about.
> Or, perhaps you imply politicians swop sides after election. This is
quite
> true, but they can be voted right out again. That's the beauty of this
> country and it's constitutional rights.

Well, Bill, one is hard pressed to determine whether ignorance or stupidity
is your most endearing quality. In either case, one has to wonder if lack
of familiarity with the English language (which, after all, appears to be
the preference for this news group) makes the matter moot. As for
socialism, which particular bugbear seems to be hiding under your bed, one
also has to wonder whether you have yet gotten around to informing your
local fire department that you will, under no circumstances, accept their
services.

> > > Yes indeed!!! And I've been bitching for nearly 50 years now at those
> > > lazy, apathetic slobs. I especially love it when I, after THEIR
****ing
> and
> > > moaning about the administration in power, ask them if they voted in
the
> > > last election. When I get a negative answer my comment is, immediate
> and
> > > cynical: "Then you got just who and what you deserved!! I may or may
> not
> > > agree with your politics but I damned well have shown you one of the
> > > biggest reasons this country is goin' to hell in a handbasket!" No
one
> has ever
> > > give me any crap back about it either!!
> >
> > Jam it up your ass.....sideways.
> ****Eh, Wolfgang?

I said, "Jam it up your ass.....sideways."

> I'll pass on this as you're being a bit angered by your
> childish remark.

Odd, that. I am not usually angered by my remarks.

> Or should I say sophomoric.

I guess I won't make any suggestion about what you should say?

> >
> > > Please get out and VOTE!!
> >
> > No.
> ****NOW you ARE being childish.

Not just "NOW".

> WE that vote get what we deserve.... again:
> "collectively."

O.k., so, let me see if I follow the logic of this one. "WE" who voted for
Bush got what we deserve, right? And, "WE" who voted for Gore also got what
we deserve, because "WE" who voted got what we deserve, correct? Yes,
correct, for "WE" who voted got what we deserve. Oddly, though, ALL of
"WE" who voted got what we deserve regardless of who we voted
for.....because that's stipulated. Even MORE odd, all of "WE" who didn't
vote got EXACTLY the same thing as all of "WE" who did, whether we deserve
it or not. Bottom line then, is that it doesn't really mean **** who "WE"
voted for because we all got the same thing, regardless. Moreover, since
"WE" who didn't vote also got the same thing (see above) and most certainly
would have gotten the same thing irrespective of who "WE" might have voted
for (should we have done so), we got no more or less than we deserve or than
anyone else got or deserves. Thus, we find ourselves with a paradox or an
irony or one or another despicable bag of **** in the White House.....or
something. Yeah, I like that.....it's got a sort of symmetry....or
psychosis.....or something.

> The majority rules

What planet did you say you live on?

> and this is STILL the best country in
> the world.

Why?

> > > Cheers to y'all....
> > > Bill P. Phx.Az
> >
> Die.
> ****Y'must have been apoplectic by now.

Probably, but it's kind of hard to tell......in my condition, you know.

> Cool down, your lack of control is
> being exposed.

Hardly matters. I'm already famous for it.

> > Wolfgang
> > well.....another perfect record shattered.....so sad.
> ****So smug.... and self engratiating. Ho, hum........Pity.

Ho, hum? Boring you, am I? Well, time will tell.

Wolfgang

[Bill P]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Bill P" > wrote in message
> news:HxV%b.2286$h23.1017@fed1read06...
> > Bill P said: "..we get what we deserve..."
> > Then;
> > > Well said, Myron, but I'm afraid it's true that we get the government
> > > > we deserve.
> > > <SNIP>
> > >
> > > Ken Fortenberry
> > >
> > > Truer words were never spoken!......
> >
> > Bull****. People everywhere deserve good government. What they get,
all
> > too often, is what they ask for.....or not. Obviously, it's not the
same
> > thing.
> >
> > <Grin> Yes, Wolfgang ~ we do get it, collectively by voting, OR NOT
> > voting. You might be eloquent with words but your recollection of what
I
> > said seems to suffer CRS. What the thread implied as well as said
"People
> > get what they deserve"... by NOT VOTING! Are you suggesting that we be
> > "given" good government whether or not we vote for it? Erm... this
smacks
> > of communism or socialism. Engage your brain before slipping your
tongue
> > into gear. This is country is, is what a democracy IS about.
> > Or, perhaps you imply politicians swop sides after election. This is
> quite
> > true, but they can be voted right out again. That's the beauty of this
> > country and it's constitutional rights.
>
> Well, Bill, one is hard pressed to determine whether ignorance or
stupidity
> is your most endearing quality. In either case, one has to wonder if lack
> of familiarity with the English language (which, after all, appears to be
> the preference for this news group) makes the matter moot. As for
> socialism, which particular bugbear seems to be hiding under your bed, one
> also has to wonder whether you have yet gotten around to informing your
> local fire department that you will, under no circumstances, accept their
> services.
>
> > > > Yes indeed!!! And I've been bitching for nearly 50 years now at
those
> > > > lazy, apathetic slobs. I especially love it when I, after THEIR
> ****ing
> > and
> > > > moaning about the administration in power, ask them if they voted in
> the
> > > > last election. When I get a negative answer my comment is,
immediate
> > and
> > > > cynical: "Then you got just who and what you deserved!! I may or
may
> > not
> > > > agree with your politics but I damned well have shown you one of the
> > > > biggest reasons this country is goin' to hell in a handbasket!" No
> one
> > has ever
> > > > give me any crap back about it either!!
> > >
> > > Jam it up your ass.....sideways.
> > ****Eh, Wolfgang?
>
> I said, "Jam it up your ass.....sideways."
>
> > I'll pass on this as you're being a bit angered by your
> > childish remark.
>
> Odd, that. I am not usually angered by my remarks.
>
> > Or should I say sophomoric.
>
> I guess I won't make any suggestion about what you should say?
>
> > >
> > > > Please get out and VOTE!!
> > >
> > > No.
> > ****NOW you ARE being childish.
>
> Not just "NOW".
>
> > WE that vote get what we deserve.... again:
> > "collectively."
>
> O.k., so, let me see if I follow the logic of this one. "WE" who voted
for
> Bush got what we deserve, right? And, "WE" who voted for Gore also got
what
> we deserve, because "WE" who voted got what we deserve, correct? Yes,
> correct, for "WE" who voted got what we deserve. Oddly, though, ALL of
> "WE" who voted got what we deserve regardless of who we voted
> for.....because that's stipulated. Even MORE odd, all of "WE" who didn't
> vote got EXACTLY the same thing as all of "WE" who did, whether we deserve
> it or not. Bottom line then, is that it doesn't really mean **** who "WE"
> voted for because we all got the same thing, regardless. Moreover, since
> "WE" who didn't vote also got the same thing (see above) and most
certainly
> would have gotten the same thing irrespective of who "WE" might have voted
> for (should we have done so), we got no more or less than we deserve or
than
> anyone else got or deserves. Thus, we find ourselves with a paradox or an
> irony or one or another despicable bag of **** in the White House.....or
> something. Yeah, I like that.....it's got a sort of symmetry....or
> psychosis.....or something.

**** Numbers can be manipulated statisticaly to proove anything. Similarly,
the gibberish above; my English professor had a term for it: Gobbledegook...
Much like Richard Nixon, years ago, talking for several minutes, but saying
absolutely nothing.
>
> > The majority rules
>
> What planet did you say you live on?
**** Same one as you.... And I am obviously much happier with it.
>
> > and this is STILL the best country in
> > the world.
>
> Why?
**** Ya don't know? And where are YOU from? I see you're using a .edu
addy. Care to tell me your geograhical location as I'm a bit new to this
place?
>
> > > > Cheers to y'all....
> > > > Bill P. Phx.Az
> > >
> > Die.
> > ****Y'must have been apoplectic by now.
>
> Probably, but it's kind of hard to tell......in my condition, you know.
**** Yes, I'm learning..... your condition.
>
> > Cool down, your lack of control is
> > being exposed.
>
> Hardly matters. I'm already famous for it.
**** Yes, and your hem is really showing now.
>
> > > Wolfgang
> > > well.....another perfect record shattered.....so sad.
> > ****So smug.... and self engratiating. Ho, hum........Pity.
>
> Ho, hum? Boring you, am I? Well, time will tell.
>
> Wolfgang
>
>
Yup! I have learned that when wrestling with a pig in the mud, that the pig
is usually enjoying himself. You seem to be a "master debator" and
apparently enjoy casting hate and discontent about with name calling and
insults to those you don't agree with.... or sometimes not, for that matter.
You're obviously an intelligent person, however misdirected you may be....
and, not really happy or at peace with yourself. You gotta stir the pot
whenever possible from the comfort, and more than likely, anonymity of your
chair at the keyboard. I'm sure you'll make one last lambasting shot here
and I shan't have the last word on this subject. No problem, Wolfgang....
I'm going back to flyfishing!

With complete indifference....
Bill

[Tim J.]

"Wolfgang" wrote...
> "Tim J." wrote...
> >
> > ...Two of my children aren't
> > registered to vote, and *that* ****es me off. One of them like to talk
> about
> > political topics, but I refuse to discuss anything with him. If a person
> isn't
> > voting, I could care less what they have to say about politics.....
>
> I'll do you the favor of assuming that you mean you could care less about
> what anyone has to say about politics if they don't vote AND they live in a
> place where a vote matters.

Man, you're getting soft. :)
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Tim J.]

"Bill P" wrote...
<snip>
> **** Numbers can be manipulated statisticaly to proove anything. Similarly,
> the gibberish above; my English professor had a term for it: <snip>

Be sure to separate two sentences like the above a little further apart next
time, or name the English professor so others can avoid the same mistake. ;-)
--
Just pickin' nits,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[Wolfgang]

"Tim J." > wrote in message
news:hc00c.139080$jk2.565478@attbi_s53...
>
> Man, you're getting soft. :)

Just spreadin' a little sunshine. :)

Wolfgang
feeling much refreshed after a bit of a vacation.

[JR]

Bill P wrote:
>
> This is country is, is what a democracy IS about.

So, everyone only wanted to make fun of Clinton's bit about the
definition of "is", but as a nation we never really came to grips with
the issue, and now look at the result. :(

JR

[slenon]

Wolfgang:

>To put it in its simplest terms, you have NEVER heard any of the arguments.

Where does one send off to for the cloak of omniscience and invisibility
that you wrap so knowingly around yourself? Did it take a lot of boxtops?
Perhaps it came in a plain brown wrapper?
While I admit my hearing is damaged, I do recall discussing with many people
as to why they fail to exercise franchise. If I'd known you were there
eavesdropping, I'd have taken notes or recorded the conversations.


>> Most of the time I vote for losing candidates in major elections.

>And that is a ringing endorsement for your philosophy because......?

Actually, I see it as a result of voting against Republicans since Nixon
and voting repeatedly against Ashcroft.

You are free to read any acane or inane meaning into the statement that
pleases your petulant little being. I'm quite certain you will.

--
Stev Lenon 91B20 '68-'69
Drowning flies to Dark Star

http://web.tampabay.rr.com/stevglo/index.html/slhomepage92kword.htm

[daytripper]

On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:13:46 +0100, JR > wrote:

>Bill P wrote:
>>
>> This is country is, is what a democracy IS about.
>
>So, everyone only wanted to make fun of Clinton's bit about the
>definition of "is", but as a nation we never really came to grips with
>the issue, and now look at the result. :(

lol!

[riverman]

"daytripper" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 28 Feb 2004 16:13:46 +0100, JR > wrote:
>
> >Bill P wrote:
> >>
> >> This is country is, is what a democracy IS about.
> >
> >So, everyone only wanted to make fun of Clinton's bit about the
> >definition of "is", but as a nation we never really came to grips with
> >the issue, and now look at the result. :(
>
> lol!

Does anyone know where there is a transcript of his deposition? IIRC, this
entire "definition of is" quote is in the "Play it again Sam" category;
never really happened the way the public consciousness remembers it. When I
saw the deposition tape, I thought I remembered that he used the "is" quote
parenthetically: I thought he said something to the effect of "If I wanted
to be evasive, I might say something like "what is your definition of 'is'""
(btw, puncutating that was a bitch) in effect, he was specifically <not>
using that as an evasive answer, but underscoring that he <could>, but he
was choosing not to. Do I remember falsely?
-riverman

[JR]

"Tim J." wrote:
>
> If a person isn't
> voting, I could care less what they have to say about politics.


OK, LISTEN UP:

All persons who haven't voted in every federal, state, local, school,
and civic organization election they've been entitled to vote in are
kindly requested to refrain henceforth from discussing politics.

JR
(who actually agrees with Tim, except that part before the comma)

[Tim J.]

"JR" wrote...
> "Tim J." wrote:
> >
> > If a person isn't
> > voting, I could care less what they have to say about politics.
>
> OK, LISTEN UP:
>
> All persons who haven't voted in every federal, state, local, school,
> and civic organization election they've been entitled to vote in are
> kindly requested to refrain henceforth from discussing politics.

YAHOOOOO! Consensus! :)
--
TL,
Tim
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

[JR]

riverman wrote:

> ...... I thought he said something to the effect of "If I wanted
> to be evasive, I might say something like "what is your definition of 'is'""
> (btw, puncutating that was a bitch) in effect, he was specifically <not>
> using that as an evasive answer, but underscoring that he <could>, but he
> was choosing not to. Do I remember falsely?

Yes.

BY MR. WISENBERG:

Q Mr. President, I want to, before I go into a new subject area, briefly
go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bittman.

The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at the Paula Jones
deposition, "Counsel is fully aware" -- it's page 54, line 5 – "Counsel
is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they
are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind
in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton.."

That statement is made by your attorney in front of Judge Susan Webber
Wright, correct?

A That's correct.

Q That statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr.
Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that
there was "no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with
President Clinton," was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?

A It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the –if he – if
"is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one thing. If
it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.

http://www.npr.org/news/national/clintontape/clinton.part1b.html

[riverman]

"JR" > wrote in message ...
> riverman wrote:
>
> > ...... I thought he said something to the effect of "If I wanted
> > to be evasive, I might say something like "what is your definition of
'is'""
> > (btw, puncutating that was a bitch) in effect, he was specifically <not>
> > using that as an evasive answer, but underscoring that he <could>, but
he
> > was choosing not to. Do I remember falsely?
>
> Yes.
>
> BY MR. WISENBERG:
>
> Q Mr. President, I want to, before I go into a new subject area, briefly
> go over something you were talking about with Mr. Bittman.
>
> The statement of your attorney, Mr. Bennett, at the Paula Jones
> deposition, "Counsel is fully aware" -- it's page 54, line 5 - "Counsel
> is fully aware that Ms. Lewinsky has filed, has an affidavit which they
> are in possession of saying that there is absolutely no sex of any kind
> in any manner, shape or form, with President Clinton.."
>
> That statement is made by your attorney in front of Judge Susan Webber
> Wright, correct?
>
> A That's correct.
>
> Q That statement is a completely false statement. Whether or not Mr.
> Bennett knew of your relationship with Ms. Lewinsky, the statement that
> there was "no sex of any kind in any manner, shape or form, with
> President Clinton," was an utterly false statement. Is that correct?
>
> A It depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is. If the -if he - if
> "is" means is and never has been, that is not--- that is one thing. If
> it means there is none, that was a completely true statement.
>

Got it, JR, thanks. Now I remember my feeling about that quote: not that it
was a hypothetical, but that, (evasive at it was and nestled among a lot of
evasiveness), it had a valid point. The question posed was rather tangled:
"Your attourney made a statement before, and it IS false. IS that correct?"
Clinton's response was: "I could answer one of two ways, depending on what
you are asking: At the time of the statement, based on our understanding at
the time, it WAS NOT false, so no, your summary is not correct. Or now,
under our new agreement of some of the terminology, it IS CURRENTLY false,
so yes, that is correct."

He was pointing out that the question could be interepreted two ways, and
answered differently in each interpretation. He actually never committed to
any one answer. Upon closer reading, the interrogator actually used both
tenses: "That statement IS a completely false statement" and "that WAS an
utterly false statement."

By the way, what IS the definition of 'is'?

--riverman

[Lat705]

>By the way, what IS the definition of 'is'?

You want the Webster or Liberal defenition?

Lou T

[Roger Öhlund]

"Bill P" > wrote in message
news:igY%b.2553$h23.1869@fed1read06...
>
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > "Bill P" > wrote in message
> > news:HxV%b.2286$h23.1017@fed1read06...
> > > Bill P said: "..we get what we deserve..."
> >
> > > and this is STILL the best country in
> > > the world.
> >
> > Why?
> >
> **** Ya don't know? And where are YOU from? I see you're using a .edu
> addy. Care to tell me your geograhical location as I'm a bit new to this
> place?

Wolfgang posted a question that was quite to the point.
You're of course entitled to your opinion but when you feel the need to make
your ignorance public knowledge you could at least have the decency explain
yourself.
It is OK to have an opinion, but in my book there should at least be some
thought behind it.

/Roger
Who is from Sweden, probably not the best country in the world but then
again I've never said so.

[Wolfgang]

"Roger Öhlund" > wrote in message
...
>
> Wolfgang posted a question that was quite to the point.

Well, actually, it was kind of a rhetorical question. "WE" are the best
country in the world cuz "WE" say so and "WE" can nuke anybody's ass into
its constituent atoms. Hey, "WE" have done it before.....and you KNOW that
"WE" will do it again if you **** us off.

> You're of course entitled to your opinion

A common enough sentiment, but I've yet to hear a good defense for it.

> but when you feel the need to make
> your ignorance public knowledge you could at least have the decency
explain
> yourself.
> It is OK to have an opinion, but in my book there should at least be some
> thought behind it.

There are a couple of problems with this. In the first place, if they gave
the matter much thought most people would discover (much to their chagrin,
no doubt) that they don't actually HAVE any opinions and that the ones they
have been using are of unknown provenance and pretty much silly and useless
to boot. As a consequence, they would find themselves in the awkward
position of having absolutely nothing to say about anything, as opposed to
the current situation in which they merely have absolutely nothing
worthwhile to say about anything. Think of the ramifications! The end of
civilization as we know it would only be the beginning.

> /Roger
> Who is from Sweden, probably not the best country in the world but then
> again I've never said so.

The problem is that you don't have enough nukes. Remind me at
Penn's......we'll send you home with a boatload. :)

Wolfgang
um......but don't tell the norwegians, o.k.? :(

[Wolfgang]

"Bill P" > wrote in message
news:igY%b.2553$h23.1869@fed1read06...
>
> ...I have learned that when wrestling with a pig in the mud, that the pig
> is usually enjoying himself.

You're a liar. The pigs NEVER enjoy it. :)

>You seem to be a "master debator"

Ask Willi about how things seem.

> and
> apparently enjoy casting hate and discontent about with name calling and
> insults to those you don't agree with

Odd sort of statement coming from one who hasn't got a clue who I might or
might not agree with or about what. Actually, it's quite possible (really,
it IS!) that you and I agree on many things. Unfortunately, you are an
abject fool, so the point is moot.

> .... or sometimes not, for that matter.

Um.....yeah. that's clever. Wish I'd thought of it.

> You're obviously an intelligent person,

Well, I'm not as smart as I THINK I am.

> however misdirected you may be....

Entirely undirected, unfortunately. I've been waiting a long time for
someone like you to come along......and here you are at last! :)

> and, not really happy or at peace with yourself.

Happiness is, at best, an ill defined concept. That said, I guess I'm no
more miserable than most......most of the time. As for peace, well, that
comes at the end of the road, ainna?

> You gotta stir the pot
> whenever possible from the comfort, and more than likely, anonymity of
your
> chair at the keyboard.

It's not a particularly comfortable chair. It's a more or less straight
backed wooden kitchen chair of uncertain but low lineage. A couple of the
stretchers are loose, thus making the whole thing rather precarious as well
as moderately uncomfortable. Still, every moment is an adventure. You're
right about the anonymity, though; it has never revealed so much as a hint
of its true identity......for all I know, it's a long lost Russian princess.

> I'm sure you'll make one last lambasting shot here
> and I shan't have the last word on this subject.

Ah, the old "last word" gambit. Damned if I do and damned if I don't.
Fiendishly clever!

> No problem, Wolfgang....

Not yet. Stick around for a while.

> I'm going back to flyfishing!
>
> With complete indifference....
> Bill

Again, sir, you are a liar, as you will have ample opportunity to
demonstrate and we will, from time to time (as the situation warrants),
point out. :)

Wolfgang
somewhere in the land that beer forgot.

[Willi]

Wolfgang wrote:
>
>
> Ask Willi about how things seem.


This is how it "seems: to me:


"whether ignorance or stupidity
is your most endearing quality"

"you are stupid"

"you luminously ignorant twerp"

"you are stupid"

"you are an abject fool"

"****ing putz"


and all in the last two days!

Nice job!!!

and no, somebody doesn't need to do it

Willi

[Wolfgang]

"Willi" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Wolfgang wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ask Willi about how things seem.
>
>
> This is how it "seems: to me:
>
>
> "whether ignorance or stupidity
> is your most endearing quality"
>
> "you are stupid"
>
> "you luminously ignorant twerp"
>
> "you are stupid"
>
> "you are an abject fool"
>
> "****ing putz"

Well, that's a vast improvement. All of the above seems to be exactly as it
seems to you!

> and all in the last two days!
>
> Nice job!!!

Thank you. I try.

> and no, somebody doesn't need to do it

Do what?

Wolfgang

[steve sullivan]

In article <igY%b.2553$h23.1869@fed1read06>, "Bill P" >
wrote:

> **** Ya don't know? And where are YOU from? I see you're using a .edu
> addy. Care to tell me your geograhical location as I'm a bit new to this
> place?
> >

well, you could easily enough go to www.mcw.edu, well you would where it
is located. Gives the state, city, and even the zip on the home page.

[JR]

riverman wrote:
>
> He was pointing out that the question could be interepreted two ways, and
> answered differently in each interpretation. He actually never committed to
> any one answer.

Yes. He answered the question precisely, offering nothing more. The
view of the lawyers here will be more valuable than mine, of course,
but my view has always been that Clinton was playing with the
prosecutor, showing he was smarter, saying in effect, "you ask an
imprecise, poorly phrased question, here's what you get."

Speaking of famous quotations misremembered, for some time now I have
recalled the recent epistemological musings of our Secretary of Defense
as

Rumsfeld: "Reports that say that something has not happened are always
interesting to me, because as we know, there are known knowns; there are
things we know we know. We also know there are known unknowns; that is
to say we know there are some things we do not know. But there are also
unknown unknowns -- the ones we don't know we don't know. And if one
looks throughout the history of fly fishing in our country and other
free countries, it is the latter category that tend to be the difficult
ones."

Even without my little memory lapse (<g>), it is not entirely OT here.

JR

[riverman]

"JR" > wrote in message ...
> riverman wrote:
> >
> > He was pointing out that the question could be interepreted two ways,
and
> > answered differently in each interpretation. He actually never committed
to
> > any one answer.
>
> Yes. He answered the question precisely, offering nothing more. The
> view of the lawyers here will be more valuable than mine, of course,
> but my view has always been that Clinton was playing with the
> prosecutor, showing he was smarter, saying in effect, "you ask an
> imprecise, poorly phrased question, here's what you get."
>

Hmm, I felt something similar, but it was more like he was instructing the
questioner on how his questions were unanswerable. More like "Heck, I can't
answer that. It's close to meaningless." The question was a broadside across
the bow asking him to self-incriminate, which was doomed to fail in any
case. Strange how his answer has entered the realms of History, but not the
bizarre uselessness of the question.

--riverman

[Wolfgang]

"riverman" > wrote in message
...
>
> ...Strange how his answer has entered the realms of History, but not the
> bizarre uselessness of the question.

Not to mention the monumental stupidity and colossal cynicism of the whole
exercise.......or the self-serving hypocrisy of efforts to justify it then
or now. Then too, there's the expense. Just THINK how many more children
could have been murdered in far flung countries around the world with
another forty million dollars.

Wolfgang

[rw]

riverman wrote:
>
> Hmm, I felt something similar, but it was more like he was instructing the
> questioner on how his questions were unanswerable. More like "Heck, I can't
> answer that. It's close to meaningless." The question was a broadside across
> the bow asking him to self-incriminate, which was doomed to fail in any
> case. Strange how his answer has entered the realms of History, but not the
> bizarre uselessness of the question.

Once something reaches the "meme" level, after being repeated over and
over in the media, its truth or falsity becomes irrelevant.

Another example is that Al Gore claimed to have "invented" the Internet.
He did no such thing. He took appropriate credit for the very important
governmental role he played in its success. He was defended by people
who actually DID invent the Internet, but they were ignored.

Another example was Howard Dean's famous scream after the New Hampshire
primary. It looked stupid on TV, but many people who were there,
including nonpartisan journalists, didn't see anything wrong with it at
the time, in the context of a "locker-room" speech to his supporters.

Politicians are a real bind when they get caught up in these things.
They can't deny it without looking defensive and ridiculous.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[riverman]

"rw" > wrote in message
. ..
> riverman wrote:
> >
> > Hmm, I felt something similar, but it was more like he was instructing
the
> > questioner on how his questions were unanswerable. More like "Heck, I
can't
> > answer that. It's close to meaningless." The question was a broadside
across
> > the bow asking him to self-incriminate, which was doomed to fail in any
> > case. Strange how his answer has entered the realms of History, but not
the
> > bizarre uselessness of the question.
>
> Once something reaches the "meme" level, after being repeated over and
> over in the media, its truth or falsity becomes irrelevant.
>............
>> Politicians are a real bind when they get caught up in these things.
> They can't deny it without looking defensive and ridiculous.

Excellent point, but how do you avoid getting caught up in these things? The
media's ability to create such indefensible situations is exactly what
people mean when they 'blame the media', and knowing how well the media
wizards understand their craft, its impossible that its accidental, or some
artifact of crowd mentality. Whatever happened to 'report the news, don't
create it'? The old Prime Directive.
--riverman

[steve sullivan]

In article >,
rw > wrote:

> Another example is that Al Gore claimed to have "invented" the Internet.
> He did no such thing. He took appropriate credit for the very important
> governmental role he played in its success. He was defended by people
> who actually DID invent the Internet, but they were ignored.

The internet's beginning was Darpanet, created around 1970'ish. When
did Gore do the things he did?

[rb608]

"steve sullivan" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> rw > wrote:
>
> > Another example is that Al Gore claimed to have "invented" the Internet.
> > He did no such thing. He took appropriate credit for the very important
> > governmental role he played in its success. He was defended by people
> > who actually DID invent the Internet, but they were ignored.
>
> The internet's beginning was Darpanet, created around 1970'ish. When
> did Gore do the things he did?

The article to which rw refers is at
http://www.interesting-people.org/archives/interesting-people/200009/msg00052.html.

An excerpt from that article by Vinton Cerf & Robert Kahn (a couple guys who
would certainly know) states,
"As a Senator in the 1980s Gore urged government agencies to consolidate
what at the time were several dozen different and unconnected networks into
an "Interagency Network." Working in a bi-partisan manner with officials
in Ronald Reagan and George Bush's administrations, Gore secured the passage
of the High Performance Computing and Communications Act in 1991. This
"Gore Act" supported the National Research and Education Network (NREN)
initiative that became one of the major vehicles for the spread of the
Internet beyond the field of computer science."

Gore is also given credit for being "the first political leader to recognize
the importance of the
Internet and to promote and support its development."

Of course, the Bush campaign and the conservative media mouthpieces didn't
give a **** about the truth (any more then than now).

HTH,
Joe F.

[rw]

Greg Pavlov wrote:
> On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:04:45 -0700, rw
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Once something reaches the "meme" level, after being repeated over and
>>over in the media, its truth or falsity becomes irrelevant.
>>
>>Another example is that Al Gore claimed to have "invented" the Internet.
>>He did no such thing. ....
>
>
> Do you think that this was simply a media phenomenon ?
> I don't think so. I'd put it in the same category of
> politically-based misdirection as fantasies about Kerry
> & Fonda (that one fueled by a faked photograph) and
> rants that Cleland was not on "the battlefield" when
> he lost his limbs.

I think the media are to a degree manipulated by political forces, and
in some cases, such as right-wing talk radio, act as surrogates.
However, there's also an undeniable tendency for journalists to attempt
to humiliate politicians and other public figures. Sometimes they
deserve it and sometimes they don't.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

[RDL]

Thanks for the info. I will switch to the Coor's brand labels.

Richard




"David Snedeker" > wrote in message
...
>
> "rw" > wrote in message
> . ..
> > Greg Pavlov wrote:
> > > On Sun, 29 Feb 2004 17:04:45 -0700, rw
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > I think the media are to a degree manipulated by political forces, and
> > in some cases, such as right-wing talk radio, act as surrogates.
> > However, there's also an undeniable tendency for journalists to attempt
> > to humiliate politicians and other public figures. Sometimes they
> > deserve it and sometimes they don't.
>
> Actually its even more directed than this. Long before the "dirty tricks"
> squads, and the "rat-****er" squad of the Nixon era, organized
> dis-information groups have been funded, directed and controlled by the
> anti-democracy elements within the American "conservative" movement. In
> recent years these same elements have morphed into respectable-sounding
> groups more closely associated with electoral Republicanism. An example of
> this is the Heritage Foundation, which uses the tax code loop holes on
> non-profit educational efforts, as a cover for it's promotion of primarily
> Coors' family oligarchic political ideology. For example, the Coors' have
> fought every American social and economic reform for the last 50 years
> including minority voting rights.
>
> But the real action, and money, is still in the dirty tricks area.
Examples
> of this are the front-organizations funded by the various Coors' family
> trusts, and the Sciafi (sp$) constellation of paid attack dogs. Their
> activities range from the overtly illegal (break-ins/burglary, vote
> tampering, forgery etc.), to facilitating semi-legal influence peddling
and
> bribery (Cheney campaign 2000 fundraising with energy cronies like Enron,
> Haliburton etc..) and simple funding/subsidization of wingnut nasties like
> Coulter, and harassment operations like the Sciafi funded "get-Clinton"
ops.
>
> There is some basis for thinking that these groups and their activities
will
> generate a negative reaction. Flush with victory, these groups have become
> less covert and more outrageous. Some of the connections to foreign
> interests and money are becoming more common knowledge. For example, the
> Australian control of FOX, the imposition of Canadian wingnut (Ex: David
> Fromm) "consultants," Rev. Moon's funding of key Neo-con media and
> personalities, the Israeli Defense industry shills who have set up shop
> INSIDE the Pentagon, the attempted sale of a US defense company to the Red
> Chinese by the arch neo-con R. Pearle, etc.. I believe that most
Americans,
> and even most conservatives will eventually be so outraged by this assault
> on our country, and at some point say enough is enough Im going to vote
> democrat or at least work to take back the Republican Party from the
> neo-cons.
>
> Dave
>
>

[RDL]

You must be a complete idiot!



I served two tours in Viet Nam 65-67, came home and started a business, done
well, and am ready to retire. I don't hate America, I love and respect my
country. I fought for it, and bled for it., What about you?



You see, I'm not some left wing screwy fascist that finds fault in all
America does. I'm not a movie star, who gets on screen and tells the world
how evil the U.S. is, and wouldn't raise their children there. I'm not a
political hack who gets in front of a TV camera, and yells out to the world
that what we are doing is "Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, And Wrong" like your
good old ex KKK Senator member does. And, I could care less what France,
or Germany thinks about us.



How about you taking a hike instead? Makes sense to me!



Richard



"Greg Pavlov" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 02 Mar 2004 00:01:51 GMT, "RDL" > wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the info. I will switch to the Coor's brand labels.
>
>
> Hey, if you hate America so much, why don't
> you leave ?

[Wayne Knight]

"Wolfgang" > wrote in message
...

>
> Wolfgang
>

Since you're posting in a time zone one hour behind mine but my newserver
says you posted this tomorrow, could you run out and check the Wednesday
powerball numbers for me and email them to me? I'll give you a cut, I
promise :)

[Wayne Knight]

"RDL" > wrote in message
m...
> You must be a complete idiot!
>

Chill dude, the old "why do you hate America so much" or it's variant
wordings are an old ROFF joke. I forget the exact origins but Mr. Pavlov did
not mean anything sinister other than a probable implied disagreement with
your politics.

[Wolfgang]

"Wayne Knight" > wrote in message
...
> "Wolfgang" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> >
> > Wolfgang
> >
>
> Since you're posting in a time zone one hour behind mine but my newserver
> says you posted this tomorrow,

O.k., it's a little complicated, but here goes........

The computer knows what year it is, but the microwave, my watch, the VCR,
and various other bits of the impedimenta with which we encumber ourselves
don't. So, Outlook Express does is semi-daily (or is that bi-daily......I
never can remember the difference) ****up and tells me.....after crashing
and restarting.....that there are 5000+ new messages and downloads 500 of
them, leaving the rest (for iscrutable reasons of its own) somewhere out
there in limbo. Just to be sure that I'm reading the right messages (the
ones I haven't looked at yet) and marking the rest as read, I checks my
watch to be sure of the date and time. The watch, ignorant puss bag that it
is, tells me today is 3-3-04. Right, says I, but all of the latest messages
are marked 3-2-04. O.k., so the computer has experienced some sort of cyber
hiccup and forgotten the date. I checks the clock. Sure enough, Dell,
Intel, Microsoft, and God only knows who else, thinks today is the second.
So, I reset the date. Then, I shut down OE and restart, thinking this will
solve the problem and the correct date will appear on all the messages in
ROFF. but, no, I distinctly remember some of these messages and they were
most certainly posted today and OE STILL insists they arrived on the second.
Hm......

"Hey, Becky," sez I, "what the hell is today's date?". She says, "It's the
third, no wait, it's the second". I reply, "Well, why does my watch say
it's the third?" Becky: "It's leap year.....you didn't reset your watch,
did you?" "Shut up!", I rejoin, cheerfully.

So, anyway, like I don't already have enough to do at work, now I have to
go back and doctor all of today's records....find the stupid instructions
for this stupid watch....and somehow try to put my whole life back in some
semblance of order. :(

> could you run out and check the Wednesday
> powerball numbers for me and email them to me? I'll give you a cut, I
> promise :)

11-19-26-27-44....and the powerball is 33.

Wolfgang
who, if setting a watch or operating a t.v. remote were as easy as picking
winning lottery numbers, who be eternally blissful.

[David Snedeker]

"RDL" > wrote in message
m...
> Thanks for the info. I will switch to the Coor's brand labels.
>
> Richard
>

Hey, no problem. We all are entitled to our preferences. But Im curious
about one thing: What info bit about the Coors' campaign against the people
of the United States attracted you most? Was it their opposition to voting
rights, their assault on free public education, or their funding of efforts
to sell off the National Parks?

And here's a bonus idea for you: why not send your beer money directly to
the Heritage Foundation (or Reverend Moon for that matter); that way you
could hasten the destruction of the country, and give your bladder and liver
a break to boot.

Dave

[Wolfgang]

"RDL" > wrote in message
m...
> You must be a complete idiot!
>
>
>
> I served two tours in Viet Nam 65-67, came home and started a business,
done
> well, and am ready to retire. I don't hate America, I love and respect my
> country. I fought for it, and bled for it., What about you?
>
>
>
> You see, I'm not some left wing screwy fascist that finds fault in all
> America does. I'm not a movie star, who gets on screen and tells the
world
> how evil the U.S. is, and wouldn't raise their children there. I'm not a
> political hack who gets in front of a TV camera, and yells out to the
world
> that what we are doing is "Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, Wrong, And Wrong" like
your
> good old ex KKK Senator member does. And, I could care less what France,
> or Germany thinks about us.
>
>
>
> How about you taking a hike instead? Makes sense to me!
>
>
>
> Richard

Dang, Duke, they told me you was dead, but I knowed it warn't true! I
knowed all along you an' ole Elvis was holed up somewheres doin' the nasty.
So, how ya been?

Wolfgang
silver wings upon their chests...... :)