It's looking more and more like Palin and The Old Dude '08 and here's a reason...

wrote:
snip the usual piffle
I have no idea if Google leans right or left.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:22:50 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:

Oh, I doubt she would or could influence the election very much if at
all, but other more visible and "mainstream" celebs can and will. ...

You repeat the same silly piffle here over and over in a
variety of different ways but it all comes down to the same
thing, "American voters are stupid but if you guys actually
call them stupid they're gonna vote GOP, so take *that*,
neener, neener, neener."

The GOP has put up a crazy old warmonger who chose a category
five moron from the snake-handling wing of the Republican party
as his running mate and all you want to do is gloat because the
American voter is so goddamn stupid they'll probably get elected.

Why do you hate America so much ?

To generally quote a little-known white Mississippi Dem, Gene Taylor, we
have some 225 million adults in the US, a goodly percentage of which are
eligible for the office, and these 4 are the best we could come up
with...? (And yep, he did say specifically and emphatically "4")

Again, it's not a matter of picking the best person for the job, it's a
matter of picking from the four ya got. It has been apparent for some
time that Obama ain't nothing special - just another pol trying to get
to the show any way he can. Trust me or don't, should the "real thing"
ever come along, they'll need to be begged and pleaded with to get
within 100 miles of a modern campaign, and in the end, will probably
wind up saying, ala Bradley, Romney, etc., "oh, just **** it..."

TC,
R

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:22:03 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:
snip the usual piffle
I have no idea if Google leans right or left.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It means that you can safely assume that Budweiser still sucks...

HTH,
R

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
wrote:
snip the usual piffle
I have no idea if Google leans right or left.
I'm not sure what you mean by that.

It means that you can safely assume that Budweiser still sucks...

Well, I don't want to assume anything until I ask you,
straight up, what did you mean by that ?

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 17:33:52 -0500, wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:22:50 -0500, Ken Fortenberry
wrote:

wrote:

Oh, I doubt she would or could influence the election very much if at
all, but other more visible and "mainstream" celebs can and will. ...

You repeat the same silly piffle here over and over in a
variety of different ways but it all comes down to the same
thing, "American voters are stupid but if you guys actually
call them stupid they're gonna vote GOP, so take *that*,
neener, neener, neener."

The GOP has put up a crazy old warmonger who chose a category
five moron from the snake-handling wing of the Republican party
as his running mate and all you want to do is gloat because the
American voter is so goddamn stupid they'll probably get elected.

Why do you hate America so much ?

To generally quote a little-known white Mississippi Dem, Gene Taylor, we
have some 225 million adults in the US, a goodly percentage of which are
eligible for the office, and these 4 are the best we could come up
with...? (And yep, he did say specifically and emphatically "4")

Again, it's not a matter of picking the best person for the job, it's a
matter of picking from the four ya got. It has been apparent for some
time that Obama ain't nothing special - just another pol trying to get
to the show any way he can. Trust me or don't, should the "real thing"
ever come along, they'll need to be begged and pleaded with to get
within 100 miles of a modern campaign, and in the end, will probably
wind up saying, ala Bradley, Romney, etc., "oh, just **** it..."

TC,
R

You put "real thing" in the same sentence with "Romney"?!?

/daytripper (ahahahahahahahahahaha!)

wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:22:07 -0400, Jeff wrote:


wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:20:30 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:


wrote:


On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:12:37 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:




She's a comedian, with a propensity for shock humor. I wouldn't call
what she says 'racism' (or in this case, sexism or pro-semitism), I'd
just call it bad humor.

Hmmm...I'd call suggesting that "black men" would be interested in, much
less predisposed to, gang-raping someone pretty racist, but hey,
YMMV...IAC, what's that when compared to someone merely mentioning the
title of a record by a black man, right?

And there ya are,
R

i wasn't offended or bothered by your relatively lame attempt at irony
or satire (or whatever it was), anymore than i was at sandra b's brand
of outrageous humor. an apparent right-wing provocateur, poking at us
liberals and obama supporters by using a quotation containing the n-word
isn't necessarily or always racist. ...and richard pryor ... well, of
course, neither you nor sandra is richard pryor. but then, i'm not the
most sophisticated, intuitive, or informed audience for such attempts by
the not-richard-pryors either.

What makes you so sure I'm "right-wing?" And that's a hint...you're a
lawyer, and you should have learned about it first-year...

TC,
R

jeff


i admit i have no idea whether you are in fact right-wing. all i really
know about you is what i perceive, rightly or wrongly, from your
writings here...and, i have confessed to being less than an astute or
intelligent audience. however, i trust you did not overlook my
intentional use of the word "apparent".

i doubt i'm alone among most here in perceiving the majority of your
political and economic statements as having a "right-wing"
tilt...anymore than i doubt you are alone in your belief that i should
have learned more in my first year of law school...or life.


Oh, geezus. I didn't say you SHOULD have learned more in your first
year of law school. I said you DID learn about what I was hinting at:
ask questions at the appropriate time - you know, like before you assume
your client wasn't found standing over the body with a smoking .38
screaming "HOW DID YOU LIKE THAT, MOFO?!?!" and you find out he was when
the prosecutor asks him about it in front of the jury. I find it
startling that most folks around here never say, "I'm not sure what you
mean by that, so rather than ask, I'll just assume..." Is that enough
of a ****ing hint? Oh, OK, for the terminally-serious - G...

look at the web site you posted for the sandra b. thing. even you ought
to agree it is a "right-wing" site


No, I ought not agree with that...well, maybe I ought to, but I won't
because I cannot...because until I heard about what she said and Googled
it, with that being the first hit, I had never heard of the site and
know nothing about it. I read that one story, moved on to a couple of
other hits, and haven't been back to it. But if you and Dave S. say it
is, I'll take your word for it. IAC, I don't see what the political
leaning of the site, if any, would have to do with the things she said
and whoever/whatever quoted as saying. Heck, it had a link to a
YouTube video, so I doubt there was much room to twist her words one way
or the other.


...and probably far on the right. you
seem to enjoy using articles and statements gleaned from such
places...so, you have an appearance of a certain characteristic.
contrary to some others, i did not mean it as a slander...some of my
best friends are right-wing republicans. G


I'd offer that more of the things I post come from the "major news
outlets" (CNN, networks, AP, Reuters, etc.) than any other source. I'd
not call any of those "far on the right," but YMMV. If I post something
from a source such as whatever site the Sandra Bernhard piece was from,
chances are it was among the first Google hits on something I heard
about. I have no idea if Google leans right or left.

TC,
R

jeff


you said: "...and you **should** have learned about it first-year.."

i said: "...i doubt you are alone in your belief that i should
have learned more in my first year."

then, you said: "Oh, geezus. I didn't say you SHOULD have learned more
in your first year of law school."

be patient, i'll try to do better in gleaning your intended meaning...g

i thought ken and myron overly sensitive and critical in their
suggestions about the implication of your post, though i also recognized
the linking of the pryor title with an obama reference as opening you to
such criticism.

you provided the link to that site. it's not a stretch to think a
writer has examined his own citations, is it?

as far as asking you what you mean in your posts, hell...i'm a fan of
the great mystery. tell me when i make a mistake, and i'll try to
learn. still...i didn't make a mistake in not voting for bush, and i'll
not be making a mistake when i vote for obama. obama may not win the
election...but, imo, it won't be because a better individual beat him.

jeff

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

wrote:

Ken Fortenberry wrote:

wrote:

snip the usual piffle
I have no idea if Google leans right or left.

I'm not sure what you mean by that.


It means that you can safely assume that Budweiser still sucks...


Well, I don't want to assume anything until I ask you,
straight up, what did you mean by that ?


you know...that was exceptionally well done.

jeff

wrote:
Ken Fortenberry wrote:
The GOP has put up a crazy old warmonger who chose a category
five moron from the snake-handling wing of the Republican party
as his running mate and all you want to do is gloat because the
American voter is so goddamn stupid they'll probably get elected.

snip
Again, it's not a matter of picking the best person for the job, it's a
matter of picking from the four ya got. ...

Yeah, that was my point.

--
Ken Fortenberry

On Sep 24, 2:41*am, wrote:

I deal with children all day, I don't need to do it here, too.

Oh sure you do.


And there ya have it.

--riverman

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 20:56:47 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 16:22:07 -0400, Jeff wrote:


wrote:

On Tue, 23 Sep 2008 08:20:30 -0400, jeff miller
wrote:


wrote:


On Mon, 22 Sep 2008 08:12:37 -0700 (PDT), riverman
wrote:




She's a comedian, with a propensity for shock humor. I wouldn't call
what she says 'racism' (or in this case, sexism or pro-semitism), I'd
just call it bad humor.

Hmmm...I'd call suggesting that "black men" would be interested in, much
less predisposed to, gang-raping someone pretty racist, but hey,
YMMV...IAC, what's that when compared to someone merely mentioning the
title of a record by a black man, right?

And there ya are,
R

i wasn't offended or bothered by your relatively lame attempt at irony
or satire (or whatever it was), anymore than i was at sandra b's brand
of outrageous humor. an apparent right-wing provocateur, poking at us
liberals and obama supporters by using a quotation containing the n-word
isn't necessarily or always racist. ...and richard pryor ... well, of
course, neither you nor sandra is richard pryor. but then, i'm not the
most sophisticated, intuitive, or informed audience for such attempts by
the not-richard-pryors either.

What makes you so sure I'm "right-wing?" And that's a hint...you're a
lawyer, and you should have learned about it first-year...

TC,
R

jeff


i admit i have no idea whether you are in fact right-wing. all i really
know about you is what i perceive, rightly or wrongly, from your
writings here...and, i have confessed to being less than an astute or
intelligent audience. however, i trust you did not overlook my
intentional use of the word "apparent".

i doubt i'm alone among most here in perceiving the majority of your
political and economic statements as having a "right-wing"
tilt...anymore than i doubt you are alone in your belief that i should
have learned more in my first year of law school...or life.


Oh, geezus. I didn't say you SHOULD have learned more in your first
year of law school. I said you DID learn about what I was hinting at:
ask questions at the appropriate time - you know, like before you assume
your client wasn't found standing over the body with a smoking .38
screaming "HOW DID YOU LIKE THAT, MOFO?!?!" and you find out he was when
the prosecutor asks him about it in front of the jury. I find it
startling that most folks around here never say, "I'm not sure what you
mean by that, so rather than ask, I'll just assume..." Is that enough
of a ****ing hint? Oh, OK, for the terminally-serious - G...

look at the web site you posted for the sandra b. thing. even you ought
to agree it is a "right-wing" site


No, I ought not agree with that...well, maybe I ought to, but I won't
because I cannot...because until I heard about what she said and Googled
it, with that being the first hit, I had never heard of the site and
know nothing about it. I read that one story, moved on to a couple of
other hits, and haven't been back to it. But if you and Dave S. say it
is, I'll take your word for it. IAC, I don't see what the political
leaning of the site, if any, would have to do with the things she said
and whoever/whatever quoted as saying. Heck, it had a link to a
YouTube video, so I doubt there was much room to twist her words one way
or the other.


...and probably far on the right. you
seem to enjoy using articles and statements gleaned from such
places...so, you have an appearance of a certain characteristic.
contrary to some others, i did not mean it as a slander...some of my
best friends are right-wing republicans. G


I'd offer that more of the things I post come from the "major news
outlets" (CNN, networks, AP, Reuters, etc.) than any other source. I'd
not call any of those "far on the right," but YMMV. If I post something
from a source such as whatever site the Sandra Bernhard piece was from,
chances are it was among the first Google hits on something I heard
about. I have no idea if Google leans right or left.

TC,
R

jeff


you said: "...and you **should** have learned about it first-year.."

i said: "...i doubt you are alone in your belief that i should
have learned more in my first year."

then, you said: "Oh, geezus. I didn't say you SHOULD have learned more
in your first year of law school."

Non sequitur - I didn't say you should have learned _more_, I said you
should have learned _it_. You may or may not have learned a damned
thing, but you should have learned _it_...even if by osmosis, if you
weren't paying attention. And I would guess, but do not assume, that
you were doing so, at least insofar as that little topic was concerned,
but either way, I'd guess you now know to what I was referring.

be patient, i'll try to do better in gleaning your intended meaning...g

Please do...it'll be ever so helpful.

i thought ken and myron overly sensitive and critical in their
suggestions about the implication of your post, though i also recognized
the linking of the pryor title with an obama reference as opening you to
such criticism.

Hmm, well, I've spent little time worrying about what other people link
in their minds to what, but admittedly, I figured a few of our more, er,
"liberal" folk would link and criticize away...in fact, that was the
point...

you provided the link to that site. it's not a stretch to think a
writer has examined his own citations, is it?

Absolutely, but only as far as needed - it provided quotes and video, so
there's not a lot to examine. Do you delve into the entire history of
the lawyers, clerks, judges, and opponents on every case you site?

as far as asking you what you mean in your posts, hell...i'm a fan of
the great mystery. tell me when i make a mistake, and i'll try to
learn. still...i didn't make a mistake in not voting for bush, and i'll
not be making a mistake when i vote for obama. obama may not win the
election...but, imo, it won't be because a better individual beat him.

Sure it will, but hey, that's why there's chocolate and vanilla...OTOH,
same thing if Obama wins...

HTH,
R

jeff