Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Charlie Choc wrote:
Tim J. wrote:

Nah. . . they're too objective for that,
eh? ;-)

Objective like a Fox(news) you mean?

Did I ever say Fox was objective? I mean, I *like* their slant better
than CNN's, but it's still a slant.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Charlie Choc wrote:
Tim J. wrote:

Nah. . . they're too objective for that,
eh? ;-)

Objective like a Fox(news) you mean?

Did I ever say Fox was objective? I mean, I *like* their slant better
than CNN's, but it's still a slant.
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:51:29 GMT, wrote:

Well, as long as CNN said Pat Robertson said Bush said it, that's good enough
for me.

Pat Robertson said *on* CNN that Bush said it, but you got it about as close
as I'd have guessed you would.

So, I take it you're either a born-again Christian, Jewish, or not
voting out of respect for the good Mr. Robertson's edicts...

Actually, no. But my Electoral votes will go to Bush no matter how I vote.
--
Charlie...

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:51:29 GMT, wrote:

Well, as long as CNN said Pat Robertson said Bush said it, that's good enough
for me.

Pat Robertson said *on* CNN that Bush said it, but you got it about as close
as I'd have guessed you would.

So, I take it you're either a born-again Christian, Jewish, or not
voting out of respect for the good Mr. Robertson's edicts...

Actually, no. But my Electoral votes will go to Bush no matter how I vote.
--
Charlie...

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

On Wed, 20 Oct 2004 18:51:29 GMT, wrote:

Well, as long as CNN said Pat Robertson said Bush said it, that's good enough
for me.

Pat Robertson said *on* CNN that Bush said it, but you got it about as close
as I'd have guessed you would.

So, I take it you're either a born-again Christian, Jewish, or not
voting out of respect for the good Mr. Robertson's edicts...

Actually, no. But my Electoral votes will go to Bush no matter how I vote.
--
Charlie...

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Wayne Knight wrote:
Tim J. wrote:

BTW, you guys on the far left can have ol' Pat. He seems to be
drifting further from reality all the time. Should be a good fit.
:-))

Speaking of drifting and reality, you giving us Bush too? Not that we
want him but that was your criteria.

Oh, you don't really want to go there, do you? Kerry wouldn't know
reality it it jumped up and bit him on the ass. :)

BTW, one of the things I think is wrong (but possibly fixable) in our
political system is that it's impossible for a "real" person to get
elected to anything these days. I'm not sure about you, but there are
things in my background from a different life long, loooonnnnnggg ago
that make me "unelectable" because of the surety of dirt-digging and
mud-slinging politics. The only people who can get elected in this
country nowadays are people with spotless records (and we all know who
*they* were in school, dont we?), or people with enough money and power
to hide their background. The mere fact that a person is expected to be
"perfect" to be elected eliminates the most qualified prospects right
from the start.

Yeah I'm on a soapbox - so what?! BUT, that's enough politics on roff
for today boys and girls. . .
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Wayne Knight wrote:
Tim J. wrote:

BTW, you guys on the far left can have ol' Pat. He seems to be
drifting further from reality all the time. Should be a good fit.
:-))

Speaking of drifting and reality, you giving us Bush too? Not that we
want him but that was your criteria.

Oh, you don't really want to go there, do you? Kerry wouldn't know
reality it it jumped up and bit him on the ass. :)

BTW, one of the things I think is wrong (but possibly fixable) in our
political system is that it's impossible for a "real" person to get
elected to anything these days. I'm not sure about you, but there are
things in my background from a different life long, loooonnnnnggg ago
that make me "unelectable" because of the surety of dirt-digging and
mud-slinging politics. The only people who can get elected in this
country nowadays are people with spotless records (and we all know who
*they* were in school, dont we?), or people with enough money and power
to hide their background. The mere fact that a person is expected to be
"perfect" to be elected eliminates the most qualified prospects right
from the start.

Yeah I'm on a soapbox - so what?! BUT, that's enough politics on roff
for today boys and girls. . .
--
TL,
Tim
------------------------
http://css.sbcma.com/timj

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Charlie Choc writes:

Actually, no. But my Electoral votes will go to Bush no matter how I vote.

And mine to Kerry. ****er, ain't it?

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Charlie Choc writes:

Actually, no. But my Electoral votes will go to Bush no matter how I vote.

And mine to Kerry. ****er, ain't it?

Terrorists on ROFF?
 

Tim J. wrote:

Oh, you don't really want to go there, do you? Kerry wouldn't know
reality it it jumped up and bit him on the ass. :)


So what, he's not president, yet, let's deal with the one in office
first.


BTW, one of the things I think is wrong (but possibly fixable) in our
political system is that it's impossible for a "real" person to get
elected to anything these days. I'm not sure about you, but there are
things in my background from a different life long, loooonnnnnggg ago
that make me "unelectable" because of the surety of dirt-digging and
mud-slinging politics.

[snip]

Yeah I'm on a soapbox - so what?! BUT, that's enough politics on
roff
for today boys and girls. . .

There's no way in hell I could run for president in this day and age,
they'd have a field day with the things that I used to do. Hell they
could fun with some things that I do now for that matter g. On top of
that I'm just middle class, hopelessly fat, and lets not even talk
about looks other than to say I have scared children just by smiling at
them. :(
No way a political party would show me on TV.

I'm fairly in agreement with you on this point. And it goes beyond the
"background" stuff to the money and the TV/pundit sound bite.

Think about it for a second, for a job that pays 400K for 4 years, free
housing, the private use of a 747, the guarantee of never being in a
traffic jam, and the joys of playing with a bunch of codes that can end
the world, both jokers are going to spend untold millions of dollars.
If you or I ran our businesses like the folks who run for office do,
our returns on investment will have us in bankruptcy in a manner of
months. The senate, house, and state elections are even more obscene
with the amount of money spent in relation to the salary. And the same
people spending money at 100 times the benefit are the same folks
making economic policy?

If I was in charge, I'd jump start the ecomony by not allowing spending
on a campaign that exceeded the cash compensation for the term in
questions (each side in a presidential election could only spend 400K x
4 or 1.6 million), remove the tax exemption for political think tanks
and foundations. Think of all the wasted political contributions that
could now go to infrastructure and capital.

I still remember part of a skit from my teenage years that Johnny
Carson ran on the Tonight Show. The basic premise was classified
advertising for certain jobs, basically jabbing fun at company CEO's,
Mayors, police chiefs etc that I have long since forgot. Except the
last job....President of United States "no experience neccessary".
Wayne
(of course it was funny when Carson did it)