Now to really **** you off

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 20:16:09 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:49:41 -0400, Allen Epps
wrote:

html


Peter,
I guess I get an "F" on irony. That was my whole point of posting it
was that I found the interview, the interviewee, and his website full
of right wing nonsense. Those that have actually sat down and had a
beer with me know I'm (politically) a pretty darn moderate guy.

Missed you at Penns and the Rapid Peter.

Allen
www.bullmooserepublicans.com

I know, I know. I'm sitting here at the 'puter thinking some evil
Bush gnome has taken over our Allen.

It's a relief to know it's not true . . . .

Wait a tick.

It seems to me Allen offered up this Milloy nitwit as being an *equal* to the
UCS, just on the other side of the political aisle.

In other words, what the UCS has to say isn't important because Allen can find
some utter moron righty with a web site and a boutique publisher contract that
disagrees with the UCS...

/daytripper ()

should read: Good Lord! But still, although I suspect Mr. Epps might agree with
you more than not....you put that all so well!
Tom

"Flyfish" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Flyfish" wrote in message
...
"Wolfgang" wrote in
:


"Flyfish" wrote in message
...
Scott Seidman wrote in
. 1.4:

Actually, science does pretty well under conservative
governments that are willing to spend into deficit, if Reagan
can be used as an example, but Bush isn't doing very good things
for science at all.

Scott


I would argue that hard sciences like physics did well under
Reagan, less popular sciences such as environmental sciences fared
poorly.

Flyfish

Less popular? Your fellow pointy-heads in Maine are all adither
over the latest hotbutton topics in theoretical physics, are they?

Imbecile.

Wolfgang

What exactly about my statement escapes you? Other than the obvious,
all of it.

Well, aside from a rationale for that hoary old spurious distinction
between so-called "hard" sciences and others, there's also the cryptic
distinction between "hard" and "less popular".

*insert rolling eyes here*

Careful they don't get stepped on.

It is a fact that Reagan spent plenty on physics in order to achieve
star wars,

Yep, that is a fact.

while he made no bones about cutting research into alternative
fuels and other environmentally friendly sciences.

Also true.

The fact is that
Reagan dismantled Carter's proposed alternative fuels program as fast
as he could.

Well, not privy to the details of national politics, I guess I don't
know whether or not he did that as fast as he possibly could.
However, I'll take your word for it.

Anyway, I think I see my error. I wasn't aware that "popular" means
something that did well under Reagan. Silly me, I had supposed the
adjective described something that enjoyed widespread support......or
something like that. I WILL say, in my own defense, that the Latin
root from which "popular" is derived seemed to support my illusion.

Are you so blinded by your dislike of me that you cannot even see
that simple fact?

Dislike? Hm......do you know something I don't? Is there some reason
I should dislike you? Um.......we haven't actually met or anything,
have we? Was I drinking heavily?

As to facts, I agreed to every one that you posted and that I
recognized in this round. You will have noted my willingness to take
your word on the one. If that was the one you were referring to, then
I'd say, no, not blind.......just not in the loop. However, as
blindness appears to be the crucial test, then obviously I could, if
guilty, have missed another. So, I guess you'll have to answer for
me. Did I identify the right fact.......or was there another that I
didn't see?

Imbecile indeed.

Indeed indeed.

Wolfgang




Well shucks hoss I guess I just mistook your overt display of hostility

Hostility? You think an analysis based on close reading is hostility?
Would it surprise you much to be told that you ain't quite learned
everything yet?

to everything I've posted lately

Lately? Hm.......you don't remember me, huh?

as an indicator that you might have some
personal dislike that was manifesting itself in your postings.

Well, I confess that there are a number of things that I don't much like in
this world. And, given that I don't brood on them much and that I don't
make much of an effort to correlate what I think about some of them with
everything that I read and write in ROFF, I can hardly deny that some of my
feelings about some of them might manifest themselves in some of my
contributions here. However, I suggest that if YOU have time to keep track
of such things (not to mention the inclination)....and God knows I certainly
don't....then you might want to find yourself a hobby or something.

As for accuracy I'd give you high marks this time,

I assure you that I'm incapable of deciding whether I'm more thrilled or
flattered by this.

you appear to have
both accepted and validated most of the appropriate points.

As has been pointed out by writers and thinkers since time immemorial,
things ain't always exactly as they appear. That said, one is left
wondering who thinks which is appropriate to what and why.....and, for that
matter, why anyone should care.

and most
graciously gave me the slightest bit of leeway on one where the speed of
the event might be subject to question. I admit, my statement was lacking
precision and was more rhetorical, yet still based in historical fact.

I really do hope you know what you're nattering about. It seems to me that
if we're going to have an adult discussion, at least one of us should.

So can I take it that you're withdrawing your original objections,

Objections? Did I have objections? I'd really appreciate it if you could
tell me what they were.

phrased so adriotly with references to pointy heads and Maine?

Ah yes! I remember that part!

Had something to do with the immense popularity of physics as compared to
the arcane and largely ignored environmental sciences, ainna?

Or are
there more details to hash out?

Wouldn't surprise me all that much. Let's see, shall we?

Wolfgang

I'm sure Republicans of an earlier age are
turning over in their graves given the anitcs of the current crew that
bears their proud name.

Why do you hate America so much, you, you, ,,,, what the hell are you?
British, Canuckistanian, Welsh???
By the way, a very good insight into the politics of the US. Thanks.

--
Frank Reid
Reverse email to reply

On 13 Jul 2004 23:09:45 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

RDean notes:
IMO, therein lies the problem of bringing "the founding fathers" into
most arguments.

I think one also has to accept that the overall heading of "Founding Fathers"
encompassed a broad range of opinion for the time.

there is very little of what
goes on today that the "founding fathers" would have approved of ....

still, you are transposing the idea of these men frozen in 18th Century
realities and
base of knowledge. What one can credit the assembled group for is merely
creating a Framework. The system that they put in place turned out(by design
and by chance)
to be flexible enough to allow change without mass upheaval. It forced most
change to be slow and deliberate. It made fast, radical change very difficult.
These things make for a flexible, responsible mode of government over the long
haul. They did give such matters some thought.
Tom



I agree.

I think the flexibility that they engendered in the system was their
greatest accomplishment.


g.c.

On 13 Jul 2004 23:09:45 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

RDean notes:
IMO, therein lies the problem of bringing "the founding fathers" into
most arguments.

I think one also has to accept that the overall heading of "Founding Fathers"
encompassed a broad range of opinion for the time.

there is very little of what
goes on today that the "founding fathers" would have approved of ....

still, you are transposing the idea of these men frozen in 18th Century
realities and
base of knowledge. What one can credit the assembled group for is merely
creating a Framework. The system that they put in place turned out(by design
and by chance)
to be flexible enough to allow change without mass upheaval. It forced most
change to be slow and deliberate. It made fast, radical change very difficult.
These things make for a flexible, responsible mode of government over the long
haul. They did give such matters some thought.
Tom



I agree.

I think the flexibility that they engendered in the system was their
greatest accomplishment.


g.c.

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 19:40:11 -0400, Peter Charles
wrote:

And BTW, I'm not name calling when I label them as fascists,
I'm using the word in it's correct political context, not as a slur.
Fascism is a legitimate political philosophy, no matter how
distasteful it might be. I won't let "fascist" the slur prevent me
from using the word appropriately.

OK. You're a Nazi, but I mean it in the nicest possible
sense...G...seriously, while fascism might be argued to be a
"...legitimate political philosophy, no matter how distasteful..." so
could "violent, despotic dictatorship." And I'm pretty sure that any
government, even a violent, despotic dictatorship, would consider it a
slur to be called that. And moreover, when you look at fascism, it is a
more "middle-class" bank clerk/mid-level manager thing. Peter, you're
normally pretty accurate, but this time, IMO, you're pretty far off the
mark - good, bad, or indifferent, they just ain't fascists.

Fascism can be defined two ways: as a right-wing, authoritarian, and
nationalistic philisophy, and as an ideology that closely aligns the
interests of government with that of major corporations, to the
benefit of those corporations and the elites that control them. Sound
familiar?

Yeah, to one degree or another, sorta like Thomas Jefferson, George
Washington, Adams, Hamilton, Lincoln, FDR, Churchill, Thatcher, King,
Trudeau, Gorbachev, Reagan, Hitler, Stalin, Putin, Blair, Bush, Chirac,
and nearly every other person who has been the leader or in a
significant leadership role of a major country (and even Canada G),
including most of the communist countries, since, oh, about the big
bang...and when it's done in a limited fashion, it's a damned good thing
that they do so.

TC,
R
Hey, Bill Gates might be richer than even he ever dreamed, but there are
a ****load of others that nobody ever heard of at Microsoft that are a
heck of a lot better off then they ever expected, too...

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
...I knew the entire article was garbage. They made no effort to
refute anything the UCS said, they merely pandered to their fears and
ignorance of their readership via a heavy dose of gutter journalism.

It's the most distressing aspect of this particular brand of
right-wing ideology (I won't call them conservative because they're
not), in that their only response to any challenge is insult,
invective, fear-mongering, pandering, and ignorance. Their ideology
is so morally bankrupt and devoid of anything more than a hackneyed
version of economic and social Darwinism, that it offers society
virtually nothing beyond the pursuit of wealth and power by the elite
at the expense of everyone else. The more I head and read of this
particular brand of right wing extremism, the so-called "neo-cons",
the more I hear the echos of the Third Reich...

The most distressing aspect of this has nothing to do with ideology. People
like Milloy are no more ideologues than Hitler or Stalin were. Ideologues
are people like Marx......they are strange, unpleasant, often smell bad and,
more often than not, are pitiable. People like Hitler and Stalin......and
their followers, people like LaCourse and Bottom.....are simply murderous
pigs. People like Milloy are whores. They just don't care about humanity.
The most distressing aspect of all this is that hundreds of millions of
people all over the world......perhaps a majority.....would rather be lied
to than go through the excruciating process of thinking. They would rather
kill other people's children and offer up their own as martyrs than do what
they pretend to teach their children......to share.

Allen, are you surprised that people mistook your intention? How could a
thing like that happen......huh?

Wolfgang
oh yeah, and snedeker is an idiot.

"Peter Charles" wrote in message
...
...I knew the entire article was garbage. They made no effort to
refute anything the UCS said, they merely pandered to their fears and
ignorance of their readership via a heavy dose of gutter journalism.

It's the most distressing aspect of this particular brand of
right-wing ideology (I won't call them conservative because they're
not), in that their only response to any challenge is insult,
invective, fear-mongering, pandering, and ignorance. Their ideology
is so morally bankrupt and devoid of anything more than a hackneyed
version of economic and social Darwinism, that it offers society
virtually nothing beyond the pursuit of wealth and power by the elite
at the expense of everyone else. The more I head and read of this
particular brand of right wing extremism, the so-called "neo-cons",
the more I hear the echos of the Third Reich...

The most distressing aspect of this has nothing to do with ideology. People
like Milloy are no more ideologues than Hitler or Stalin were. Ideologues
are people like Marx......they are strange, unpleasant, often smell bad and,
more often than not, are pitiable. People like Hitler and Stalin......and
their followers, people like LaCourse and Bottom.....are simply murderous
pigs. People like Milloy are whores. They just don't care about humanity.
The most distressing aspect of all this is that hundreds of millions of
people all over the world......perhaps a majority.....would rather be lied
to than go through the excruciating process of thinking. They would rather
kill other people's children and offer up their own as martyrs than do what
they pretend to teach their children......to share.

Allen, are you surprised that people mistook your intention? How could a
thing like that happen......huh?

Wolfgang
oh yeah, and snedeker is an idiot.

"George Cleveland" wrote in message
...
On 13 Jul 2004 23:09:45 GMT, (Tom Littleton) wrote:

RDean notes:
IMO, therein lies the problem of bringing "the founding fathers" into
most arguments.

I think one also has to accept that the overall heading of "Founding
Fathers"
encompassed a broad range of opinion for the time.

there is very little of what
goes on today that the "founding fathers" would have approved of ....

still, you are transposing the idea of these men frozen in 18th Century
realities and
base of knowledge. What one can credit the assembled group for is merely
creating a Framework. The system that they put in place turned out(by
design
and by chance)
to be flexible enough to allow change without mass upheaval. It forced
most
change to be slow and deliberate. It made fast, radical change very
difficult.
These things make for a flexible, responsible mode of government over the
long
haul. They did give such matters some thought.
Tom



I agree.

I think the flexibility that they engendered in the system was their
greatest accomplishment.


g.c.

And the fact that this was no accident suggests that a closer reading of
what they wrote........which is to say, at least a cursory
glance.......would be in order for authorities like Ricky.

Wolfgang
who hastens to add that the above remarks should in no way be construed as
an attack on low comedy.