PDA

View Full Version : Kerry spanks Bush


MJL
October 1st 04, 04:24 AM
Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
the "evildoers" thing.

What I did find interesting is that the audience did not clap at all
during the debate (at least I didn't hear it). Usually during debates
like this the audience will get involved and I'm wondering how they
were kept so quiet.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

John Hanson
October 1st 04, 04:34 AM
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:24:37 GMT, MJL > wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
>the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
>the "evildoers" thing.

I'm partial but I think Bush won that debate.

>
>What I did find interesting is that the audience did not clap at all
>during the debate (at least I didn't hear it). Usually during debates
>like this the audience will get involved and I'm wondering how they
>were kept so quiet.

They are not allowed to make any noise whatsoever during the debate.
This is the case with all Presidential debates.

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 04:48 AM
John Hanson > wrote:
> MJL > wrote:
>
>>Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
>>the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
>>the "evildoers" thing.
>
>I'm partial but I think Bush won that debate.
>
>>What I did find interesting is that the audience did not clap at all
>>during the debate (at least I didn't hear it). Usually during debates
>>like this the audience will get involved and I'm wondering how they
>>were kept so quiet.
>
>They are not allowed to make any noise whatsoever during the debate.
>This is the case with all Presidential debates.

Lehrer said they would remain "absolutely silent," which surprised me,
particularly with some of the agitators that have appears at some
rallies. I did catch a couple of quiet rises of chuckling when
somebody said something cute, but nothing else. I suspect they were
warned that one peep will get your ass forcibly thrown out. Still, I
was impressed by the fact that nobody popped off.

Lee Michaels
October 1st 04, 05:19 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote
>
> Lehrer said they would remain "absolutely silent," which surprised me,
> particularly with some of the agitators that have appears at some
> rallies. I did catch a couple of quiet rises of chuckling when
> somebody said something cute, but nothing else. I suspect they were
> warned that one peep will get your ass forcibly thrown out. Still, I
> was impressed by the fact that nobody popped off.

With all the firepower and security present, I wouldn't feel safe farting in
such a setting.

fj
October 1st 04, 06:21 AM
There is a 32-page guideline both parties try to get everyone follow,
including host, Broadcast company, camera, temperature, the distance between
Bush and Kerry, stc. I guess audience is well chosen and well-trained.

fj

"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
> the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
> the "evildoers" thing.
>
> What I did find interesting is that the audience did not clap at all
> during the debate (at least I didn't hear it). Usually during debates
> like this the audience will get involved and I'm wondering how they
> were kept so quiet.
>
>
> --
> http://www.texansfortruth.org/

dwacon
October 1st 04, 07:02 AM
"MJL" > wrote in message
...
> Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
> the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
> the "evildoers" thing.
>
> What I did find interesting is that the audience did not clap at all
> during the debate (at least I didn't hear it). Usually during debates
> like this the audience will get involved and I'm wondering how they
> were kept so quiet.



Jon Stewart's Daily Show got some good laughs off of the debate.


--
Six Scents
http://tinyurl.com/4hfm2

John HUDSON
October 1st 04, 09:19 AM
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 04:19:44 GMT, "Lee Michaels"
> wrote:

>
>"John M. Williams" > wrote
>>
>> Lehrer said they would remain "absolutely silent," which surprised me,
>> particularly with some of the agitators that have appears at some
>> rallies. I did catch a couple of quiet rises of chuckling when
>> somebody said something cute, but nothing else. I suspect they were
>> warned that one peep will get your ass forcibly thrown out. Still, I
>> was impressed by the fact that nobody popped off.
>
>With all the firepower and security present, I wouldn't feel safe farting in
>such a setting.

Unless your "upset tummy" has recovered Lee, my advice to you is to
forego "farting" for the foreseeable future ere real disaster befalls
you!! ;o)

Have a great weekend - you just know I will!! ;o)

TFIF!!

DRS
October 1st 04, 12:51 PM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:24:37 GMT, MJL > wrote in
> misc.fitness.weights:
>
>> Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
>> the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
>> the "evildoers" thing.
>
> I'm partial but I think Bush won that debate.

You're insane. Kerry ate Bush for breakfast.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Jay
October 1st 04, 02:24 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>
>> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:24:37 GMT, MJL > wrote in
>> misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>> Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
>>> the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
>>> the "evildoers" thing.
>>
>> I'm partial but I think Bush won that debate.
>
> You're insane. Kerry ate Bush for breakfast.

Let's look for a poll, shall we?
Bush supporters, who won?
Anti Bush folks, who won?

As with most debates, if not all, your chosen candidate won the debate.

Find us a strong Bush supporter that comes out and says, "despite my
allegience to President Bush, I have to take my hat off to Kerry because
what he said when he said clearly marked him as a winner in this debate"

Kerry supporter, "I love John Kerry, but the nod goes to the resident."

Debate "victories" are subjective. No one wins.

Donovan Rebbechi
October 1st 04, 02:54 PM
On 2004-10-01, Jay > wrote:
>
> "DRS" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>>
>>> On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:24:37 GMT, MJL > wrote in
>>> misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>> Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
>>>> the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
>>>> the "evildoers" thing.
>>>
>>> I'm partial but I think Bush won that debate.
>>
>> You're insane. Kerry ate Bush for breakfast.
>
> Let's look for a poll, shall we?
> Bush supporters, who won?
> Anti Bush folks, who won?

The best measure of "who won", and ultimately the only one that counts, is
who gains the most from this.

In this sense, the debate was always an opportunity for Kerry to put his side
of the story in plain English. He did exactly what he needed to do in that
debate, and I think that's going to give him a boost in the polls. I don't
think Bush lost anything -- ok, he looked like a stuttering moron, but that's
not news, so it doesn't cost him unless he makes a serious gaffe.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Top Sirloin
October 1st 04, 03:49 PM
DRS wrote:

> That is as clear an example of neocon New Speak as you could wish to see.
> In the debate Kerry was substance from go to whoa, Bush was full of fluff
> and mindless mantras, yet here we have the usual ultra-right wing diehards
> trying to tell us that black is white, night is day, and peace is war.

I'm guess I'm just not getting the nightly
transmissions from the master satellite that would
allow me see Kerry's secret plans for the war and
the economy, thereby allowing me to divine the
substance in his statements.

What's the frequency?


--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

Jay
October 1st 04, 03:53 PM
> Style over substance again. I'll bet that if you were to watch me do
> a technically flawless 532.5 pound squat (which I normally do) and
> Shawn Cain do a butt ugly 661 pound squat (which he normally does),
> you'd declare me the winner.
>

point taken.

DRS
October 1st 04, 03:56 PM
"Jay" > wrote in message

>> Style over substance again. I'll bet that if you were to watch me do
>> a technically flawless 532.5 pound squat (which I normally do) and
>> Shawn Cain do a butt ugly 661 pound squat (which he normally does),
>> you'd declare me the winner.
>
> point taken.

What point is that? Bush couldn't even squat the weight of his own
bull****.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 04:03 PM
In article >,
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:


> In this sense, the debate was always an opportunity for Kerry to put his side
> of the story in plain English. He did exactly what he needed to do in that
> debate, and I think that's going to give him a boost in the polls. I don't
> think Bush lost anything -- ok, he looked like a stuttering moron, but that's
> not news, so it doesn't cost him unless he makes a serious gaffe.

Itıs already been proven Bush supporters are already willing to overlook
any gaffe, so even that wont help. He came off looking unprepared,
clearly annoyed, and as usual, depended on emotional statements to get
Joe American to overlook facts. Kerry made many good points and true
criticisms, but offered no solid defined strategies to change it other
then ³I would do it better² and ³help is on the way.² Bush came off, as
usual, as the everyday good old boy you may want to have a beer with.
Kerry does not come off as a likable person, and that will hurt him as
Joe American generally canıt deal with issues but prefers black and
white declarative statements and an assuring smile so they can go back
to watching WWE. Kerry won by a c*&% hair, but I fear it wont have the
effect it should with his dead pan persona.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Jay
October 1st 04, 04:35 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "Jay" > wrote in message
>
>>> Style over substance again. I'll bet that if you were to watch me do
>>> a technically flawless 532.5 pound squat (which I normally do) and
>>> Shawn Cain do a butt ugly 661 pound squat (which he normally does),
>>> you'd declare me the winner.
>>
>> point taken.
>
> What point is that? Bush couldn't even squat the weight of his own
> bull****.
>
Are you registered to vote?

Top Sirloin
October 1st 04, 04:40 PM
DRS wrote:

> "Top Sirloin" > wrote in
> message
>
>>DRS wrote:
>>
>>
>>>That is as clear an example of neocon New Speak as you could wish to
>>>see. In the debate Kerry was substance from go to whoa, Bush was
>>>full of fluff and mindless mantras, yet here we have the usual
>>>ultra-right wing diehards trying to tell us that black is white,
>>>night is day, and peace is war.
>>
>>I'm guess I'm just not getting the nightly
>>transmissions from the master satellite that would
>>allow me see Kerry's secret plans for the war and
>>the economy, thereby allowing me to divine the
>>substance in his statements.
>>
>>What's the frequency?
>
>
> http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html
>

LOL!

--
Scott Johnson / scottjohnson at kc dot rr dot com

DRS
October 1st 04, 04:41 PM
"Jay" > wrote in message

> "DRS" > wrote in message
> ...
>> "Jay" > wrote in message
>>
>>>> Style over substance again. I'll bet that if you were to watch me
>>>> do a technically flawless 532.5 pound squat (which I normally do)
>>>> and Shawn Cain do a butt ugly 661 pound squat (which he normally
>>>> does), you'd declare me the winner.
>>>
>>> point taken.
>>
>> What point is that? Bush couldn't even squat the weight of his own
>> bull****.
>>
> Are you registered to vote?

Not in America. Does it have even the slightest relevance to the point?

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 04:42 PM
"DRS" > wrote:

>"John Hanson" > wrote:
>> MJL > wrote:
>>
>>> Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
>>> the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
>>> the "evildoers" thing.
>>
>> I'm partial but I think Bush won that debate.
>
>You're insane. Kerry ate Bush for breakfast.

And we know you're always right <snick>

DRS
October 1st 04, 04:50 PM
"Top Sirloin" > wrote in
message
> DRS wrote:
>
>> That is as clear an example of neocon New Speak as you could wish to
>> see. In the debate Kerry was substance from go to whoa, Bush was
>> full of fluff and mindless mantras, yet here we have the usual
>> ultra-right wing diehards trying to tell us that black is white,
>> night is day, and peace is war.
>
> I'm guess I'm just not getting the nightly
> transmissions from the master satellite that would
> allow me see Kerry's secret plans for the war and
> the economy, thereby allowing me to divine the
> substance in his statements.
>
> What's the frequency?

http://zapatopi.net/afdb.html

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 04:54 PM
Dally > wrote:

>dwacon wrote:
>
>> "MJL" > wrote:
>>
>>>Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
>>>the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
>>>the "evildoers" thing.
>>>
>>>What I did find interesting is that the audience did not clap at all
>>>during the debate (at least I didn't hear it). Usually during debates
>>>like this the audience will get involved and I'm wondering how they
>>>were kept so quiet.
>>
>> Jon Stewart's Daily Show got some good laughs off of the debate.
>
>I watched the debate then Jon Stewart's Daily Show. I think Kerry came
>off sounding reasonable and Guliani plain out lied in the spin about it,
>but the Daily Show made Bush look stupider than he was.

Yeah, big surprise, Wendy. Did you listen to "Air America" after
that? Gee, I wonder what their take was!

Adam Fahy
October 1st 04, 04:59 PM
Jay wrote:

> As with most debates, if not all, your chosen candidate won the debate.
>
> Find us a strong Bush supporter that comes out and says, "despite my
> allegience to President Bush, I have to take my hat off to Kerry because
> what he said when he said clearly marked him as a winner in this debate"

Kerry clearly "won" this debate, and I don't see how anyone could see
differently. In fact, I even agree with the subject line of this
thread. Bush--fairly or not--was clearly on the defensive throughout
the last 2/3 of the program.


-Adam

Lee Michaels
October 1st 04, 05:02 PM
> "DRS" babbled
>
> >"John Hanson" > wrote:
> >> MJL > wrote:
> >>
> >>> Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
> >>> the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
> >>> the "evildoers" thing.
> >>
> >> I'm partial but I think Bush won that debate.
> >
> >You're insane. Kerry ate Bush for breakfast.

This, no doubt, was due to the fact that Bush was circumcised, right??

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 05:12 PM
"Jay" > wrote:
>"DRS" > wrote:
>> "John Hanson" > wrote:
>>> MJL > wrote:
>>>
>>>> Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
>>>> the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
>>>> the "evildoers" thing.
>>>
>>> I'm partial but I think Bush won that debate.
>>
>> You're insane. Kerry ate Bush for breakfast.
>
>Let's look for a poll, shall we?
>Bush supporters, who won?
>Anti Bush folks, who won?
>
>As with most debates, if not all, your chosen candidate won the debate.
>
>Find us a strong Bush supporter that comes out and says, "despite my
>allegience to President Bush, I have to take my hat off to Kerry because
>what he said when he said clearly marked him as a winner in this debate"
>
>Kerry supporter, "I love John Kerry, but the nod goes to the resident."
>
>Debate "victories" are subjective. No one wins.

And all the CNN pundits admit that you can't get clear polling results
until about 72 hours after the debate, when the undecideds have had
some time to think about it, and all the "spin" has died down.

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 05:20 PM
John Hanson > wrote:
> "DRS" > wrote:
>>"John Hanson" > wrote:
>>> MJL > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
>>>> the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
>>>> the "evildoers" thing.
>>>
>>> I'm partial but I think Bush won that debate.
>>
>>You're insane. Kerry ate Bush for breakfast.
>
>Kerry completely blew it on the "Global Test" thing.
>
>Kerry completely blew it on the bilateral talks with North Korea.
>Even Jim's buddy McCain says that would be a grave error. Our hands
>are really tied when it comes to NK, and China must be involved.

That was the one clear statement of a difference in policy between the
two, and for the reasons I have stated before, Kerry is dead wrong
about that one.

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 05:44 PM
Top Sirloin > wrote:
>DRS wrote:
>
>> That is as clear an example of neocon New Speak as you could wish to see.
>> In the debate Kerry was substance from go to whoa, Bush was full of fluff
>> and mindless mantras, yet here we have the usual ultra-right wing diehards
>> trying to tell us that black is white, night is day, and peace is war.
>
>I'm guess I'm just not getting the nightly
>transmissions from the master satellite that would
>allow me see Kerry's secret plans for the war and
>the economy, thereby allowing me to divine the
>substance in his statements.
>
>What's the frequency?

Knowing the frequency doesn't matter. You would still need a
specially-fashioned tin foil beanie like David's.

Proton Soup
October 1st 04, 06:53 PM
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 01:41:24 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Jay" > wrote in message

>> "DRS" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> "Jay" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>>> Style over substance again. I'll bet that if you were to watch me
>>>>> do a technically flawless 532.5 pound squat (which I normally do)
>>>>> and Shawn Cain do a butt ugly 661 pound squat (which he normally
>>>>> does), you'd declare me the winner.
>>>>
>>>> point taken.
>>>
>>> What point is that? Bush couldn't even squat the weight of his own
>>> bull****.
>>>
>> Are you registered to vote?
>
>Not in America. Does it have even the slightest relevance to the point?

Playing the Relevance card will backfire on you.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Dally
October 1st 04, 07:53 PM
Will Brink wrote:

> Itıs already been proven Bush supporters are already willing to overlook
> any gaffe, so even that wont help. He came off looking unprepared,
> clearly annoyed, and as usual, depended on emotional statements to get
> Joe American to overlook facts. Kerry made many good points and true
> criticisms, but offered no solid defined strategies to change it other
> then ³I would do it better² and ³help is on the way.² Bush came off, as
> usual, as the everyday good old boy you may want to have a beer with.
> Kerry does not come off as a likable person, and that will hurt him as
> Joe American generally canıt deal with issues but prefers black and
> white declarative statements and an assuring smile so they can go back
> to watching WWE. Kerry won by a c*&% hair, but I fear it wont have the
> effect it should with his dead pan persona.

That's my take on it, as well.

When it comes right down to it, this election is going to be decided by
the people who are undecided and they are typically lower education,
uninformed and apathetic. They know Bush's name and he sounds
presidential. oh, and he likes guns. Honestly, that's all it takes.

Dally (but a Supreme Court in your favor helps)

Dally
October 1st 04, 07:55 PM
John M. Williams wrote:

> Dally > wrote:
>
>>I watched the debate then Jon Stewart's Daily Show. I think Kerry came
>>off sounding reasonable and Guliani plain out lied in the spin about it,
>>but the Daily Show made Bush look stupider than he was.
>
>
> Yeah, big surprise, Wendy. Did you listen to "Air America" after
> that? Gee, I wonder what their take was!

I can't listen to Air America. That sort of clownish behavior makes
Michael Moore look reasonable.

I abhor when people take a perfectly good position and exagerate it so
that they aren't credible anymore.

Dally

John M. Williams
October 1st 04, 09:11 PM
Dally > wrote:

>John M. Williams wrote:
>
>> Dally > wrote:
>>
>>>I watched the debate then Jon Stewart's Daily Show. I think Kerry came
>>>off sounding reasonable and Guliani plain out lied in the spin about it,
>>>but the Daily Show made Bush look stupider than he was.
>>
>> Yeah, big surprise, Wendy. Did you listen to "Air America" after
>> that? Gee, I wonder what their take was!
>
>I can't listen to Air America. That sort of clownish behavior makes
>Michael Moore look reasonable.
>
>I abhor when people take a perfectly good position and exagerate it so
>that they aren't credible anymore.

Then maybe you should stop.

Dally
October 1st 04, 09:19 PM
John M. Williams wrote:
> Dally > wrote:

>>I abhor when people take a perfectly good position and exagerate it so
>>that they aren't credible anymore.
>
> Then maybe you should stop.

Good point. Sorry. I was stunned to find myself (erp) agreeing with
DRS on something. It upset me mightily.

Dally

MJL
October 1st 04, 09:21 PM
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:34:11 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:24:37 GMT, MJL > wrote in
>misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
>>the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
>>the "evildoers" thing.
>
>I'm partial but I think Bush won that debate.
>

I'd expect you would. What surprised me today is how much even the
right wing choir (Hannity and O'reilly) were down on Bush's
performance. I really expected them to get on their cheerleader hats
and do their thing. I'm thinking maybe it is a strategy to sort of
cede this one to Kerry and them save the real rah rah cisboombah for
after the next or last debate. Not a terrible strategy I suppose.

>>
>>What I did find interesting is that the audience did not clap at all
>>during the debate (at least I didn't hear it). Usually during debates
>>like this the audience will get involved and I'm wondering how they
>>were kept so quiet.
>
>They are not allowed to make any noise whatsoever during the debate.
>This is the case with all Presidential debates.

I don't remember the last debates.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

MJL
October 1st 04, 09:28 PM
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 00:52:43 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:


>Kerry had all the substance. Even on matters with which you disagree with
>him they are substantive matters. All Bush had was cliches and mindless
>mantras.

You say that as though it is insignificant. For me, I thought Kerry
was on the right track by throwing in a few cliches and mindless
mantras of his own (help is on the way, I served in vietnam, I'll
fight terror, etc).


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

MJL
October 1st 04, 09:31 PM
On Thu, 30 Sep 2004 22:21:15 -0700, "fj" >
wrote:


>"MJL" > wrote in message
...
>> Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
>> the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
>> the "evildoers" thing.
>>
>> What I did find interesting is that the audience did not clap at all
>> during the debate (at least I didn't hear it). Usually during debates
>> like this the audience will get involved and I'm wondering how they
>> were kept so quiet.
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.texansfortruth.org/
>
>There is a 32-page guideline both parties try to get everyone follow,
>including host, Broadcast company, camera, temperature, the distance between
>Bush and Kerry, stc. I guess audience is well chosen and well-trained.
>
>fj
>

I wonder if it was a rule that Fox news would go to a split screen
nearly every time Bush spoke but only occasionally when Kerry spoke.
Anyone else notice that?


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Carl Nisarel
October 1st 04, 10:05 PM
But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
writes;

>>I abhor when people take a perfectly good position and
>>exagerate it so that they aren't credible anymore.
>
> Then maybe you should stop.

Dally didn't do it, Johnny. You did.

We know you won't stop your trolling using strawman.

--
"If any question why we died
Tell them, because our fathers lied."
- Kipling (after his son was killed in WWI)

October 1st 04, 10:13 PM
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 11:03:08 -0400, Will Brink
> wrote:

>In article >,
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>
>
>> In this sense, the debate was always an opportunity for Kerry to put his side
>> of the story in plain English. He did exactly what he needed to do in that
>> debate, and I think that's going to give him a boost in the polls. I don't
>> think Bush lost anything -- ok, he looked like a stuttering moron, but that's
>> not news, so it doesn't cost him unless he makes a serious gaffe.
>
>Itıs already been proven Bush supporters are already willing to overlook
>any gaffe, so even that wont help. He came off looking unprepared,
>clearly annoyed, and as usual, depended on emotional statements to get
>Joe American to overlook facts. Kerry made many good points and true
>criticisms, but offered no solid defined strategies to change it other
>then ³I would do it better² and ³help is on the way.² Bush came off, as
>usual, as the everyday good old boy you may want to have a beer with.
>Kerry does not come off as a likable person, and that will hurt him as
>Joe American generally canıt deal with issues but prefers black and
>white declarative statements and an assuring smile so they can go back
>to watching WWE. Kerry won by a c*&% hair, but I fear it wont have the
>effect it should with his dead pan persona.

The day before the debate a co-worker asked me where to look to find
out Bush's and Kerry's positions on the issues. I really wanted to
believe he was kidding. Now I know at least one reason why these
debates are important.

Will Brink
October 1st 04, 11:08 PM
In article >, Dally >
wrote:

> Will Brink wrote:
>
> > Itıs already been proven Bush supporters are already willing to overlook
> > any gaffe, so even that wont help. He came off looking unprepared,
> > clearly annoyed, and as usual, depended on emotional statements to get
> > Joe American to overlook facts. Kerry made many good points and true
> > criticisms, but offered no solid defined strategies to change it other
> > then ³I would do it better² and ³help is on the way.² Bush came off, as
> > usual, as the everyday good old boy you may want to have a beer with.
> > Kerry does not come off as a likable person, and that will hurt him as
> > Joe American generally canıt deal with issues but prefers black and
> > white declarative statements and an assuring smile so they can go back
> > to watching WWE. Kerry won by a c*&% hair, but I fear it wont have the
> > effect it should with his dead pan persona.
>
> That's my take on it, as well.
>
> When it comes right down to it, this election is going to be decided by
> the people who are undecided and they are typically lower education,
> uninformed and apathetic.

Which is why you have to use very few big words, repeat the same
emotional statements over and over, and smile. Bush did that well.

> They know Bush's name and he sounds
> presidential. oh, and he likes guns.

That's the ONLY good thing about the man.

> Honestly, that's all it takes.

As long as there is no Smack Down on the WWE during the voting, yes.

>
> Dally (but a Supreme Court in your favor helps)
>

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Lyle McDonald
October 1st 04, 11:26 PM
August Pamplona wrote:

> * But I guess Bush should feel uncomfortable. Even at the heart of the
> White House's reality distortion field he has to have an inkling of
> awareness that colossal misjudgments were indeed made.

Can someone post a link to that study showing that incompetent people
don't realize it.

I'm sure, in what amounts to his 'mind', Bush thinks he bested Kerry.

He also thinks the word is pronounced 'new-ku-lur'.

Lyle

Jim
October 2nd 04, 12:00 AM
I went into the debate feeling pretty much anyone but Bush. The debate
changed my mind. Instead of just voting for Kerry because I hate Bush,I'm
voting for Kerry
enthusiastically. He was excellent. I consider myself a good judge of
character and this was the first time I could really see Kerry's nuances.
He seems like a good,decent man.Very presidential. It was almost like he
felt sorry for Bush. I had a hard time watching because Bush annoys me so
much.
Everyone who is mad with Bush..sing this with me..it makes it easier and
funny.."He's the idiot son of an asshole..the idiot son of an asshole" Clap
hands..sing again..."the idiot son of an asshole". If I didnt have a sense
of humor about this jerk I would totally lose it!

Jim

Dally
October 2nd 04, 12:03 AM
Carl Nisarel wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
> writes;
>
>
>>>I abhor when people take a perfectly good position and
>>>exagerate it so that they aren't credible anymore.
>>
>>Then maybe you should stop.
>
>
> Dally didn't do it, Johnny. You did.
>
> We know you won't stop your trolling using strawman.

No, he was right. I was exagerating elsewhere in the thread. I don't
need to get all ****y with Supreme Court accusations. There's enough to
be ****y about without being over the top. He saw hypocriticism and he
called me on it. I expect nothing less.

Dally

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 01:44 AM
"Jim" > wrote:
>Everyone who is mad with Bush..sing this with me..it makes it easier and
>funny.."He's the idiot son of an asshole..the idiot son of an asshole" Clap
>hands..sing again..."the idiot son of an asshole". If I didnt have a sense
>of humor about this jerk I would totally lose it!

I think you're too late to prevent that.

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 02:07 AM
Dally > wrote:

>Carl Nisarel wrote:
>
>> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
>> writes;
>>
>>
>>>>I abhor when people take a perfectly good position and
>>>>exagerate it so that they aren't credible anymore.
>>>
>>>Then maybe you should stop.
>>
>>
>> Dally didn't do it, Johnny. You did.
>>
>> We know you won't stop your trolling using strawman.
>
>No, he was right. I was exagerating elsewhere in the thread. I don't
>need to get all ****y with Supreme Court accusations. There's enough to
>be ****y about without being over the top. He saw hypocriticism and he
>called me on it. I expect nothing less.

I'm impressed. You even knew the post to which I referred.

But I don't mind seeing "Carl" go ballistic. He didn't start pursuing
me into every thread and posting new headers with my name in them
until I posted this:

http://tinyurl.com/4a68x

It must have really annoyed him.

Jim
October 2nd 04, 02:11 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim" > wrote:
> >Everyone who is mad with Bush..sing this with me..it makes it easier and
> >funny.."He's the idiot son of an asshole..the idiot son of an asshole"
Clap
> >hands..sing again..."the idiot son of an asshole". If I didnt have a
sense
> >of humor about this jerk I would totally lose it!
>
> I think you're too late to prevent that.

Thats what one of my best friends said a few hours ago after listening to
Fox News all day. We cannot talk politics. Its funny..we are buddies..but
when politics erupts..and it always does..we fight. Then we promise not to
do it again. This is just a friend...how the hell do Matalin and Carville
stay married!?

Jim

Al Dykes
October 2nd 04, 02:26 AM
In article >,
Jim > wrote:
>
>"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >Everyone who is mad with Bush..sing this with me..it makes it easier and
>> >funny.."He's the idiot son of an asshole..the idiot son of an asshole"
>Clap
>> >hands..sing again..."the idiot son of an asshole". If I didnt have a
>sense
>> >of humor about this jerk I would totally lose it!
>>
>> I think you're too late to prevent that.
>
>Thats what one of my best friends said a few hours ago after listening to
>Fox News all day. We cannot talk politics. Its funny..we are buddies..but
>when politics erupts..and it always does..we fight. Then we promise not to
>do it again. This is just a friend...how the hell do Matalin and Carville
>stay married!?
>
>Jim
>
>

Don't tell this to your buddy. A good friend is worth more
than being right.

People that get their News from TV, esp FOX News don't know
current events.

http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm

--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Jim
October 2nd 04, 02:38 AM
Wait till the other debates.Kerry will spank him badly..This was suppose to
be Bush's strong point. Dont worry guys..Bush will win the election..but
Kerry and the Dems have made ground. Happy 4 years asshole Bush!

Jim

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 02:39 AM
"Jim" > wrote:
>"John M. Williams" > wrote:
>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> > If I didnt have a sense
>> > of humor about this jerk I would totally lose it!
>>
>> I think you're too late to prevent that.
>
>Thats what one of my best friends said a few hours ago after listening to
>Fox News all day. We cannot talk politics. Its funny..we are buddies..but
>when politics erupts..and it always does..we fight. Then we promise not to
>do it again. This is just a friend...how the hell do Matalin and Carville
>stay married!?

Because they know it's all a game?

Jim
October 2nd 04, 02:44 AM
"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> Jim > wrote:
> >
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> >Everyone who is mad with Bush..sing this with me..it makes it easier
and
> >> >funny.."He's the idiot son of an asshole..the idiot son of an asshole"
> >Clap
> >> >hands..sing again..."the idiot son of an asshole". If I didnt have a
> >sense
> >> >of humor about this jerk I would totally lose it!
> >>
> >> I think you're too late to prevent that.
> >
> >Thats what one of my best friends said a few hours ago after listening to
> >Fox News all day. We cannot talk politics. Its funny..we are buddies..but
> >when politics erupts..and it always does..we fight. Then we promise not
to
> >do it again. This is just a friend...how the hell do Matalin and Carville
> >stay married!?
> >
> >Jim
> >
> >
>
> Don't tell this to your buddy. A good friend is worth more
> than being right.
>
> People that get their News from TV, esp FOX News don't know
> current events.
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm
>
I tried to tell that to my Fox viewing friend. He screamed at me. I'm ****in
serious.

Jim

Jim
October 2nd 04, 02:52 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> "Jim" > wrote:
> >"John M. Williams" > wrote:
> >> "Jim" > wrote:
> >> > If I didnt have a sense
> >> > of humor about this jerk I would totally lose it!
> >>
> >> I think you're too late to prevent that.
> >
> >Thats what one of my best friends said a few hours ago after listening to
> >Fox News all day. We cannot talk politics. Its funny..we are buddies..but
> >when politics erupts..and it always does..we fight. Then we promise not
to
> >do it again. This is just a friend...how the hell do Matalin and Carville
> >stay married!?
>
> Because they know it's all a game?

They must have a special way of dealing with it. I don't understand. Must be
a special love.

Jim

Dally
October 2nd 04, 02:55 AM
John M. Williams wrote:

> Dally > wrote:

>>No, he was right. I was exagerating elsewhere in the thread. I don't
>>need to get all ****y with Supreme Court accusations. There's enough to
>>be ****y about without being over the top. He saw hypocriticism and he
>>called me on it. I expect nothing less.
>
>
> I'm impressed. You even knew the post to which I referred.

Well, I'm impressed that you don't dangle prepositions. And had the
even higher class not to spelling flame me. (Where's Lucas Buck these
days, anyway?)

> But I don't mind seeing "Carl" go ballistic. He didn't start pursuing
> me into every thread and posting new headers with my name in them
> until I posted this:
>
> http://tinyurl.com/4a68x
>
> It must have really annoyed him.

A worthy goal.

Dally

Jim
October 2nd 04, 03:12 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:00:08 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >I went into the debate feeling pretty much anyone but Bush. The debate
> >changed my mind. Instead of just voting for Kerry because I hate Bush,I'm
> >voting for Kerry
> >enthusiastically. He was excellent. I consider myself a good judge of
> >character and this was the first time I could really see Kerry's nuances.
> > He seems like a good,decent man.Very presidential. It was almost like he
> >felt sorry for Bush. I had a hard time watching because Bush annoys me so
> >much.
> >Everyone who is mad with Bush..sing this with me..it makes it easier and
> >funny.."He's the idiot son of an asshole..the idiot son of an asshole"
Clap
> >hands..sing again..."the idiot son of an asshole". If I didnt have a
sense
> >of humor about this jerk I would totally lose it!
> >
> That is because you are an emotional basket case. You base your
> political opinions on emotions instead of fact...and you're not very
> bright.
>
Yes,John..I admitted I am an emotional person. Therefore your attack on me.
Nevertheless. Kerry did well.

Jim

John Hanson
October 2nd 04, 03:13 AM
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:00:08 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>I went into the debate feeling pretty much anyone but Bush. The debate
>changed my mind. Instead of just voting for Kerry because I hate Bush,I'm
>voting for Kerry
>enthusiastically. He was excellent. I consider myself a good judge of
>character and this was the first time I could really see Kerry's nuances.
> He seems like a good,decent man.Very presidential. It was almost like he
>felt sorry for Bush. I had a hard time watching because Bush annoys me so
>much.
>Everyone who is mad with Bush..sing this with me..it makes it easier and
>funny.."He's the idiot son of an asshole..the idiot son of an asshole" Clap
>hands..sing again..."the idiot son of an asshole". If I didnt have a sense
>of humor about this jerk I would totally lose it!
>
That is because you are an emotional basket case. You base your
political opinions on emotions instead of fact...and you're not very
bright.

Pete
October 2nd 04, 03:24 AM
Al Dykes wrote:

> People that get their News from TV, esp FOX News don't know
> current events.
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm

How ironic.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/25/2004

Pete
October 2nd 04, 03:28 AM
Jim wrote:

> Dont worry guys..Bush will win the election..but Kerry and the Dems have
made ground. Happy 4 years asshole Bush!

> Jim

Exactly how Hillary planned it.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/25/2004

Pete
October 2nd 04, 03:31 AM
John Hanson wrote:

> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:00:08 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> in misc.fitness.weights:

>> Everyone who is mad with Bush..sing this with me..it makes it easier
>> and funny.."He's the idiot son of an asshole..the idiot son of an
>> asshole" Clap hands..sing again..."the idiot son of an asshole". If
>> I didnt have a sense of humor about this jerk I would totally lose
>> it!

> That is because you are an emotional basket case. You base your
> political opinions on emotions instead of fact...and you're not very
> bright.

John, you have an amazing grasp of the obvious.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/25/2004

Pete
October 2nd 04, 03:35 AM
Dally wrote:

> When it comes right down to it, this election is going to be decided
> by the people who are undecided and they are typically lower
> education, uninformed and apathetic. They know Bush's name and he
> sounds presidential. oh, and he likes guns. Honestly, that's all it
> takes.
>
> Dally (but a Supreme Court in your favor helps)

You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
sweetheart.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/25/2004

Jim
October 2nd 04, 03:40 AM
"Pete" > wrote in message
...
> John Hanson wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:00:08 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> > in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >> Everyone who is mad with Bush..sing this with me..it makes it easier
> >> and funny.."He's the idiot son of an asshole..the idiot son of an
> >> asshole" Clap hands..sing again..."the idiot son of an asshole". If
> >> I didnt have a sense of humor about this jerk I would totally lose
> >> it!
>
> > That is because you are an emotional basket case. You base your
> > political opinions on emotions instead of fact...and you're not very
> > bright.
>
> John, you have an amazing grasp of the obvious.
>
I make it easy.

Jim

Pete
October 2nd 04, 03:43 AM
John Hanson wrote:

> Style over substance again. I'll bet that if you were to watch me do
> a technically flawless 532.5 pound squat (which I normally do) and
> Shawn Cain do a butt ugly 661 pound squat (which he normally does),
> you'd declare me the winner.

Liberals (with the possible exception of Bill Clinton, for whom the label is
questionable) always prefer to lose gloriously than win pragmatically.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/25/2004

John Hanson
October 2nd 04, 03:46 AM
On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:31:50 -0700, "Pete" >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 1 Oct 2004 19:00:08 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>> in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>> Everyone who is mad with Bush..sing this with me..it makes it easier
>>> and funny.."He's the idiot son of an asshole..the idiot son of an
>>> asshole" Clap hands..sing again..."the idiot son of an asshole". If
>>> I didnt have a sense of humor about this jerk I would totally lose
>>> it!
>
>> That is because you are an emotional basket case. You base your
>> political opinions on emotions instead of fact...and you're not very
>> bright.
>
>John, you have an amazing grasp of the obvious.
>
Why, thank you:-)

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 03:53 AM
(Al Dykes) wrote:
>
> People that get their News from TV, esp FOX News don't know
> current events.
>
> http://www.commondreams.org/views03/1201-13.htm

An interesting chunk of propaganda from a "progressive" (read: farther
left than "liberal") web site, written by Jeff Cohen, a "progressive"
pundit who created the grossly mislabeled "Fairness and Accuracy in
Reporting" (FAIR). Cohen complains that major TV media is too far to
the right, and further, he complains that the most liberal media
outlets, like NPR, don't consider enough views that are even farther
to the left, as evidenced by this story in Accuracy in Media:

http://www.aim.org/media_monitor_print/740_0_2_0/

What's the real truth about which direction the media leans? What
about self-reporting: surveying the journalists themselves? That's
what Pew Research Center did. As one of the most respected polling
organizations (and funded by The Pew Charitable Trusts, who are also
big supporters of PBS and NPR), they got the following results from
547 print, television, radio, and internet journalists:

http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000517184
(http://tinyurl.com/27bsj)

"At national organizations (which includes print, TV and radio), the
numbers break down like this: 34% liberal, 7% conservative. At local
outlets: 23% liberal, 12% conservative. At Web sites: 27% call
themselves liberals, 13% conservatives.

"This contrasts with the self-assessment of the general public: 20%
liberal, 33% conservative.

* * *

"While it's important to remember that most journalists in this survey
continue to call themselves moderate, the ranks of self-described
liberals have grown in recent years, according to Pew. For example,
since 1995, Pew found at national outlets that the liberal segment has
climbed from 22% to 34% while conservatives have only inched up from
5% to 7%."

Still, Jeff Cohen complains that the news media is not "progressive"
enough, i.e., not far enough to the left. It seems that Mr. Cohen and
his readers are a bit blind as how far to the left of the American
political spectrum they really reside.

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 03:54 AM
"Jim" > wrote:

>Wait till the other debates.Kerry will spank him badly..This was suppose to
>be Bush's strong point. Dont worry guys..Bush will win the election..but
>Kerry and the Dems have made ground. Happy 4 years asshole Bush!

Have another beer, Jim.

Hugh Beyer
October 2nd 04, 03:58 AM
Lyle McDonald > wrote in
:

> August Pamplona wrote:
>
>> * But I guess Bush should feel uncomfortable. Even at the heart of the
>> White House's reality distortion field he has to have an inkling of
>> awareness that colossal misjudgments were indeed made.
>
> Can someone post a link to that study showing that incompetent people
> don't realize it.
>
> I'm sure, in what amounts to his 'mind', Bush thinks he bested Kerry.
>
> He also thinks the word is pronounced 'new-ku-lur'.

I'm in love with "moo-las" myself.

Hugh


--
One puppy had its dewclaws removed in the creation of this post, but for
reasons of hygene and it really doesn't hurt them at all.

Hugh Beyer
October 2nd 04, 04:13 AM
John Hanson > wrote in
:

>>> Another thing I don't like is his plan to dismantle our bunker busting
>>> nuke program. These weapons will be extremely effective in
>>> mountainous areas and against strategically built bunkers.
>>
>>"Will be"? You want to think that one through again.
>
> I did. Nothing has changed.
>

This is so stupid. You really think such a nuke could ever be used, in any
situation short of WWIII? You think we could have gone after Osama in
Afghanistan with such a nuke if we had it? Never. The thing would be
useless.

Hugh


--
One puppy had its dewclaws removed in the creation of this post, but for
reasons of hygene and it really doesn't hurt them at all.

Adam Fahy
October 2nd 04, 04:18 AM
Hugh Beyer wrote:

> This is so stupid. You really think such a nuke could ever be used, in any
> situation short of WWIII? You think we could have gone after Osama in
> Afghanistan with such a nuke if we had it? Never. The thing would be
> useless.

Uh... I assume, and this is just me here, ponitifcating as I am known to
do, that a "bunker busting" bomb may be used to--stay with me now--bust
bunkers.


-Adam

Donovan Rebbechi
October 2nd 04, 04:20 AM
On 2004-10-02, Hugh Beyer > wrote:
> Lyle McDonald > wrote in
> :
>
>> August Pamplona wrote:
>>
>>> * But I guess Bush should feel uncomfortable. Even at the heart of the
>>> White House's reality distortion field he has to have an inkling of
>>> awareness that colossal misjudgments were indeed made.
>>
>> Can someone post a link to that study showing that incompetent people
>> don't realize it.
>>
>> I'm sure, in what amounts to his 'mind', Bush thinks he bested Kerry.
>>
>> He also thinks the word is pronounced 'new-ku-lur'.
>
> I'm in love with "moo-las" myself.

Not to be confused with Mr. Mull - err, the FBI director.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

John Hanson
October 2nd 04, 04:23 AM
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:13:59 -0500, Hugh Beyer >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson > wrote in
:
>
>>>> Another thing I don't like is his plan to dismantle our bunker busting
>>>> nuke program. These weapons will be extremely effective in
>>>> mountainous areas and against strategically built bunkers.
>>>
>>>"Will be"? You want to think that one through again.
>>
>> I did. Nothing has changed.
>>
>
>This is so stupid. You really think such a nuke could ever be used, in any
>situation short of WWIII? You think we could have gone after Osama in
>Afghanistan with such a nuke if we had it? Never. The thing would be
>useless.
>
Do you even know what they are?

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 04:28 AM
"Pete" > wrote:

>Dally wrote:
>
>> When it comes right down to it, this election is going to be decided
>> by the people who are undecided and they are typically lower
>> education, uninformed and apathetic. They know Bush's name and he
>> sounds presidential. oh, and he likes guns. Honestly, that's all it
>> takes.
>>
>> Dally (but a Supreme Court in your favor helps)
>
>You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
>sweetheart.

According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats lead Republicans by
more than two-to-one amongst high school dropouts:

http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

Don
October 2nd 04, 04:29 AM
In article >, says...
>
>
>"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >Everyone who is mad with Bush..sing this with me..it makes it easier and
>> >funny.."He's the idiot son of an asshole..the idiot son of an asshole"
>Clap
>> >hands..sing again..."the idiot son of an asshole". If I didnt have a
>sense
>> >of humor about this jerk I would totally lose it!
>>
>> I think you're too late to prevent that.
>
>Thats what one of my best friends said a few hours ago after listening to
>Fox News all day. We cannot talk politics. Its funny..we are buddies..but
>when politics erupts..and it always does..we fight. Then we promise not to
>do it again. This is just a friend...how the hell do Matalin and Carville
>stay married!?
>
>Jim
>
>

Make-up sex?

Hugh Beyer
October 2nd 04, 04:31 AM
Adam Fahy > wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>
>> This is so stupid. You really think such a nuke could ever be used, in
>> any situation short of WWIII? You think we could have gone after Osama
>> in Afghanistan with such a nuke if we had it? Never. The thing would be
>> useless.
>
> Uh... I assume, and this is just me here, ponitifcating as I am known to
> do, that a "bunker busting" bomb may be used to--stay with me now--bust
> bunkers.

Hi! Welcome to newsgroups! The way these things work is, when you're coming
into the middle of a conversation, every post you read is likely responding
to another post! If you want to understand what's going on, read the post
being replied to! Otherwise you risk looking like an idiot! In this case,
John suggested they would be useful in the mountains! That's what my post
was referring to! Do you see? Excellent! Have a nice day!

Hugh


--
One puppy had its dewclaws removed in the creation of this post, but for
reasons of hygene and it really doesn't hurt them at all.

Art S
October 2nd 04, 04:37 AM
"Lyle McDonald" > wrote in message
...
> August Pamplona wrote:
>
> > * But I guess Bush should feel uncomfortable. Even at the heart of the
> > White House's reality distortion field he has to have an inkling of
> > awareness that colossal misjudgments were indeed made.
>
> Can someone post a link to that study showing that incompetent people
> don't realize it.

http://www.apa.org/journals/psp/psp7761121.html

>
> I'm sure, in what amounts to his 'mind', Bush thinks he bested Kerry.
>
> He also thinks the word is pronounced 'new-ku-lur'.
>
> Lyle
>

Art

Adam Fahy
October 2nd 04, 04:40 AM
Hugh Beyer wrote:

> Hi! Welcome to newsgroups! The way these things work is, when you're coming
> into the middle of a conversation, every post you read is likely responding
> to another post! If you want to understand what's going on, read the post
> being replied to! Otherwise you risk looking like an idiot! In this case,
> John suggested they would be useful in the mountains! That's what my post
> was referring to! Do you see? Excellent! Have a nice day!

Pot! Meet kettle! Have a nice day!


-Adam

John Hanson
October 2nd 04, 04:41 AM
On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:31:37 -0500, Hugh Beyer >
wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>Adam Fahy > wrote in
>news:[email protected]:
>
>> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>
>>> This is so stupid. You really think such a nuke could ever be used, in
>>> any situation short of WWIII? You think we could have gone after Osama
>>> in Afghanistan with such a nuke if we had it? Never. The thing would be
>>> useless.
>>
>> Uh... I assume, and this is just me here, ponitifcating as I am known to
>> do, that a "bunker busting" bomb may be used to--stay with me now--bust
>> bunkers.
>
>Hi! Welcome to newsgroups! The way these things work is, when you're coming
>into the middle of a conversation, every post you read is likely responding
>to another post! If you want to understand what's going on, read the post
>being replied to! Otherwise you risk looking like an idiot! In this case,
>John suggested they would be useful in the mountains! That's what my post
>was referring to! Do you see? Excellent! Have a nice day!
>
Yes, mountains with caves who's opening have reinforced concrete
protecting them that have bad guys in them.

Kathy Marie
October 2nd 04, 04:44 AM
>Al Dykes wrote in message ...
>> Jim wrote:
<massive, vicious snip>
> >Thats what one of my best friends said a few hours ago after listening to
> >Fox News all day. We cannot talk politics. Its funny..we are buddies..but
> >when politics erupts..and it always does..we fight. Then we promise not
to
> >do it again. This is just a friend...how the hell do Matalin and Carville
> >stay married!?

Well, since I married my high school sweetheart almost 22 yrs ago and we've
cancelled each other out *every* election (except for the second one for
Clinton) I can tell you how I think we do it:

You love the other person enough to let them be _wrong_.

And then...

You keep your trap ***SHUT***!!!

It helps me do that when I remember we actually share the same ends (because
we do) but we differ on the _means_ necessary to achieve them. And when
people bait me (because they do, I'm in the minority party around here) it
helps when I remember that I don't have to go to every fight I'm invited to.

It also helps--it helps TONS, LOADS and LOTS!!--when I preface any political
discussion with a smile and the question, "Did you vote in the last
election???" I then explain that I don't discuss politics with people who
don't vote.

Now I don't know why this is--but only ONE person in the last five years has
met that criteria.

It's like if people actually go and VOTE, they don't need to talk about it
or something...?

(If someone has some ideas on this one, I'd be happy to hear them because
it's almost eerie how it works...)





> Don't tell this to your buddy. A good friend is worth more
> than being right.

This is TRUE in my experience. Waaaaaay true...

Kathy Marie
in Wisconsin...

Al Dykes
October 2nd 04, 04:48 AM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:
>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:31:37 -0500, Hugh Beyer >
>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>Adam Fahy > wrote in
>>news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>>
>>>> This is so stupid. You really think such a nuke could ever be used, in
>>>> any situation short of WWIII? You think we could have gone after Osama
>>>> in Afghanistan with such a nuke if we had it? Never. The thing would be
>>>> useless.
>>>
>>> Uh... I assume, and this is just me here, ponitifcating as I am known to
>>> do, that a "bunker busting" bomb may be used to--stay with me now--bust
>>> bunkers.
>>
>>Hi! Welcome to newsgroups! The way these things work is, when you're coming
>>into the middle of a conversation, every post you read is likely responding
>>to another post! If you want to understand what's going on, read the post
>>being replied to! Otherwise you risk looking like an idiot! In this case,
>>John suggested they would be useful in the mountains! That's what my post
>>was referring to! Do you see? Excellent! Have a nice day!
>>
>Yes, mountains with caves who's opening have reinforced concrete
>protecting them that have bad guys in them.
>


If necessary, tunneles will be deep under ground with lots of hidden
entrances. Once a tunnel of more than a few yards undergound you
can't tell where it goes. It can go for miles. IMO you can close an
entrance, and keep it closed with conventional bunker busters and
surveilliance.

Setting the precedent that nukes are an acceptable extension of
diplomacy would be horrible. At some point we won't be the only
country with "clean" nukes. Any nuke development gives countries like
Russia, Pak, Iran, and India political cover to build and deploy their
own.

It's not like we don't have nukes, now. We have a few thousand
of then, in all sizes. If the s**t really hits the fan we
have all the munitions we need.



--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Pete
October 2nd 04, 05:02 AM
Don wrote:

> In article >>
says...

>> DRS wrote:

>>> And when we had Osama bin Laden cornered in the mountains of Tora
>>> Bora, 1,000 of his cohorts with him in those mountains, with the
>>> American military forces nearby and in the field, we didn't use the
>>> best trained troops in the world to go kill the world's number one
>>> criminal and terrorist ... That's the enemy that attacked us.
>>> That's the enemy that was allowed to walk out of those mountains."

>> Unmitigated load of crap.
>
> Can you read? Can you remember more than 3 days ago?

>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A626
18-2002Apr16&notFound=true

Can I read? Wow, you raise ignorance to a new level. You may want to read
more than the headline to an article you offer as proof. Unbelievable.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/25/2004

John Hanson
October 2nd 04, 05:17 AM
On 1 Oct 2004 23:48:40 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>In article >,
>John Hanson > wrote:
>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:31:37 -0500, Hugh Beyer >
>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>Adam Fahy > wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is so stupid. You really think such a nuke could ever be used, in
>>>>> any situation short of WWIII? You think we could have gone after Osama
>>>>> in Afghanistan with such a nuke if we had it? Never. The thing would be
>>>>> useless.
>>>>
>>>> Uh... I assume, and this is just me here, ponitifcating as I am known to
>>>> do, that a "bunker busting" bomb may be used to--stay with me now--bust
>>>> bunkers.
>>>
>>>Hi! Welcome to newsgroups! The way these things work is, when you're coming
>>>into the middle of a conversation, every post you read is likely responding
>>>to another post! If you want to understand what's going on, read the post
>>>being replied to! Otherwise you risk looking like an idiot! In this case,
>>>John suggested they would be useful in the mountains! That's what my post
>>>was referring to! Do you see? Excellent! Have a nice day!
>>>
>>Yes, mountains with caves who's opening have reinforced concrete
>>protecting them that have bad guys in them.
>>
>
>
>If necessary, tunneles will be deep under ground with lots of hidden
>entrances. Once a tunnel of more than a few yards undergound you
>can't tell where it goes. It can go for miles. IMO you can close an
>entrance, and keep it closed with conventional bunker busters and
>surveilliance.
>
We aren't talking about closing them, we are talking about killing
whomever is in them.

>Setting the precedent that nukes are an acceptable extension of
>diplomacy would be horrible. At some point we won't be the only
>country with "clean" nukes. Any nuke development gives countries like
>Russia, Pak, Iran, and India political cover to build and deploy their
>own.

Of course not. Britian will probably have them right away.

>
>It's not like we don't have nukes, now. We have a few thousand
>of then, in all sizes. If the s**t really hits the fan we
>have all the munitions we need.

The fact of the matter is that aren't like a conventional nuke in that
they explode above the ground in order to cause the most widespread
damage. In fact, it is exactly the opposite.

Don
October 2nd 04, 05:32 AM
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62
6
>18-2002Apr16&notFound=true
>
>Can I read? Wow, you raise ignorance to a new level. You may want to read
>more than the headline to an article you offer as proof. Unbelievable.
>

Ok, maybe you can read, but can you count?
I posted about 70 lines, not just a headline, from an article.

Why didn't Bush call Kerry on this, if it is "Bull****"?

What "proof" do you need? Why don't YOU cite an article wherein it states that
US troops chased Al-Queda out from Tora Bora, and not Afghani militias, as the
Washington Post , as cited, and Kerry, as quoted, state? Whining that it is
"Bull****" requires a reason to support your opinion, if you are to be taken
seriously.

"Intelligence officials have assembled what they believe to be decisive
evidence, from contemporary and subsequent interrogations and intercepted
communications, that bin Laden began the battle of Tora Bora inside the cave
complex along Afghanistan's mountainous eastern border."

"In the fight for Tora Bora, corrupt local militias did not live up to
promises
to seal off the mountain redoubt, and some colluded in the escape of fleeing
al Qaeda fighters. "

"A common view among those interviewed outside the U.S. Central Command
is that Army Gen. Tommy R. Franks, the war's operational commander, misjudged
the interests of putative Afghan allies and let pass the best chance to
capture or kill al Qaeda's leader."

Proton Soup
October 2nd 04, 05:33 AM
On 1 Oct 2004 23:48:40 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote:

>In article >,
>John Hanson > wrote:
>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:31:37 -0500, Hugh Beyer >
>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>Adam Fahy > wrote in
>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>
>>>> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> This is so stupid. You really think such a nuke could ever be used, in
>>>>> any situation short of WWIII? You think we could have gone after Osama
>>>>> in Afghanistan with such a nuke if we had it? Never. The thing would be
>>>>> useless.
>>>>
>>>> Uh... I assume, and this is just me here, ponitifcating as I am known to
>>>> do, that a "bunker busting" bomb may be used to--stay with me now--bust
>>>> bunkers.
>>>
>>>Hi! Welcome to newsgroups! The way these things work is, when you're coming
>>>into the middle of a conversation, every post you read is likely responding
>>>to another post! If you want to understand what's going on, read the post
>>>being replied to! Otherwise you risk looking like an idiot! In this case,
>>>John suggested they would be useful in the mountains! That's what my post
>>>was referring to! Do you see? Excellent! Have a nice day!
>>>
>>Yes, mountains with caves who's opening have reinforced concrete
>>protecting them that have bad guys in them.
>>
>
>
>If necessary, tunneles will be deep under ground with lots of hidden
>entrances. Once a tunnel of more than a few yards undergound you
>can't tell where it goes. It can go for miles. IMO you can close an
>entrance, and keep it closed with conventional bunker busters and
>surveilliance.
>
>Setting the precedent that nukes are an acceptable extension of
>diplomacy would be horrible. At some point we won't be the only
>country with "clean" nukes. Any nuke development gives countries like
>Russia, Pak, Iran, and India political cover to build and deploy their
>own.
>
>It's not like we don't have nukes, now. We have a few thousand
>of then, in all sizes. If the s**t really hits the fan we
>have all the munitions we need.

Actually, we have a shortage of tritium right now.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Pete
October 2nd 04, 05:50 AM
Don wrote:

>>
http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62
>> 6 18-2002Apr16&notFound=true
>>
>> Can I read? Wow, you raise ignorance to a new level. You may want to
>> read more than the headline to an article you offer as proof.
>> Unbelievable.

> Ok, maybe you can read, but can you count?
> I posted about 70 lines, not just a headline, from an article.

The gist of the article doesn't support the headline. Which isn't
surprising, considering the editorial bent of the Washington Post. If you
haven't read the whole thing, please do. If you have, read it again. Then
come back and explain how it proves the Bush administration has officially
admitted a mistake in the hunt for bin Laden. Because that IS what you have
implied by your impugning of my reading ability and memory.



---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.764 / Virus Database: 511 - Release Date: 9/25/2004

Jim
October 2nd 04, 06:06 AM
I think it is ridiciolous(sp) to continue this argument.
Kerry won..fair and square..and he will continue to win if you people vote
for him. He deserves your vote. He is the better man to be our leader. I
want Kerry for president.

Jim

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 06:09 AM
Hugh Beyer > wrote:
>
>John Hanson > wrote:
>>
>> My point is that if you enter into bilateral talks with North Korea
>> and exclude China like John Kerry stated he want to, China will get
>> very ****ed and will make us pay for it. And, if Kerry takes the
>> added step of using military force, plan on WWIII.
>
>That's not Kerry's position. Kerry said he wants to continue multilateral
>talks--he just thinks it's stupid not to talk to NK directly in addition.
>No "excluding China" there at all.

Bush is right: if you go into bilateral talks, the six-party talks
will unwind, and China will not tolerate it. The talks are worthless
if we cannot make clear at what point we would consider military force
as a response, and that cannot be done without China's agreement, or
at least their condonation.

Perhaps you have forgotten what sneaked across the Yalu River in late
October of 1951. I'll give you a hint: there were 300,000 of them.

Donovan Rebbechi
October 2nd 04, 06:41 AM
On 2004-10-02, John M Williams > wrote:

>>You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
>>sweetheart.
>
> According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats lead Republicans by
> more than two-to-one amongst high school dropouts:
>
> http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95

My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure you that
they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the arrogant right wing
loudmouths on mfw.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Jim
October 2nd 04, 06:45 AM
"John M. Williams" > wrote in message
...
> Hugh Beyer > wrote:
> >
> >John Hanson > wrote:
> >>
> >> My point is that if you enter into bilateral talks with North Korea
> >> and exclude China like John Kerry stated he want to, China will get
> >> very ****ed and will make us pay for it. And, if Kerry takes the
> >> added step of using military force, plan on WWIII.
> >
> >That's not Kerry's position. Kerry said he wants to continue multilateral
> >talks--he just thinks it's stupid not to talk to NK directly in addition.
> >No "excluding China" there at all.
>
> Bush is right: if you go into bilateral talks, the six-party talks
> will unwind, and China will not tolerate it. The talks are worthless
> if we cannot make clear at what point we would consider military force
> as a response, and that cannot be done without China's agreement, or
> at least their condonation.
>
> Perhaps you have forgotten what sneaked across the Yalu River in late
> October of 1951. I'll give you a hint: there were 300,000 of them.

Do you actually beleive Bush has a thought about anything?

Jim

Abhijit Bhattacharya
October 2nd 04, 07:05 AM
John M. Williams > wrote in message >...
> John Hanson > wrote:

> >Kerry completely blew it on the "Global Test" thing.
> >
> >Kerry completely blew it on the bilateral talks with North Korea.
> >Even Jim's buddy McCain says that would be a grave error. Our hands
> >are really tied when it comes to NK, and China must be involved.
>
> That was the one clear statement of a difference in policy between the
> two, and for the reasons I have stated before, Kerry is dead wrong
> about that one.

The irony is that China has been trying to get the US to participate
in bilateral talks for a long time. The Bush administration refuses to
do this because the don't want to be seen "negotiating" with North
Korea. What candidates say rarely correspond to reality.

Regards,

Abhijit

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 07:07 AM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:

>On 2004-10-02, John M Williams > wrote:
>
>>>You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
>>>sweetheart.
>>
>> According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats lead Republicans by
>> more than two-to-one amongst high school dropouts:
>>
>> http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95
>
>My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure you that
>they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the arrogant right wing
>loudmouths on mfw.

Did I hear another whining noise?

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 10:00 AM
DZ > wrote:

>Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>> On 2004-10-02, John M Williams > wrote:
>>
>>>>You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
>>>>sweetheart.
>>>
>>> According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats lead Republicans by
>>> more than two-to-one amongst high school dropouts:
>>>
>>> http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95
>>
>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure you that
>> they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the arrogant right wing
>> loudmouths on mfw.
>
>Preferences cluster.
>
>So what is the overall percentage of Democratic supporters among
>overwhelmingly well educated people?
>
>How about just those inventing medicines at say Pfizer?
>
>Is it any different from the percentage of Democratic supporters among
>the subset of overwhelmingly well educated people with never realized
>potential?

According to Pew Research, college graduates are 38% Republican and
27% Democrat; Democrats have a slight advantage with those who have
done postgrad studies -- 33% to 31% -- but many of those are probably
in academia, where liberalism holds a lot of sway.

http://people-press.org/reports/display.php3?PageID=750

Of course, amongst vegetarian cardio weenies like Donovan, Democrats
kick ass.

MJL
October 2nd 04, 03:10 PM
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 07:42:58 GMT, DZ
> wrote:

>Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>> On 2004-10-02, John M Williams > wrote:
>>
>>>>You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
>>>>sweetheart.
>>>
>>> According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats lead Republicans by
>>> more than two-to-one amongst high school dropouts:
>>>
>>> http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95
>>
>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure you that
>> they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the arrogant right wing
>> loudmouths on mfw.
>
>Preferences cluster.
>
>So what is the overall percentage of Democratic supporters among
>overwhelmingly well educated people?
>

I dunno, I imagine there are polls out there that slice it that way.

>How about just those inventing medicines at say Pfizer?
>

Hmm, probably not publicly available.

>Is it any different from the percentage of Democratic supporters among
>the subset of overwhelmingly well educated people with never realized
>potential?
>
>DZ

I think well educated people will probably tend less toward a
backlasher view of the world and will, therefore, not reflexively vote
for Bush. If one feels compelled to vote for Bush or Kerry and
religion/guns/abortion are not at the tippy top of your political
selection criteria then the choice is really pretty clear.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

MJL
October 2nd 04, 03:13 PM
On 02 Oct 2004 06:00:04 GMT, (Rutabaga22) wrote:

>>Find us a strong Bush supporter that comes out and says, "despite my
>allegience to President Bush, I have to take my hat off to Kerry because
>what he said when he said clearly marked him as a winner in this debate"
>
>OK I'll try. I'm a strong Bush supporter, a Republican since the days of
>Gerald Ford (I didn't like Nixon). I thought Kerry sounded competent and that
>he made some valid points, including points that Bush was hard pressed to
>rebut. If I were voting for president on the basis of who is a better debater
>- which I'm not - I'd give a slight edge to Kerry. I'm voting for Bush
>because I think he will defend the country, and because the Republicans are
>traditionally the party of free markets and limited government - not Bush'
>strength but he will be better than Kerry on those issues.

At the top of the ticket...

long term history suggests democrats are fantastic at defending the
US.

Short term history suggests republicans are absolutely horrible at
limiting government and democrats are "OK" at it.

I'm not sure what you base your comments on.
--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Al Dykes
October 2nd 04, 03:41 PM
In article >,
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>On 2004-10-02, John M Williams > wrote:
>
>>>You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
>>>sweetheart.
>>
>> According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats lead Republicans by
>> more than two-to-one amongst high school dropouts:
>>
>> http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95
>

The poll sounds right, but there was this guy names Reagon that got
lots of blue-collor democrat vote. These people are leaving Bush in
droves.

The poll says NOTHING about how people with college educations
vote. We know always assume that the majority of newspaper reporters,
teachers, and professors, highly educated, all, vote liberal.

It looks like for the education-level/vote curve we have a "U" curve
here, with Bush getting the votes in the middle.

I have no data to back this up, but you probably don't either.


>My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure you that
>they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the arrogant right wing
>loudmouths on mfw.
>
>Cheers,
>--
>Donovan Rebbechi
>http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/


--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Al Dykes
October 2nd 04, 03:52 PM
In article >,
DZ > wrote:
>Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>> On 2004-10-02, John M Williams > wrote:
>>
>>>>You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
>>>>sweetheart.
>>>
>>> According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats lead Republicans by
>>> more than two-to-one amongst high school dropouts:
>>>
>>> http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95
>>
>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure you that
>> they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the arrogant right wing
>> loudmouths on mfw.
>
>Preferences cluster.
>
>So what is the overall percentage of Democratic supporters among
>overwhelmingly well educated people?
>
>How about just those inventing medicines at say Pfizer?
>
>Is it any different from the percentage of Democratic supporters among
>the subset of overwhelmingly well educated people with never realized
>potential?
>
>DZ


IME the absolutely brighest people, of which I am fortunate to know a
few, all very accomplished in something, _tend_ to be Libertarian, or
dismiss real-world politics as stupid, or be oblivious to the real
world, in general. Of the libertarians, one can never get them to
agree on anything.


--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Al Dykes
October 2nd 04, 03:56 PM
In article >,
Rutabaga22 > wrote:
>>Find us a strong Bush supporter that comes out and says, "despite my
>allegience to President Bush, I have to take my hat off to Kerry because
>what he said when he said clearly marked him as a winner in this debate"
>
>OK I'll try. I'm a strong Bush supporter, a Republican since the days of
>Gerald Ford (I didn't like Nixon). I thought Kerry sounded competent and that
>he made some valid points, including points that Bush was hard pressed to
>rebut. If I were voting for president on the basis of who is a better debater
>- which I'm not - I'd give a slight edge to Kerry. I'm voting for Bush
>because I think he will defend the country, and because the Republicans are
>traditionally the party of free markets and limited government - not Bush'
>strength but he will be better than Kerry on those issues.


ALL the proposals in Kerry's platofrm, if fully implemented
will cost several trillion bucks (1000's of billions) less than
the projected deficit if Bush gets his programs;

See http://www.johnkerry.com/issues/

GWB wants to give us a $10 Trillion ($10,000 billion) deficit which
will cause inflation and be a debt our grandchildren will be paying
off. When our economy hits the tipping point the large foreign
investers (China and Saudi are big) will pull out their money
and our economy will tank.

10 Nobel economists endorse Kerry
Experts criticize Bush's 'reckless and extreme course'
http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5818277/

48 Nobel Scientists Endorse Kerry
http://www.gwu.edu/~action/2004/kerry/kerrynobel062104.html

Kerry for President No more bushes

--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Al Dykes
October 2nd 04, 03:58 PM
In article >,
Proton Soup > wrote:
>On 1 Oct 2004 23:48:40 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>>In article >,
>>John Hanson > wrote:
>>>On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 22:31:37 -0500, Hugh Beyer >
>>>wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>
>>>>Adam Fahy > wrote in
>>>>news:[email protected]:
>>>>
>>>>> Hugh Beyer wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is so stupid. You really think such a nuke could ever be used, in
>>>>>> any situation short of WWIII? You think we could have gone after Osama
>>>>>> in Afghanistan with such a nuke if we had it? Never. The thing would be
>>>>>> useless.
>>>>>
>>>>> Uh... I assume, and this is just me here, ponitifcating as I am known to
>>>>> do, that a "bunker busting" bomb may be used to--stay with me now--bust
>>>>> bunkers.
>>>>
>>>>Hi! Welcome to newsgroups! The way these things work is, when you're coming
>>>>into the middle of a conversation, every post you read is likely responding
>>>>to another post! If you want to understand what's going on, read the post
>>>>being replied to! Otherwise you risk looking like an idiot! In this case,
>>>>John suggested they would be useful in the mountains! That's what my post
>>>>was referring to! Do you see? Excellent! Have a nice day!
>>>>
>>>Yes, mountains with caves who's opening have reinforced concrete
>>>protecting them that have bad guys in them.
>>>
>>
>>
>>If necessary, tunneles will be deep under ground with lots of hidden
>>entrances. Once a tunnel of more than a few yards undergound you
>>can't tell where it goes. It can go for miles. IMO you can close an
>>entrance, and keep it closed with conventional bunker busters and
>>surveilliance.
>>
>>Setting the precedent that nukes are an acceptable extension of
>>diplomacy would be horrible. At some point we won't be the only
>>country with "clean" nukes. Any nuke development gives countries like
>>Russia, Pak, Iran, and India political cover to build and deploy their
>>own.
>>
>>It's not like we don't have nukes, now. We have a few thousand
>>of then, in all sizes. If the s**t really hits the fan we
>>have all the munitions we need.
>
>Actually, we have a shortage of tritium right now.


Fixable for a few billion. No need to design new bombs.



--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Al Dykes
October 2nd 04, 04:04 PM
In article >,
Pete > wrote:
>Don wrote:
>
>>>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62
>>> 6 18-2002Apr16&notFound=true
>>>
>>> Can I read? Wow, you raise ignorance to a new level. You may want to
>>> read more than the headline to an article you offer as proof.
>>> Unbelievable.
>
>> Ok, maybe you can read, but can you count?
>> I posted about 70 lines, not just a headline, from an article.
>
>The gist of the article doesn't support the headline. Which isn't
>surprising, considering the editorial bent of the Washington Post. If you
>haven't read the whole thing, please do. If you have, read it again. Then
>come back and explain how it proves the Bush administration has officially
>admitted a mistake in the hunt for bin Laden. Because that IS what you have
>implied by your impugning of my reading ability and memory.
>

factcheck.org did a nice job or parsing the debate and
criticize the claims of both sides. Here's what they say
about the OBL-was-there claim.

http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271

"...It is true that military leaders strongly suspected bin Laden was
there, and it is also true that the Pentagon relied heavily on
Afghan forces to take on much of the fighting at Tora Bora in an
effort to reduce US casualties. But Kerry overstates the case by
stating flatly that "we had him surrounded."

Well within the bounds of speech retoric where we have to speek
in soundbites and a clock is clicking.




--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Al Dykes
October 2nd 04, 04:06 PM
In article >,
Abhijit Bhattacharya > wrote:
>John M. Williams > wrote in message >...
>> John Hanson > wrote:
>
>> >Kerry completely blew it on the "Global Test" thing.
>> >
>> >Kerry completely blew it on the bilateral talks with North Korea.
>> >Even Jim's buddy McCain says that would be a grave error. Our hands
>> >are really tied when it comes to NK, and China must be involved.
>>
>> That was the one clear statement of a difference in policy between the
>> two, and for the reasons I have stated before, Kerry is dead wrong
>> about that one.
>
>The irony is that China has been trying to get the US to participate
>in bilateral talks for a long time. The Bush administration refuses to
>do this because the don't want to be seen "negotiating" with North
>Korea. What candidates say rarely correspond to reality.
>
>Regards,
>
>Abhijit

South Korea has as much at risk as anyone want to negotiate
with NK.
--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

John HUDSON
October 2nd 04, 05:08 PM
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 02:07:31 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>
>>On 2004-10-02, John M Williams > wrote:
>>
>>>>You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
>>>>sweetheart.
>>>
>>> According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats lead Republicans by
>>> more than two-to-one amongst high school dropouts:
>>>
>>> http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95
>>
>>My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure you that
>>they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the arrogant right wing
>>loudmouths on mfw.
>
>Did I hear another whining noise?

You appear to be suffering a surfeit of "whining" since I went on
holiday JW, could it be tinnitus? ;o)

Have a great weekend - I am!! ;o)

Adam Fahy
October 2nd 04, 05:20 PM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure
> you that they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the
> arrogant right wing loudmouths on mfw.

What an obnoxious and fatuous "argument."


-Adam

Donovan Rebbechi
October 2nd 04, 05:34 PM
On 2004-10-02, John M Williams > wrote:

> According to Pew Research, college graduates are 38% Republican and
> 27% Democrat; Democrats have a slight advantage with those who have
> done postgrad studies -- 33% to 31% -- but many of those are probably
> in academia, where liberalism holds a lot of sway.

Likewise, most of the democrats and republicans probably work in occupations
where their ideology "holds sway". Part of this may be due to self-interest
(they prefer the party that serves their interests) but it could also go the
other way (they choose a line of work based on their ideology). For example,
among people with law degrees, I would expect that when someone chooses a
career as a prosecutor, public defender, trial lawyer, or a corporate lawyer,
it says something about their values, and that their political affiliation
would also reflect those same values.

> Of course, amongst vegetarian cardio weenies like Donovan, Democrats
> kick ass.

As far as I can tell, runners tend to be well educated and liberal. I'm not
sure how vegetarians are split in terms of political affiliation.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Proton Soup
October 2nd 04, 05:38 PM
On 2 Oct 2004 11:04:28 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote:

>In article >,
>Pete > wrote:
>>Don wrote:
>>
>>>>
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A62
>>>> 6 18-2002Apr16&notFound=true
>>>>
>>>> Can I read? Wow, you raise ignorance to a new level. You may want to
>>>> read more than the headline to an article you offer as proof.
>>>> Unbelievable.
>>
>>> Ok, maybe you can read, but can you count?
>>> I posted about 70 lines, not just a headline, from an article.
>>
>>The gist of the article doesn't support the headline. Which isn't
>>surprising, considering the editorial bent of the Washington Post. If you
>>haven't read the whole thing, please do. If you have, read it again. Then
>>come back and explain how it proves the Bush administration has officially
>>admitted a mistake in the hunt for bin Laden. Because that IS what you have
>>implied by your impugning of my reading ability and memory.
>>
>
>factcheck.org did a nice job or parsing the debate and
>criticize the claims of both sides. Here's what they say
>about the OBL-was-there claim.
>
> http://factcheck.org/article.aspx?docID=271
>
> "...It is true that military leaders strongly suspected bin Laden was
> there, and it is also true that the Pentagon relied heavily on
> Afghan forces to take on much of the fighting at Tora Bora in an
> effort to reduce US casualties. But Kerry overstates the case by
> stating flatly that "we had him surrounded."

He talks like a cowboy.

>Well within the bounds of speech retoric where we have to speek
>in soundbites and a clock is clicking.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Donovan Rebbechi
October 2nd 04, 06:20 PM
On 2004-10-02, Adam Fahy > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure
>> you that they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the
>> arrogant right wing loudmouths on mfw.
>
> What an obnoxious and fatuous "argument."

The reason I posted this was to forcefully rebut Pete and Williams' stereotype
of Democrats as uneducated. I believe that I did that -- by drawing attention
to the fact that Democrats do well among those with postgraduate education.
Pete was, in my opinion particularly obnoxious and smug, which is why I was
somewhat blunt.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 06:41 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
> Adam Fahy > wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure
>>> you that they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the
>>> arrogant right wing loudmouths on mfw.
>>
>> What an obnoxious and fatuous "argument."
>
>The reason I posted this was to forcefully rebut Pete and Williams' stereotype
>of Democrats as uneducated. I believe that I did that -- by drawing attention
>to the fact that Democrats do well among those with postgraduate education.
>Pete was, in my opinion particularly obnoxious and smug, which is why I was
>somewhat blunt.

You were ****ed. You've been taking quite a strident tone lately.

John Hanson
October 2nd 04, 06:59 PM
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 17:20:10 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>On 2004-10-02, Adam Fahy > wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure
>>> you that they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the
>>> arrogant right wing loudmouths on mfw.
>>
>> What an obnoxious and fatuous "argument."
>
>The reason I posted this was to forcefully rebut Pete and Williams' stereotype
>of Democrats as uneducated. I believe that I did that -- by drawing attention
>to the fact that Democrats do well among those with postgraduate education.
>Pete was, in my opinion particularly obnoxious and smug, which is why I was
>somewhat blunt.
>
Yes, but academics are generally clueless about real life. Most
haven't even had a career in the private sector where only the strong
survive:-)

Donovan Rebbechi
October 2nd 04, 07:36 PM
On 2004-10-02, John M Williams > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>> Adam Fahy > wrote:
>>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>>
>>>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure
>>>> you that they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the
>>>> arrogant right wing loudmouths on mfw.
>>>
>>> What an obnoxious and fatuous "argument."
>>
>>The reason I posted this was to forcefully rebut Pete and Williams' stereotype
>>of Democrats as uneducated. I believe that I did that -- by drawing attention
>>to the fact that Democrats do well among those with postgraduate education.
>>Pete was, in my opinion particularly obnoxious and smug, which is why I was
>>somewhat blunt.
>
> You were ****ed. You've been taking quite a strident tone lately.

Oh the irony.

--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 08:17 PM
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
> John M Williams > wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>>> Adam Fahy > wrote:
>>>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure
>>>>> you that they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the
>>>>> arrogant right wing loudmouths on mfw.
>>>>
>>>> What an obnoxious and fatuous "argument."
>>>
>>>The reason I posted this was to forcefully rebut Pete and Williams' stereotype
>>>of Democrats as uneducated. I believe that I did that -- by drawing attention
>>>to the fact that Democrats do well among those with postgraduate education.
>>>Pete was, in my opinion particularly obnoxious and smug, which is why I was
>>>somewhat blunt.
>>
>> You were ****ed. You've been taking quite a strident tone lately.
>
>Oh the irony.

I'm sure that's how you see it: the only way you can.

Brandon Berg
October 2nd 04, 08:22 PM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-10-02, John M Williams >
> wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>>> Adam Fahy > wrote:
>>>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure
>>>>> you that they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the
>>>>> arrogant right wing loudmouths on mfw.
>>>>
>>>> What an obnoxious and fatuous "argument."
>>>
>>>The reason I posted this was to forcefully rebut Pete and Williams'
>>>stereotype
>>>of Democrats as uneducated. I believe that I did that -- by drawing
>>>attention
>>>to the fact that Democrats do well among those with postgraduate
>>>education.
>>>Pete was, in my opinion particularly obnoxious and smug, which is why I
>>>was
>>>somewhat blunt.
>>
>> You were ****ed. You've been taking quite a strident tone lately.
>
> Oh the irony.

I'll second that.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Brandon Berg
October 2nd 04, 08:54 PM
"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
> On 2004-10-02, John M Williams >
> wrote:
>
>>>You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
>>>sweetheart.
>>
>> According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats lead Republicans by
>> more than two-to-one amongst high school dropouts:
>>
>> http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95
>
> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure you
> that
> they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the arrogant right
> wing
> loudmouths on mfw.

I'm not surprised. As others have pointed out, those with postgraduate
educations, taken as a whole, tend towards leftism. However, this doesn't
necessarily mean that smart people tend to be Democrats. In general, as your
education level increases, you're more likely to be a Republican. This trend
sharply reverses itself at the postgraduate level. I can think of a few
factors at play here:

1. A large percentage of postgraduate degree holders depend on the
government and/or Democratic policies for their livelihoods. For many with
PhDs in the humanities, the only viable career options are in academia. Many
academic scientists believe that the market could not or would not support
their work. Tort reform is potentially devastating to the income potential
of attorneys. Rightly or wrongly, these people view Democratic victories as
essential to their material well-being.

2. The enterprising nature of those who tend toward free-market politics may
lead them to avoid pursuing a postgraduate degree. Take me, for example. I
can say confidently that I have the requisite intellectual power to pursue
any sort of postgraduate degree I might desire, but I simply don't think
that it's the wisest investment of my time.

2. I believe (though I'm not absolutely certain) that postgraduate degree
holders tend towards atheism. Enough said.

4. Your brains are addled by meat deficiency.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

John M. Williams
October 2nd 04, 09:15 PM
"Brandon Berg" > wrote:

>
>"Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
...
>> On 2004-10-02, John M Williams >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
>>>>sweetheart.
>>>
>>> According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats lead Republicans by
>>> more than two-to-one amongst high school dropouts:
>>>
>>> http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95
>>
>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure you
>> that
>> they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the arrogant right
>> wing
>> loudmouths on mfw.
>
>I'm not surprised. As others have pointed out, those with postgraduate
>educations, taken as a whole, tend towards leftism. However, this doesn't
>necessarily mean that smart people tend to be Democrats. In general, as your
>education level increases, you're more likely to be a Republican. This trend
>sharply reverses itself at the postgraduate level. I can think of a few
>factors at play here:
>
>1. A large percentage of postgraduate degree holders depend on the
>government and/or Democratic policies for their livelihoods. For many with
>PhDs in the humanities, the only viable career options are in academia. Many
>academic scientists believe that the market could not or would not support
>their work. Tort reform is potentially devastating to the income potential
>of attorneys. Rightly or wrongly, these people view Democratic victories as
>essential to their material well-being.

Strictly as to trial attorneys, this holds true purely in terms of
numbers. In criminal law, criminal defense attorneys far outnumber
criminal prosecutors, and in tort law, personal injury plaintiff's
attorneys far outnumber attorneys who represent alleged tortfeasors,
usually by appointment of insurance companies. Democrats and liberals
favor criminal defense attorneys and personal injury plaintiff's
attorneys.

Donovan Rebbechi
October 2nd 04, 09:58 PM
On 2004-10-02, Brandon Berg > wrote:
>
> "Donovan Rebbechi" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On 2004-10-02, John M Williams >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>>You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
>>>>sweetheart.
>>>
>>> According to the Pew Research Center, Democrats lead Republicans by
>>> more than two-to-one amongst high school dropouts:
>>>
>>> http://people-press.org/commentary/display.php3?AnalysisID=95
>>
>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure you
>> that
>> they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the arrogant right
>> wing
>> loudmouths on mfw.
>
> I'm not surprised. As others have pointed out, those with postgraduate
> educations, taken as a whole, tend towards leftism. However, this doesn't
> necessarily mean that smart people tend to be Democrats. In general, as your

Thanks for introducing some sense into this discussion. I completely agree
(with this and the text I snipped). Choice of occupation affects ones
self-interest (which affects ones vote), and it also reflects ones values
(which obviously affect the way we vote). I consider it myopic and somewhat
arrogant to attribute ones political position to superior intelligence.

> 2. I believe (though I'm not absolutely certain) that postgraduate degree
> holders tend towards atheism. Enough said.
>
> 4. Your brains are addled by meat deficiency.

That may be so, but I can still count to 4.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Brandon Berg
October 2nd 04, 10:05 PM
"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> IME the absolutely brighest people, of which I am fortunate to know a
> few, all very accomplished in something, _tend_ to be Libertarian, or
> dismiss real-world politics as stupid, or be oblivious to the real
> world, in general.

Agreed. Granted, there are a bunch of pretty smart people on the far left of
the spectrum (I guess they fall into the "oblivious to the real world"
category). In general, the brightest lights tend congregate on the fringes.
That said, while I've encountered a few libertarians of fairly mediocre
intellect, no one scrapes the bottom of the barrel like radical leftists do.

> Of the libertarians, one can never get them to
> agree on anything.

That hasn't been my perception. There are a few points of contention (war,
abortion, and immigration, for example), but there's a large set of core
political values that define libertarianism. Of course, there are some
socialists who call themselves libertarians, but most actual libertarians
don't acknowledge those claims.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Brandon Berg
October 2nd 04, 10:19 PM
"Al Dykes" > wrote in message
...
> The poll says NOTHING about how people with college educations
> vote. We know always assume that the majority of newspaper reporters,
> teachers, and professors, highly educated, all, vote liberal.

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/epolls/US/P000.html
http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1996/elections/natl.exit.poll/index1.html

That said, I'm not sure that education is an independent factor. Education
correlates positively with income, and the anti-tax rhetoric of the
Republicans resonates more with those who make enough to pay a lot in taxes.
I still contend that taxation--even progressive taxation--tends to hurt the
poor more than it hurts the rich, but it does so in a way that's not
immediately obvious, so it's politically irrelevant to the poor.

It's funny that you should mention teachers and journalists, because
according to the ETS, education and communications majors tend to have
exceptionally low GRE scores. For all education fields, the average was 981.
Those planning to major in secondary education averaged 1060. Compare this
to 1187 and 1189 for physical sciences and engineering, respectively. This
despite the fact that the science and engineering averages were presumably
hampered in the verbal section by a greater number of non-native speakers of
English.

http://ftp.ets.org/pub/gre/994994.pdf (Table 4)

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

dwacon
October 2nd 04, 10:57 PM
"DRS" > wrote in message
...
> "John Hanson" > wrote in message
>
> > On Fri, 01 Oct 2004 03:24:37 GMT, MJL > wrote in
> > misc.fitness.weights:
> >
> >> Actually I thought each man did what they do pretty well. Kerry did
> >> the smart policy-wonk thing and Bush did the down-home Texan chasing
> >> the "evildoers" thing.
> >
> > I'm partial but I think Bush won that debate.
>
> You're insane. Kerry ate Bush for breakfast.


I thought Bush had Frankenkerry cereal for bruffus...


--
The Oil of Love
http://makeashorterlink.com/?J39112559

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 12:02 AM
In article >,
Carl Nisarel > wrote:

> But heard, half-heard in the silliness, John M. Williams
> writes;
>
> >>I abhor when people take a perfectly good position and
> >>exagerate it so that they aren't credible anymore.
> >
> > Then maybe you should stop.
>
> Dally didn't do it, Johnny. You did.
>
> We know you won't stop your trolling using strawman.

What is your age and which journals have you published in? Is that a
strawman?

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Pete
October 3rd 04, 12:17 AM
Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
> On 2004-10-02, Adam Fahy > wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure
>>> you that they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the
>>> arrogant right wing loudmouths on mfw.
>>
>> What an obnoxious and fatuous "argument."
>
> The reason I posted this was to forcefully rebut Pete and Williams'
> stereotype of Democrats as uneducated. I believe that I did that --
> by drawing attention to the fact that Democrats do well among those
> with postgraduate education. Pete was, in my opinion particularly
> obnoxious and smug, which is why I was somewhat blunt.

Whoa there, Sparky. Dally made a particularly pointed (and unsubstantiated)
stab at undecided voters. In case you missed it:

"When it comes right down to it, this election is going to be decided by the
people who are undecided and they are typically lower education, uninformed
and apathetic. They know Bush's name and he sounds presidential. oh, and
he likes guns. Honestly, that's all it takes."

Now, what I said:

"You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
sweetheart."

Now, which one is obnoxious?

John M. Williams
October 3rd 04, 01:45 AM
(Al Dykes) wrote:
>
>More links at the bottom on this post.....

A regular Mr. Hankey …

Brandon Berg
October 3rd 04, 04:45 AM
"Kathy Marie" > wrote in message
...
>
>>Al Dykes wrote in message ...
>>> Jim wrote:
> <massive, vicious snip>
>> >Thats what one of my best friends said a few hours ago after listening
>> >to
>> >Fox News all day. We cannot talk politics. Its funny..we are
>> >buddies..but
>> >when politics erupts..and it always does..we fight. Then we promise not
> to
>> >do it again. This is just a friend...how the hell do Matalin and
>> >Carville
>> >stay married!?
>
> Well, since I married my high school sweetheart almost 22 yrs ago and
> we've
> cancelled each other out *every* election (except for the second one for
> Clinton) I can tell you how I think we do it:

If you cancel each other out, why not just stay home?

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Donovan Rebbechi
October 3rd 04, 05:42 AM
On 2004-10-02, Pete > wrote:
> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>> On 2004-10-02, Adam Fahy > wrote:
>>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>>
>>>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure
>>>> you that they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the
>>>> arrogant right wing loudmouths on mfw.
>>>
>>> What an obnoxious and fatuous "argument."
>>
>> The reason I posted this was to forcefully rebut Pete and Williams'
>> stereotype of Democrats as uneducated. I believe that I did that --
>> by drawing attention to the fact that Democrats do well among those
>> with postgraduate education. Pete was, in my opinion particularly
>> obnoxious and smug, which is why I was somewhat blunt.
>
> Whoa there, Sparky. Dally made a particularly pointed (and unsubstantiated)
> stab at undecided voters. In case you missed it:

[snip]

IMO her comment is just plain wrong on several counts. That doesn't make what
you said any less obnoxious.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Kathy Marie
October 3rd 04, 05:43 AM
> Brandon Berg wrote in message
...
> > Kathy Marie wrote in message ...
<snip>
> > Well, since I married my high school sweetheart almost 22 yrs ago and
we've cancelled each other out *every* election <snip>
> If you cancel each other out, why not just stay home?

Because voting is _important_! People have bled and *died* to give us the
freedom to vote; it's a privilege and a *responsibility*. And I know that
people say it doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts, blahblahblah.
Well IMHO, disgraceful voter turnout rates are a threat to democracy--the
last numbers I saw showed half or less of the eligible voters bother.

I don't *always* vote--I didn't vote in the primary when I was sick with the
flu. But even though I knew not voting was more responsible, I was upset
because I *wanted* to participate! Also when I'm taking care of sick loved
ones I give myself a pass too if I can't fit it in.

But another reason to vote is because, one day, My Baby *might* get a wee
bit disorganized...!

;-)

Kathy Marie
in Wisconsin...

Preacher
October 3rd 04, 06:18 AM
Brandon Berg > wrote:

> If you cancel each other out, why not just stay home?

You'd have to vote opposite one another for every office, proposition,
etc. before you'd really cancel each other out.

Otoh, I've voted Libertarian for president a number of times, which is
kind of like canceling yourself out...

Will Brink
October 3rd 04, 03:14 PM
In article >,
Hugh Beyer > wrote:

> Top Sirloin > wrote in
> :
>
> > DRS wrote:
> >
> >> That is as clear an example of neocon New Speak as you could wish to see.
> >> In the debate Kerry was substance from go to whoa, Bush was full of fluff
> >> and mindless mantras, yet here we have the usual ultra-right wing
> diehards
> >> trying to tell us that black is white, night is day, and peace is war.
> >
> > I'm guess I'm just not getting the nightly
> > transmissions from the master satellite that would
> > allow me see Kerry's secret plans for the war ...
>
> Dude, were you listening?

Poeople hear what they want to hear as a rule.

--
Will Brink @ http://www.brinkzone.com/

Brandon Berg
October 3rd 04, 06:12 PM
"Kathy Marie" > wrote in message
...
>> Brandon Berg wrote in message
> ...
>> > Kathy Marie wrote in message ...
> <snip>
>> > Well, since I married my high school sweetheart almost 22 yrs ago and
> we've cancelled each other out *every* election <snip>
>> If you cancel each other out, why not just stay home?
>
> Because voting is _important_!

Why?

> People have bled and *died* to give us the freedom to vote

Who? People have bled and died for freedom from taxes (taxes much lower, I
might add, than those that burden us today), but I don't recall any wars
fought for "the freedom to vote." What does that mean, anyway? Everyone,
everywhere, can vote as often as he likes. I'm voting for myself right now.
I just did it again. Now I'm voting for you. What you mean, I suspect, is
the *power* to participate in the selection of a group of people who are to
be entrusted with far more power than is moral or prudent.

> it's a privilege and a *responsibility*. And I know that
> people say it doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts,
> blahblahblah.

There's some fraud, but the counts are probably roughly accurate. That's not
the real problem. Democracy is fatally flawed even when the rules are
observed scrupulously.

> Well IMHO, disgraceful voter turnout rates are a threat to democracy

Precisely. That's why I don't vote. It gives the illusion of legitimacy to
the winner.

> --the
> last numbers I saw showed half or less of the eligible voters bother.

If only they were not voting for the right reasons! But look on the bright
side: Do you really want the typical nonvoter to be making decisions about
important issues that affect your life?

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Al Dykes
October 3rd 04, 08:53 PM
In article >,
Will Brink > wrote:
>In article >,
> Hugh Beyer > wrote:
>
>> Top Sirloin > wrote in
>> :
>>
>> > DRS wrote:
>> >
>> >> That is as clear an example of neocon New Speak as you could wish to see.
>> >> In the debate Kerry was substance from go to whoa, Bush was full of fluff
>> >> and mindless mantras, yet here we have the usual ultra-right wing
>> diehards
>> >> trying to tell us that black is white, night is day, and peace is war.
>> >
>> > I'm guess I'm just not getting the nightly
>> > transmissions from the master satellite that would
>> > allow me see Kerry's secret plans for the war ...
>>

Someone I know just did an analyis of the phrases Bush used in his
side of the dabate and compared them to the phrases ke kept repeating
in the debate with gore. I'll get my hands on it shortly.

He's using the same material. Except for teh 9-11/SH stuff, he's got
the same 3x5 cards !

>


--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Dally
October 3rd 04, 09:57 PM
Pete wrote:

> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:

> Whoa there, Sparky. Dally made a particularly pointed (and unsubstantiated)
> stab at undecided voters. In case you missed it:
>
> "When it comes right down to it, this election is going to be decided by the
> people who are undecided and they are typically lower education, uninformed
> and apathetic. They know Bush's name and he sounds presidential. oh, and
> he likes guns. Honestly, that's all it takes."

My source isn't perfect - it's a tough demographic to study - but here's
where I got this idea:
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/_/id/6477828

> "You may want to take a look at the demographics of the Democratic Party,
> sweetheart."

Well, I don't much like you calling me 'sweetheart'. Doesn't that count?

Dally

Dally
October 3rd 04, 09:58 PM
Adam Fahy wrote:

> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>
>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure
>> you that they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the
>> arrogant right wing loudmouths on mfw.
>
>
> What an obnoxious and fatuous "argument."

As well as specious.

Dally

Dally
October 3rd 04, 10:04 PM
Al Dykes wrote:

> It looks like for the education-level/vote curve we have a "U" curve
> here, with Bush getting the votes in the middle.
>
> I have no data to back this up, but you probably don't either.

One of the question here is "how would the people who don't vote vote if
they voted?" It's really tough to try to study this question as people
will lie about whether they vote or not as well as lie about how they
voted and none of these things can be determined.

I liked Kathy's idea of only discussing politics with people who vote.
I vote. What about you guys?

By the way, I've got an interesting dilemma in this regard. I'm serving
dinner at a soup kitchen on Nov. 2. In effect, I'm going to be with a
crowd of very poor and/or homelss people. I could 'encourage' them to
vote by hauling their asses down to the polling place in my minivan
after dinner. Should I do this? (This presupposes they're registered
to vote, a shaky proposition but quite possible in this state with voter
registration tied into the driver's license renewals.)

Dally

Dally
October 3rd 04, 10:30 PM
DZ wrote:

> Brandon Berg > wrote:
>
>>2. The enterprising nature of those who tend toward free-market
>>politics may lead them to avoid pursuing a postgraduate degree. Take
>>me, for example. I can say confidently that I have the requisite
>>intellectual power to pursue any sort of postgraduate degree I might
>>desire, but I simply don't think that it's the wisest investment of
>>my time.
>
>
> For those who're enterprising in nature and want to do science as
> well, a postgraduate is the wisest investment. Even from the most
> pragmatic point of view. Scientists in 20s - early 30s earn the same
> on average regardless of the degree. But then PhDs pull away to over
> 100,000 while masters and BSs level off at 65,000 or lower. By the
> time one is 40 years old, the difference between MS and BS goes away
> completely. If very focused, one can go from MS to PhD in
> non-totally-experimental science e.g. (bio) math/statistics as quick
> as in 3 years. If planning to stay in science, getting a PhD is very
> sensible. Add to that the independent research possibilities etc., the
> choice should be clear.

But so many post-grad degrees involve removing yourself from the
workplace at an advanced age (i.e., after 21, when you've finally
figured out what you want to be when you grow up.) I ran the numbers
when I went back for my masters in accounting. I was considering
becoming a tax attorney instead of a CPA, but the loss from the extra
non-earning years (while paying tuition) didn't make up for the
increased earning potential for a mid-thirties woman in a small town. I
now consider tax attorneys to be CPAs who couldn't run the numbers. :-)

In general I've found that a master's degree is a sweet spot: enough
extra earning potential without a lot of extra time out of the wage
market. In fact, a lot of people can get a master's in their spare
time. A Ph.D., however, is a bit harder to earn on the side. And it's
too easy to spend your youth mired in academia instead of pulling in 60K.

Dally

Donovan Rebbechi
October 3rd 04, 11:07 PM
On 2004-10-03, Dally > wrote:

> But so many post-grad degrees involve removing yourself from the
> workplace at an advanced age (i.e., after 21, when you've finally
> figured out what you want to be when you grow up.)

Exactly -- and that's also the sort of age where you really want to start
saving. A PhD can't even start until they're almost 30. So it's not very
lucrative unless you do really well after you graduate.

> In general I've found that a master's degree is a sweet spot: enough
> extra earning potential without a lot of extra time out of the wage
> market.

But that really depends on the field of study. In math it's seen as a
consolation prize for flunking out of the PhD program. OTOH, there's no
way a good business school will give you an MBA for flunking out of a PhD
program.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Jim
October 3rd 04, 11:25 PM
How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened to Rush
talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing my ass
off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak trying to
salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.

Jim

Pete
October 4th 04, 12:36 AM
Dally wrote:

> Well, I don't much like you calling me 'sweetheart'. Doesn't that
> count?
>
> Dally

Sorry, that was out of line.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/1/2004

Donovan Rebbechi
October 4th 04, 01:51 AM
On 2004-10-03, Pete > wrote:
> Dally wrote:
>
>> Well, I don't much like you calling me 'sweetheart'. Doesn't that
>> count?
>
> Sorry, that was out of line.

It appears I've misjudged you. Please disregard my previous rant in this
thread.

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

John Hanson
October 4th 04, 03:21 AM
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:04:06 -0400, Dally > wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> It looks like for the education-level/vote curve we have a "U" curve
>> here, with Bush getting the votes in the middle.
>>
>> I have no data to back this up, but you probably don't either.
>
>One of the question here is "how would the people who don't vote vote if
>they voted?" It's really tough to try to study this question as people
>will lie about whether they vote or not as well as lie about how they
>voted and none of these things can be determined.
>
>I liked Kathy's idea of only discussing politics with people who vote.
>I vote. What about you guys?
>
>By the way, I've got an interesting dilemma in this regard. I'm serving
>dinner at a soup kitchen on Nov. 2. In effect, I'm going to be with a
>crowd of very poor and/or homelss people. I could 'encourage' them to
>vote by hauling their asses down to the polling place in my minivan
>after dinner. Should I do this? (This presupposes they're registered
>to vote, a shaky proposition but quite possible in this state with voter
>registration tied into the driver's license renewals.)
>
I'm sure the Democratic Party already has the bus reserved for them
and their cartons of cigarettes bought already.

John Hanson
October 4th 04, 03:31 AM
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened to Rush
>talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing my ass
>off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak trying to
>salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
>
Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
Donovan's post regarding PhDs?

Jim
October 4th 04, 03:40 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened to
Rush
> >talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing my ass
> >off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak trying to
> >salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
> >
> Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
> Donovan's post regarding PhDs?

No,I posted this because Bush is unfit to be president.

Jim

John Hanson
October 4th 04, 04:01 AM
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:40:13 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>> in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened to
>Rush
>> >talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing my ass
>> >off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak trying to
>> >salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
>> >
>> Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
>> Donovan's post regarding PhDs?
>
>No,I posted this because Bush is unfit to be president.
>
I'm sure the Democratic Party is proud to have you as a member.

Jim
October 4th 04, 04:03 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:40:13 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> >> in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened to
> >Rush
> >> >talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing my
ass
> >> >off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak trying
to
> >> >salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
> >> >
> >> Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
> >> Donovan's post regarding PhDs?
> >
> >No,I posted this because Bush is unfit to be president.
> >
> I'm sure the Democratic Party is proud to have you as a member.
>

And more than ever I am proud to support John Kerry.
Not just because I've been a Democrat,but because I sincerely like the man.
Win or lose. He was a man in the debate,Bush was a spoiled brat. I saw that.

Jim

John Hanson
October 4th 04, 04:09 AM
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:03:07 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:40:13 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>> in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>> >> in misc.fitness.weights:
>> >>
>> >> >How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened to
>> >Rush
>> >> >talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing my
>ass
>> >> >off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak trying
>to
>> >> >salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
>> >> >
>> >> Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
>> >> Donovan's post regarding PhDs?
>> >
>> >No,I posted this because Bush is unfit to be president.
>> >
>> I'm sure the Democratic Party is proud to have you as a member.
>>
>
>And more than ever I am proud to support John Kerry.
>Not just because I've been a Democrat,but because I sincerely like the man.
>Win or lose. He was a man in the debate,Bush was a spoiled brat. I saw that.
>
I'm sure it won't be long before you head the Democratic ticket. You
are a loyal party member.

John M. Williams
October 4th 04, 04:11 AM
John Hanson > wrote:

>On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>in misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened to Rush
>>talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing my ass
>>off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak trying to
>>salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
>>
>Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
>Donovan's post regarding PhDs?

That's like saying, "Mommy, who is that silly man on the sidewalk
yelling at?"

Jim
October 4th 04, 04:16 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:03:07 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:40:13 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> >> in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> >> >> in misc.fitness.weights:
> >> >>
> >> >> >How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened
to
> >> >Rush
> >> >> >talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing
my
> >ass
> >> >> >off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak
trying
> >to
> >> >> >salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
> >> >> Donovan's post regarding PhDs?
> >> >
> >> >No,I posted this because Bush is unfit to be president.
> >> >
> >> I'm sure the Democratic Party is proud to have you as a member.
> >>
> >
> >And more than ever I am proud to support John Kerry.
> >Not just because I've been a Democrat,but because I sincerely like the
man.
> >Win or lose. He was a man in the debate,Bush was a spoiled brat. I saw
that.
> >
> I'm sure it won't be long before you head the Democratic ticket. You
> are a loyal party member.
>

You make it sound like a facsist(sp)thing. Look at your own party. Oh..you
call yourself a libertarian..LOL. no John..you support George W. The worst
of them all.

Jim

John Hanson
October 4th 04, 04:17 AM
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:11:29 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>John Hanson > wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>>in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened to Rush
>>>talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing my ass
>>>off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak trying to
>>>salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
>>>
>>Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
>>Donovan's post regarding PhDs?
>
>That's like saying, "Mommy, who is that silly man on the sidewalk
>yelling at?"

BWAHAHAHA

John M. Williams
October 4th 04, 04:17 AM
"Jim" > wrote:
>"John Hanson" > wrote:
>> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote:
>> >> "Jim" > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened to
>> >> >Rush talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was
>> >> >laughing my ass off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches
>> >> >as we speak trying to salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
>> >>
>> >> Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
>> >> Donovan's post regarding PhDs?
>> >
>> >No,I posted this because Bush is unfit to be president.
>> >
>> I'm sure the Democratic Party is proud to have you as a member.
>
>And more than ever I am proud to support John Kerry.
>Not just because I've been a Democrat,but because I sincerely like the man.
>Win or lose. He was a man in the debate,Bush was a spoiled brat. I saw that.

George W. Bush is really glad that guys like you and Mr. Hankey exist.

Jim
October 4th 04, 04:20 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:11:29 -0400, John M. Williams
> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >John Hanson > wrote:
> >
> >>On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> >>in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >>>How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened to
Rush
> >>>talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing my
ass
> >>>off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak trying
to
> >>>salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
> >>>
> >>Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
> >>Donovan's post regarding PhDs?
> >
> >That's like saying, "Mommy, who is that silly man on the sidewalk
> >yelling at?"
>
> BWAHAHAHA


What is that about?

John Hanson
October 4th 04, 04:26 AM
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:16:58 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:03:07 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>> in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >
>> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 22:40:13 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>> >> in misc.fitness.weights:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>> >> >> in misc.fitness.weights:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened
>to
>> >> >Rush
>> >> >> >talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing
>my
>> >ass
>> >> >> >off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak
>trying
>> >to
>> >> >> >salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
>> >> >> Donovan's post regarding PhDs?
>> >> >
>> >> >No,I posted this because Bush is unfit to be president.
>> >> >
>> >> I'm sure the Democratic Party is proud to have you as a member.
>> >>
>> >
>> >And more than ever I am proud to support John Kerry.
>> >Not just because I've been a Democrat,but because I sincerely like the
>man.
>> >Win or lose. He was a man in the debate,Bush was a spoiled brat. I saw
>that.
>> >
>> I'm sure it won't be long before you head the Democratic ticket. You
>> are a loyal party member.
>>
>
>You make it sound like a facsist(sp)thing. Look at your own party. Oh..you
>call yourself a libertarian..LOL. no John..you support George W. The worst
>of them all.
>
How do I make it sound like a fascist thing? I really believe you
would make an excellent candidate on the Democratic ticket. You even
believe your party's platform and I don't think you would knowingly
make things up in order to appeal to the ignorant folks. The type who
have trouble marking a ballot or who have spent most of their lives in
a haze from drugs and alcohol.

John Hanson
October 4th 04, 04:28 AM
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:20:08 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
in misc.fitness.weights:

>
>"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
>> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:11:29 -0400, John M. Williams
>> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>> >John Hanson > wrote:
>> >
>> >>On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
>> >>in misc.fitness.weights:
>> >>
>> >>>How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened to
>Rush
>> >>>talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing my
>ass
>> >>>off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak trying
>to
>> >>>salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
>> >>>
>> >>Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
>> >>Donovan's post regarding PhDs?
>> >
>> >That's like saying, "Mommy, who is that silly man on the sidewalk
>> >yelling at?"
>>
>> BWAHAHAHA
>
>
>What is that about?
>
I was just clearing my throat. Excuse me.

Dally
October 4th 04, 04:33 AM
John Hanson wrote:

> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:04:06 -0400, Dally > wrote in
> misc.fitness.weights:
>
>
>>Al Dykes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It looks like for the education-level/vote curve we have a "U" curve
>>>here, with Bush getting the votes in the middle.
>>>
>>>I have no data to back this up, but you probably don't either.
>>
>>One of the question here is "how would the people who don't vote vote if
>>they voted?" It's really tough to try to study this question as people
>>will lie about whether they vote or not as well as lie about how they
>>voted and none of these things can be determined.
>>
>>I liked Kathy's idea of only discussing politics with people who vote.
>>I vote. What about you guys?
>>
>>By the way, I've got an interesting dilemma in this regard. I'm serving
>>dinner at a soup kitchen on Nov. 2. In effect, I'm going to be with a
>>crowd of very poor and/or homelss people. I could 'encourage' them to
>>vote by hauling their asses down to the polling place in my minivan
>>after dinner. Should I do this? (This presupposes they're registered
>>to vote, a shaky proposition but quite possible in this state with voter
>>registration tied into the driver's license renewals.)
>>
>
> I'm sure the Democratic Party already has the bus reserved for them
> and their cartons of cigarettes bought already.

Phew. I hate having to get the mini-van detailed.

Dally

Jim
October 4th 04, 04:36 AM
"John Hanson" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:20:08 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> in misc.fitness.weights:
>
> >
> >"John Hanson" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 23:11:29 -0400, John M. Williams
> >> > wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
> >>
> >> >John Hanson > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 18:25:09 -0400, "Jim" > wrote
> >> >>in misc.fitness.weights:
> >> >>
> >> >>>How about the right wing spin? Its hilarious. I actually listened
to
> >Rush
> >> >>>talking about the debate and instead of getting mad I was laughing
my
> >ass
> >> >>>off. Karl Rove and Karen Hughes are in the trenches as we speak
trying
> >to
> >> >>>salvage this asshole. And..they probably will.
> >> >>>
> >> >>Is my news reader broke or did Jim just post this as a follow up to
> >> >>Donovan's post regarding PhDs?
> >> >
> >> >That's like saying, "Mommy, who is that silly man on the sidewalk
> >> >yelling at?"
> >>
> >> BWAHAHAHA
> >
> >
> >What is that about?
> >
> I was just clearing my throat. Excuse me.
>
>

Yer excused.. I argrue with my friends about this **** and it never
works..im sure this going back and forth on the internet is even worse.
So,as my favorite conservative says...we have to agree to disagree. G.
Gordon.

Jim

Brandon Berg
October 4th 04, 05:01 AM
"Dally" > wrote in message
...
> By the way, I've got an interesting dilemma in this regard. I'm serving
> dinner at a soup kitchen on Nov. 2. In effect, I'm going to be with a
> crowd of very poor and/or homelss people. I could 'encourage' them to
> vote by hauling their asses down to the polling place in my minivan after
> dinner. Should I do this? (This presupposes they're registered to vote,
> a shaky proposition but quite possible in this state with voter
> registration tied into the driver's license renewals.)

Think about it this way: Would you like them to take the very same
decision-making skills that landed them in a soup kitchen and apply them to
decisions that will have a profound effect on your life?

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Brandon Berg
October 4th 04, 07:56 AM
"Jim" > wrote in message
...
> Yer excused.. I argrue with my friends about this **** and it never
> works..im sure this going back and forth on the internet is even worse.
> So,as my favorite conservative says...we have to agree to disagree. G.
> Gordon.

True, one rarely accomplishes much in terms of conversions, but for me
that's beside the point. I think of it less as an exercise in improving
others than as an exercise in improving myself. Writing hundreds of
thousands of words has taught me eloquence. Thinking and rethinking my
positions in response to challenges has taught me more about economics than
reading ever did. Embarassment over debunked claims of things I thought I
knew has taught me to think rigorously and never to make a claim I'm not
sure I can defend. Regret over heated words has taught me grace, civility,
and patience.

In short, Usenet has made me a better writer, a better economist, a better
thinker, and a better man.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Al Dykes
October 4th 04, 09:00 PM
In article >,
John Hanson > wrote:
>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:04:06 -0400, Dally > wrote in
>misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>Al Dykes wrote:
>>
>>> It looks like for the education-level/vote curve we have a "U" curve
>>> here, with Bush getting the votes in the middle.
>>>
>>> I have no data to back this up, but you probably don't either.
>>
>>One of the question here is "how would the people who don't vote vote if
>>they voted?" It's really tough to try to study this question as people
>>will lie about whether they vote or not as well as lie about how they
>>voted and none of these things can be determined.
>>
>>I liked Kathy's idea of only discussing politics with people who vote.
>>I vote. What about you guys?
>>
>>By the way, I've got an interesting dilemma in this regard. I'm serving
>>dinner at a soup kitchen on Nov. 2. In effect, I'm going to be with a
>>crowd of very poor and/or homelss people. I could 'encourage' them to
>>vote by hauling their asses down to the polling place in my minivan
>>after dinner. Should I do this? (This presupposes they're registered
>>to vote, a shaky proposition but quite possible in this state with voter
>>registration tied into the driver's license renewals.)
>>
>I'm sure the Democratic Party already has the bus reserved for them
>and their cartons of cigarettes bought already.
>

Very funny.

Us Democrats have been talking about hiring a NASCAR stadium in each
of the swing states and running a FREE NASCAR event with FREE
BEER. We open up an hour before the polls, and let everyone old enough
to drink in. The only hitch is they have to agreee to stay all day
and we keep running races until after the polls close.

Keeping 10 or 20,000 adults entertained all day would probably swing
each of these states.







--
Al Dykes
-----------
adykes at p a n i x . c o m

Dally
October 4th 04, 10:09 PM
Brandon Berg wrote:

> True, one rarely accomplishes much in terms of conversions, but for me
> that's beside the point. I think of it less as an exercise in improving
> others than as an exercise in improving myself. Writing hundreds of
> thousands of words has taught me eloquence. Thinking and rethinking my
> positions in response to challenges has taught me more about economics than
> reading ever did. Embarassment over debunked claims of things I thought I
> knew has taught me to think rigorously and never to make a claim I'm not
> sure I can defend. Regret over heated words has taught me grace, civility,
> and patience.
>
> In short, Usenet has made me a better writer, a better economist, a better
> thinker, and a better man.

Sniff. That brought tears to my eyes. I very rarely see the virtues
extolled of spending endless hours on usenet.

Dally

John HUDSON
October 4th 04, 11:37 PM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:09:33 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>Brandon Berg wrote:
>
>> True, one rarely accomplishes much in terms of conversions, but for me
>> that's beside the point. I think of it less as an exercise in improving
>> others than as an exercise in improving myself. Writing hundreds of
>> thousands of words has taught me eloquence. Thinking and rethinking my
>> positions in response to challenges has taught me more about economics than
>> reading ever did. Embarassment over debunked claims of things I thought I
>> knew has taught me to think rigorously and never to make a claim I'm not
>> sure I can defend. Regret over heated words has taught me grace, civility,
>> and patience.
>>
>> In short, Usenet has made me a better writer, a better economist, a better
>> thinker, and a better man.
>
>Sniff. That brought tears to my eyes. I very rarely see the virtues
>extolled of spending endless hours on usenet.

I so pleased that you now really have grasped the sarcasm thing
Wendallyn!! ;o)

I agree, Brandon was waxing a trifle lyrical and being a bit of a
luvvie!!

Joe Laughlin
October 5th 04, 12:00 AM
Pete wrote:
> Dally wrote:
>
>> When it comes right down to it, this election is going
>> to be decided by the people who are undecided and they
>> are typically lower education, uninformed and apathetic.
>> They know Bush's name and he sounds presidential. oh,
>> and he likes guns. Honestly, that's all it takes.
>>
>> Dally (but a Supreme Court in your favor helps)
>
> You may want to take a look at the demographics of the
> Democratic Party, sweetheart.
>


I read a news article the other day and a much greater percentage of
democratic voters correctly identified Kerry's views on assorted issues than
republicans did on Bush's views.

John Hanson
October 5th 04, 02:28 AM
On 4 Oct 2004 16:00:24 -0400, (Al Dykes) wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>In article >,
>John Hanson > wrote:
>>On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:04:06 -0400, Dally > wrote in
>>misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>>Al Dykes wrote:
>>>
>>>> It looks like for the education-level/vote curve we have a "U" curve
>>>> here, with Bush getting the votes in the middle.
>>>>
>>>> I have no data to back this up, but you probably don't either.
>>>
>>>One of the question here is "how would the people who don't vote vote if
>>>they voted?" It's really tough to try to study this question as people
>>>will lie about whether they vote or not as well as lie about how they
>>>voted and none of these things can be determined.
>>>
>>>I liked Kathy's idea of only discussing politics with people who vote.
>>>I vote. What about you guys?
>>>
>>>By the way, I've got an interesting dilemma in this regard. I'm serving
>>>dinner at a soup kitchen on Nov. 2. In effect, I'm going to be with a
>>>crowd of very poor and/or homelss people. I could 'encourage' them to
>>>vote by hauling their asses down to the polling place in my minivan
>>>after dinner. Should I do this? (This presupposes they're registered
>>>to vote, a shaky proposition but quite possible in this state with voter
>>>registration tied into the driver's license renewals.)
>>>
>>I'm sure the Democratic Party already has the bus reserved for them
>>and their cartons of cigarettes bought already.
>>
>
>Very funny.

You may think this is funny but the Democratic party has done this
numerous times in the past.

>
>Us Democrats have been talking about hiring a NASCAR stadium in each
>of the swing states and running a FREE NASCAR event with FREE
>BEER. We open up an hour before the polls, and let everyone old enough
>to drink in. The only hitch is they have to agreee to stay all day
>and we keep running races until after the polls close.
>
>Keeping 10 or 20,000 adults entertained all day would probably swing
>each of these states.

The NASCAR dads thing is a fallacy.

Kathy Marie
October 5th 04, 02:29 AM
> "Brandon Berg" wrote in message
...
> > "Kathy Marie"wrote in ...
> >> Brandon Berg wrote in message
<snip>
> >> If you cancel each other out, why not just stay home?
> > Because voting is _important_!
> Why?

See below.


> > People have bled and *died* to give us the freedom to vote
> Who? People have bled and died for freedom from taxes (taxes much lower, I
> might add, than those that burden us today), but I don't recall any wars
> fought for "the freedom to vote." What does that mean, anyway? Everyone,
> everywhere, can vote as often as he likes. I'm voting for myself right
now.
> I just did it again. Now I'm voting for you.

??? If you're voting by typing on Usenet, then I don't understand your
definition of voting.

I was thinking about the Revolutionary War & "no taxation w/o
representation" but it doesn't mention voting exactly, you're right. We
vote for representatives but I don't recall if that was spelled out yet when
the war started. What did tick off the colonists was being *told* what they
were going to do whether they liked it or not (OK massive simplification
here) and the system eventually settled on included the concept of "one man,
one vote."

Of course it was actually "one white property owning male" when everything
started...



> What you mean, I suspect, is the *power* to participate in the selection
of a group of people who are to be entrusted with far more power than is
moral or prudent.

Moral/prudent varies with whom you ask; the idea is having a choice and a
voice. Wasn't that what made Napoleon so attractive to his countrymen, the
idea of rewards going to the people that produce results instead of people
who were born to receive them (I believe his symbol was the bee)? You had
choices that weren't available under the royalty system...



> > it's a privilege and a *responsibility*. And I know that
> > people say it doesn't matter who votes, it matters who counts,
> > blahblahblah.
> There's some fraud, but the counts are probably roughly accurate. That's
not
> the real problem. Democracy is fatally flawed even when the rules are
> observed scrupulously.

I'm not sure what you mean by fatally flawed.

But, probably pretty much every governmental scheme is fatally flawed?
Because by definition every government contains people...

It may be that the best thing to be said for democracy is it's the Least
Worst Government but IMHO that's still something. It takes Real People (not
saints) and somehow manages to run...

(and yes, I know that strictly speaking we're not a democracy, but let's not
go there, 'kay?)



> > Well IMHO, disgraceful voter turnout rates are a threat to democracy
> Precisely. That's why I don't vote. It gives the illusion of legitimacy to
> the winner.

??? Look, there is an agreed-upon process, we've been having elections/this
governmental system for a long time.

I fail to see what refusing to participate does to the legitimacy of the
winner of the process. Unless you're planning on organizing all the
non-voters and overthrowing the system, say; but since those people are
reasonably apathetic in the first place, rotsa ruck.



> > --the
> > last numbers I saw showed half or less of the eligible voters bother.
> If only they were not voting for the right reasons! But look on the bright
> side: Do you really want the typical nonvoter to be making decisions about
> important issues that affect your life?

OK, I'll ask the obvious: what are your "right reasons"?

And as for the typical nonvoter, there probably isn't one. One thing my
stats prof DID manage to ram through my head: there is more variation
within groups than between them...

And as for making decisions that affect my life, people do so all the time.
I ride a motorcycle and I can't control what all the yayhoo cagers are going
to do for a simple example...

Kathy Marie
in Wisconsin...

John Hanson
October 5th 04, 02:29 AM
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:00:02 GMT, "Joe Laughlin"
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>Pete wrote:
>> Dally wrote:
>>
>>> When it comes right down to it, this election is going
>>> to be decided by the people who are undecided and they
>>> are typically lower education, uninformed and apathetic.
>>> They know Bush's name and he sounds presidential. oh,
>>> and he likes guns. Honestly, that's all it takes.
>>>
>>> Dally (but a Supreme Court in your favor helps)
>>
>> You may want to take a look at the demographics of the
>> Democratic Party, sweetheart.
>>
>
>
>I read a news article the other day and a much greater percentage of
>democratic voters correctly identified Kerry's views on assorted issues than
>republicans did on Bush's views.
>
That his position is both sides of an issue?

Kathy Marie
October 5th 04, 03:29 AM
"Brandon Berg" wrote in message
...

> True, one rarely accomplishes much in terms of conversions, but for me
> that's beside the point. I think of it less as an exercise in improving
> others than as an exercise in improving myself.
<snip>
> In short, Usenet has made me a better writer, a better economist, a better
> thinker, and a better man.

Uhm.

Are you serious?

Kathy Marie
very surprised in Wisconsin...

John M. Williams
October 5th 04, 03:31 AM
"Joe Laughlin" > wrote:
>
>I read a news article the other day and a much greater percentage of
>democratic voters correctly identified Kerry's views on assorted issues than
>republicans did on Bush's views.

Given Kerry's doublespeak, that makes it easy for Democratic voters:
any answer is right.

Proton Soup
October 5th 04, 03:46 AM
On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 21:49:08 -0500, elzinator
> wrote:

>On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 21:29:09 -0500, Kathy Marie wrote:
>>
>>"Brandon Berg" wrote in message
...
>>
>>> True, one rarely accomplishes much in terms of conversions, but for me
>>> that's beside the point. I think of it less as an exercise in improving
>>> others than as an exercise in improving myself.
>><snip>
>>> In short, Usenet has made me a better writer, a better economist, a better
>>> thinker, and a better man.
>>
>>Uhm.
>>
>>Are you serious?
>
>I think he needs to get a life.

He got something of a point. I think Usenet improved my own writing,
but that was a decade ago when it wasn't such a cesspool. It at least
improves the ability to form decent written arguments, because once
you send it out there, it's available for anyone to pick apart and you
can't unsend it (at least not anymore).

Better at the other things though is difficult to defend. You may
just get better at pushing a stupid idea.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

elzinator
October 5th 04, 03:49 AM
On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 21:29:09 -0500, Kathy Marie wrote:
>
>"Brandon Berg" wrote in message
...
>
>> True, one rarely accomplishes much in terms of conversions, but for me
>> that's beside the point. I think of it less as an exercise in improving
>> others than as an exercise in improving myself.
><snip>
>> In short, Usenet has made me a better writer, a better economist, a better
>> thinker, and a better man.
>
>Uhm.
>
>Are you serious?

I think he needs to get a life.


Beelzibub

"Modern man must rediscover a deeper source of his own spiritual life. To do this,he is obligated
to struggle with evil, to confront his own shadow, to integrate the devil."
- Carl Jung

DRS
October 5th 04, 11:12 AM
"Kathy Marie" > wrote in message


[...]

> (and yes, I know that strictly speaking we're not a democracy, but
> let's not go there, 'kay?)

Strictly speaking you're a representative democracy.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Joe Laughlin
October 6th 04, 12:39 AM
John Hanson wrote:
> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:00:02 GMT, "Joe Laughlin"
> > wrote in
> misc.fitness.weights:
>
>> Pete wrote:
>>> Dally wrote:
>>>
>>>> When it comes right down to it, this election is going
>>>> to be decided by the people who are undecided and they
>>>> are typically lower education, uninformed and
>>>> apathetic. They know Bush's name and he sounds
>>>> presidential. oh, and he likes guns. Honestly,
>>>> that's all it takes.
>>>>
>>>> Dally (but a Supreme Court in your favor helps)
>>>
>>> You may want to take a look at the demographics of the
>>> Democratic Party, sweetheart.
>>>
>>
>>
>> I read a news article the other day and a much greater
>> percentage of democratic voters correctly identified
>> Kerry's views on assorted issues than republicans did on
>> Bush's views.
>>
> That his position is both sides of an issue?

Of course. Kerry has always came down on both sides of all issues that have
been brought up. This is no exageration at all!

Jim
October 6th 04, 01:48 AM
I'm going out for cigarretes and beer. Let the debate begin!

Jim

Kathy Marie
October 6th 04, 03:03 AM
> Proton Soup wrote in message
...
> > elzinator wrote:
> >> Kathy Marie wrote:
> >>> "Brandon Berg" wrote:
> >><snip>
> >>> In short, Usenet has made me a better writer, a better economist, a
better
> >>> thinker, and a better man.
> >>Uhm.
> >>Are you serious?
> >I think he needs to get a life.

> He got something of a point. I think Usenet improved my own writing,
> but that was a decade ago when it wasn't such a cesspool. It at least
> improves the ability to form decent written arguments, because once
> you send it out there, it's available for anyone to pick apart and you
> can't unsend it (at least not anymore).

??? I have to agree with elzinator here, I think he needs to get a life.
As for improving writing, OK; but I thought there was still the ability to
recall or cancel a post?


> Better at the other things though is difficult to defend. You may just
get better at pushing a stupid idea.

I think the other things probably count for a lot more in the long run...

Kathy Marie
in Wisconsin....

Not your business
October 6th 04, 03:22 AM

Rutabaga22
October 6th 04, 03:27 AM
>long term history suggests democrats are fantastic at defending the
US.

Until about 1972, they were. I respect FDR's war leadership tremendously.
Truman and Kennedy were also strong leaders.

>Short term history suggests republicans are absolutely horrible at limiting
government and democrats are "OK" at it.

*Very* short term. I don't really support Bush's nonmilitary spending
increases - he's just pandering. The Democrats, however, have made increasing
the size and cost of government the centerpiece of their philosophy for 70
years.
(Bill Clinton was a modest exception, restraining the growth of spending while
aggressively raising taxes.)

>I'm not sure what you base your comments on.

Now you are. cheers,

Jim
October 6th 04, 03:28 AM
"Not your business" > wrote in message
...
>

Thank God...I support Kerry...but his lose will not cost me a tear. A Bush
win is the best thing for the Dems.

Jim

John Hanson
October 6th 04, 04:01 AM
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:22:24 GMT, Not your business
> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

I was flipping between the debate and the ball game. Edwards is
Cheney's bitch.

Did anyone else get the impression that Edwards is a half clever rube
who made all of his money by winning over poor, ignorant jurors?

MJL
October 6th 04, 04:22 AM
On 06 Oct 2004 02:27:39 GMT, (Rutabaga22) wrote:

>>long term history suggests democrats are fantastic at defending the
>US.
>
>Until about 1972, they were. I respect FDR's war leadership tremendously.
>Truman and Kennedy were also strong leaders.
>

I'd suggest Kerry is cut from the same cloth.

>>Short term history suggests republicans are absolutely horrible at limiting
>government and democrats are "OK" at it.
>
>*Very* short term. I don't really support Bush's nonmilitary spending
>increases - he's just pandering. The Democrats, however, have made increasing
>the size and cost of government the centerpiece of their philosophy for 70
>years.
>(Bill Clinton was a modest exception, restraining the growth of spending while
>aggressively raising taxes.)

Liberals screwed up. There are no two ways about it. Many of their
social policies were wrong and they hung on to them for way too long.
It is a shame because America started to get it right under Bill
Clinton and the American people elected Gore, they wanted more of the
same. Unfortunately the US Supreme Court stepped in and awarded the
election to Bush.

Bush's administration has been horrid on almost every level. However,
he has the support of backlashers and that is not a group who will be
swayed by reason or logic. I think the lasting legacy of this first 4
years after the SC intervention will be a historic missed opportunity
to lead America to truly serious energy policy reform. Instead it was
used to set up a policy to use blood to secure the world's oil
reserves so we can drive 8000lb SUVs right up till the bitter end and
every drop is squeezed out of the earth. This is the result of a
backlasher presidency and it is a tragedy for the world.

A second 4 years will secure to backlashers a belief that as long as
they stick together they can't lose. This would be a dreadful
development as the backlashers will work day and night to make the
government a theocracy. The irony is just how close this contest will
be. I think America, and the world generally, sense how important
this election is.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Rutabaga22
October 6th 04, 04:22 AM
>Kerry's fantasy plan of selling the French and German people on the idea
of entering what they believe to be an intractable quagmire...

Maybe that's what the French and Germans believe, or maybe they don't want to
alienate their massive Muslim minorities. It's called politics.

Brian Link
October 6th 04, 04:23 AM
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:22:24 GMT, Not your business
> wrote:

Both well-spoken, both appealing in completely different ways, both
hammered their talking points, no major gaffes. Both missed
ridiculously sweet opportunites to tear into the other one. Gwen Ifil
sucked so bad things were flying around my room.

Actual result was probably a tie.

As a Kerry supporter, I thought Edwards held his own against Lord
Vader. Constantly pointed out inconsistencies and dishonesties. Darth
Cheney continued the Republican strategy of simply repeating lies
until they sounded true.

Remember how Cheney completely disembowelled Lieberman? Edwards did
fine.

The Right Wing Media will call it for Cheney, as it was such a shock
to see a Republican candidate who could string sentences together. All
bull**** of course, but a big change from George W Sockpuppet last
week.

Pretty boring television, actually. I think if you were undecided you
woulda flipped channels after the first 15 minutes. If you're a
partisan, your guy won.

I'm looking forward to next Friday.

BLink

John Hanson
October 6th 04, 04:31 AM
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:22:07 GMT, MJL > wrote in
misc.fitness.weights:

>On 06 Oct 2004 02:27:39 GMT, (Rutabaga22) wrote:
>
>>>long term history suggests democrats are fantastic at defending the
>>US.
>>
>>Until about 1972, they were. I respect FDR's war leadership tremendously.
>>Truman and Kennedy were also strong leaders.
>>
>
>I'd suggest Kerry is cut from the same cloth.
>
>>>Short term history suggests republicans are absolutely horrible at limiting
>>government and democrats are "OK" at it.
>>
>>*Very* short term. I don't really support Bush's nonmilitary spending
>>increases - he's just pandering. The Democrats, however, have made increasing
>>the size and cost of government the centerpiece of their philosophy for 70
>>years.
>>(Bill Clinton was a modest exception, restraining the growth of spending while
>>aggressively raising taxes.)
>
>Liberals screwed up. There are no two ways about it. Many of their
>social policies were wrong and they hung on to them for way too long.
>It is a shame because America started to get it right under Bill
>Clinton and the American people elected Gore, they wanted more of the
>same. Unfortunately the US Supreme Court stepped in and awarded the
>election to Bush.

Bush won Florida. Bush won the election. Get over it, ya big baby.

>
>Bush's administration has been horrid on almost every level. However,
>he has the support of backlashers and that is not a group who will be
>swayed by reason or logic. I think the lasting legacy of this first 4
>years after the SC intervention will be a historic missed opportunity
>to lead America to truly serious energy policy reform. Instead it was
>used to set up a policy to use blood to secure the world's oil
>reserves so we can drive 8000lb SUVs right up till the bitter end and
>every drop is squeezed out of the earth. This is the result of a
>backlasher presidency and it is a tragedy for the world.

There isn't a finite amount of oil in the Earth. It keeps being
produced.

>
>A second 4 years will secure to backlashers a belief that as long as
>they stick together they can't lose. This would be a dreadful
>development as the backlashers will work day and night to make the
>government a theocracy. The irony is just how close this contest will
>be. I think America, and the world generally, sense how important
>this election is.

A theocracy? Put down the crack pipe, Mike.

Pete
October 6th 04, 04:38 AM
Hank" <"bu$h wrote:
> "John M. Williams" wrote:
>
>> And all the CNN pundits admit that you can't get clear polling
>> results until about 72 hours after the debate, when the undecideds
>> have had some time to think about it, and all the "spin" has died
>> down.
>
> It's died down, and bu$h still got his ass kicked. But that's
> no great feat. Crushing bu$h or one of his ignorant, hateful
> followers in a debate is about as effortless as breathing. <chuckle>

But ya know, Spanky, when all's said and done, in spite of all your whining
and puking; it's gonna be four more years, baby, four more years. <chuckle>


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/3/2004

Pete
October 6th 04, 04:43 AM
DRS wrote:
> "Kathy Marie" > wrote in message
>
>
> [...]
>
>> (and yes, I know that strictly speaking we're not a democracy, but
>> let's not go there, 'kay?)
>
> Strictly speaking you're a representative democracy.

Strictly speaking, you know about as much about our form of government, as
you do about the psychological effects of infant circumcision.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/3/2004

David Cohen
October 6th 04, 05:11 AM
"Jim" > wrote


> Thank God...I support Kerry...but his lose will not cost me a tear. A Bush
> win is the best thing for the Dems.

Huh? Would you please explain that, Jim.

David

MJL
October 6th 04, 05:14 AM
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:31:21 -0500, John Hanson
> wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 03:22:07 GMT, MJL > wrote in
>misc.fitness.weights:
>
>>On 06 Oct 2004 02:27:39 GMT, (Rutabaga22) wrote:
>>
>>>>long term history suggests democrats are fantastic at defending the
>>>US.
>>>
>>>Until about 1972, they were. I respect FDR's war leadership tremendously.
>>>Truman and Kennedy were also strong leaders.
>>>
>>
>>I'd suggest Kerry is cut from the same cloth.
>>
>>>>Short term history suggests republicans are absolutely horrible at limiting
>>>government and democrats are "OK" at it.
>>>
>>>*Very* short term. I don't really support Bush's nonmilitary spending
>>>increases - he's just pandering. The Democrats, however, have made increasing
>>>the size and cost of government the centerpiece of their philosophy for 70
>>>years.
>>>(Bill Clinton was a modest exception, restraining the growth of spending while
>>>aggressively raising taxes.)
>>
>>Liberals screwed up. There are no two ways about it. Many of their
>>social policies were wrong and they hung on to them for way too long.
>>It is a shame because America started to get it right under Bill
>>Clinton and the American people elected Gore, they wanted more of the
>>same. Unfortunately the US Supreme Court stepped in and awarded the
>>election to Bush.
>
>Bush won Florida. Bush won the election. Get over it, ya big baby.
>

In some "might makes right" way I suppose it is true.

>>
>>Bush's administration has been horrid on almost every level. However,
>>he has the support of backlashers and that is not a group who will be
>>swayed by reason or logic. I think the lasting legacy of this first 4
>>years after the SC intervention will be a historic missed opportunity
>>to lead America to truly serious energy policy reform. Instead it was
>>used to set up a policy to use blood to secure the world's oil
>>reserves so we can drive 8000lb SUVs right up till the bitter end and
>>every drop is squeezed out of the earth. This is the result of a
>>backlasher presidency and it is a tragedy for the world.
>
>There isn't a finite amount of oil in the Earth. It keeps being
>produced.
>

I think I should probably go back to the prudent policy of ignoring
you.

>>
>>A second 4 years will secure to backlashers a belief that as long as
>>they stick together they can't lose. This would be a dreadful
>>development as the backlashers will work day and night to make the
>>government a theocracy. The irony is just how close this contest will
>>be. I think America, and the world generally, sense how important
>>this election is.
>
>A theocracy? Put down the crack pipe, Mike.

--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

MJL
October 6th 04, 05:25 AM
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:23:52 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:22:24 GMT, Not your business
> wrote:
>
>Both well-spoken, both appealing in completely different ways, both
>hammered their talking points, no major gaffes. Both missed
>ridiculously sweet opportunites to tear into the other one. Gwen Ifil
>sucked so bad things were flying around my room.
>
>Actual result was probably a tie.
>
>As a Kerry supporter, I thought Edwards held his own against Lord
>Vader. Constantly pointed out inconsistencies and dishonesties. Darth
>Cheney continued the Republican strategy of simply repeating lies
>until they sounded true.
>
>Remember how Cheney completely disembowelled Lieberman? Edwards did
>fine.
>
>The Right Wing Media will call it for Cheney, as it was such a shock
>to see a Republican candidate who could string sentences together. All
>bull**** of course, but a big change from George W Sockpuppet last
>week.
>
>Pretty boring television, actually. I think if you were undecided you
>woulda flipped channels after the first 15 minutes. If you're a
>partisan, your guy won.
>
>I'm looking forward to next Friday.
>
>BLink

In a weird way all three of them may wind up conspiring to make Kerry
look like the only Presidential one in the bunch.

If Bush gets crushed again I don't think it is going to go well for
him in the polls.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Brian Link
October 6th 04, 06:17 AM
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 04:25:16 GMT, MJL > wrote:

>On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 22:23:52 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:22:24 GMT, Not your business
> wrote:
>>
>>Both well-spoken, both appealing in completely different ways, both
>>hammered their talking points, no major gaffes. Both missed
>>ridiculously sweet opportunites to tear into the other one. Gwen Ifil
>>sucked so bad things were flying around my room.
>>
>>Actual result was probably a tie.
>>
>>As a Kerry supporter, I thought Edwards held his own against Lord
>>Vader. Constantly pointed out inconsistencies and dishonesties. Darth
>>Cheney continued the Republican strategy of simply repeating lies
>>until they sounded true.
>>
>>Remember how Cheney completely disembowelled Lieberman? Edwards did
>>fine.
>>
>>The Right Wing Media will call it for Cheney, as it was such a shock
>>to see a Republican candidate who could string sentences together. All
>>bull**** of course, but a big change from George W Sockpuppet last
>>week.
>>
>>Pretty boring television, actually. I think if you were undecided you
>>woulda flipped channels after the first 15 minutes. If you're a
>>partisan, your guy won.
>>
>>I'm looking forward to next Friday.
>>
>>BLink
>
>In a weird way all three of them may wind up conspiring to make Kerry
>look like the only Presidential one in the bunch.
>
>If Bush gets crushed again I don't think it is going to go well for
>him in the polls.

eh.. remember Rove's sinister "we have a few surprises...".

All they need is 12 hours of uncritical stenography on whatever their
latest smear is. Doesn't matter if it's demonstrated to be hogwash,
that 12 hours will stick.

****es me off that CBS fumbled the ball on the National Guard thing.
Some folks that might actually have contributed to the truth are now
officially prevented from saying anything bad against the current
monarchy. This despite the fact that Bush was really AWOL... eh

Gotta stop doing political posts on mfw.. gets my blood pressure up.

BLink

PS.. best story about the Presidential debate I've heard..

Guy was watching the debate with his 18 year old son. The son was not
politically active, or even interested. After 20 minutes, the son
asked "Dad, am I old enough to vote?". Dad said yes.. who would you
like to vote for? Son answered "Kerry's the tall dude, right?" Dad
says why do you want to vote for Kerry? Son replies "Cause if they
were captured by terrorists, Kerry would tell them to go ****
themselves, and Bush would be crying for his mommy".

Priceless.

John M. Williams
October 6th 04, 07:00 AM
MJL > wrote:
>
>Liberals screwed up. There are no two ways about it. Many of their
>social policies were wrong and they hung on to them for way too long.
>It is a shame because America started to get it right under Bill
>Clinton and the American people elected Gore, they wanted more of the
>same. Unfortunately the US Supreme Court stepped in and awarded the
>election to Bush.
>
>Bush's administration has been horrid on almost every level. However,
>he has the support of backlashers and that is not a group who will be
>swayed by reason or logic.

Bull****. Kerry's Senate voting record clearly demonstrates that his
true agenda is to roll the country back to a welfare state. At this
point, his stated policies are merely pandering.

John M. Williams
October 6th 04, 07:02 AM
Brian Link > wrote:
>
>As a Kerry supporter, I thought Edwards held his own against Lord
>Vader. Constantly pointed out inconsistencies and dishonesties. Darth
>Cheney continued the Republican strategy of simply repeating lies
>until they sounded true.

Lies = facts you don't want to hear.

John M. Williams
October 6th 04, 07:06 AM
Brian Link > wrote:
>
>Gotta stop doing political posts on mfw.. gets my blood pressure up.

That type of emotional breakdown seems to plague a lot of Democrats.

John M. Williams
October 6th 04, 07:27 AM
"Pete" > wrote:
>Hank" <"bu$h wrote:
>> "John M. Williams" wrote:
>>
>>> And all the CNN pundits admit that you can't get clear polling
>>> results until about 72 hours after the debate, when the undecideds
>>> have had some time to think about it, and all the "spin" has died
>>> down.
>>
>> It's died down, and bu$h still got his ass kicked. But that's
>> no great feat. Crushing bu$h or one of his ignorant, hateful
>> followers in a debate is about as effortless as breathing. <chuckle>
>
>But ya know, Spanky, when all's said and done, in spite of all your whining
>and puking; it's gonna be four more years, baby, four more years. <chuckle>

That would drive Mr. Hankey nuts. He'll probably emigrate to North
Korea.

Clever Nym
October 6th 04, 08:01 AM
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:06:27 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Brian Link > wrote:
>>
>>Gotta stop doing political posts on mfw.. gets my blood pressure up.
>
>That type of emotional breakdown seems to plague a lot of Democrats.

Ah yes, if only I had the stamina of the Republithugs for lying like
it was breathing..

BLink

Clever Nym
October 6th 04, 08:03 AM
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:02:57 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Brian Link > wrote:
>>
>>As a Kerry supporter, I thought Edwards held his own against Lord
>>Vader. Constantly pointed out inconsistencies and dishonesties. Darth
>>Cheney continued the Republican strategy of simply repeating lies
>>until they sounded true.
>
>Lies = facts you don't want to hear.

Oh you are so entertaining.

Lies = things that are not true.

In the Republican lexicon, however,

Lies = speaking out loud

BLink

Brian Link
October 6th 04, 08:38 AM
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:02:57 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Brian Link > wrote:
>>
>>As a Kerry supporter, I thought Edwards held his own against Lord
>>Vader. Constantly pointed out inconsistencies and dishonesties. Darth
>>Cheney continued the Republican strategy of simply repeating lies
>>until they sounded true.
>
>Lies = facts you don't want to hear.

Hm. Name one ..

BLink

DRS
October 6th 04, 11:09 AM
"Pete" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>> "Kathy Marie" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> (and yes, I know that strictly speaking we're not a democracy, but
>>> let's not go there, 'kay?)
>>
>> Strictly speaking you're a representative democracy.
>
> Strictly speaking, you know about as much about our form of
> government, as you do about the psychological effects of infant
> circumcision.

Good, because that means I'm right again because as usual I've done my
homework. Free clue: Madison's terminology is obsolete so quoting the
Federalist papers won't win you this argument.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
October 6th 04, 11:35 AM
"Jim" > wrote in message

> "Not your business" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> Thank God...I support Kerry...but his lose will not cost me a tear. A
> Bush win is the best thing for the Dems.

That's what some people said last election and the result was four years of
Dubbya. If the lesson hasn't been learnt by now it never will. Four more
years would be unthinkably disastrous.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
October 6th 04, 11:38 AM
"Kathy Marie" > wrote in message


[...]

> ??? I have to agree with elzinator here, I think he needs to get a
> life. As for improving writing, OK; but I thought there was still the
> ability to recall or cancel a post?

Most servers don't honour cancel messages these days because there are too
many forgers. Google still does though.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

John M. Williams
October 6th 04, 12:56 PM
Clever Nym > wrote:

> John M. Williams
> wrote:
>
>>Brian Link > wrote:
>>>
>>>As a Kerry supporter, I thought Edwards held his own against Lord
>>>Vader. Constantly pointed out inconsistencies and dishonesties. Darth
>>>Cheney continued the Republican strategy of simply repeating lies
>>>until they sounded true.
>>
>>Lies = facts you don't want to hear.
>
>Oh you are so entertaining.
>
>Lies = things that are not true.
>
>In the Republican lexicon, however,
>
>Lies = speaking out loud

Now comes the hard part …

Please designate with specificity the lies you claim that Cheney told.

Thanks!

Proton Soup
October 6th 04, 03:25 PM
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:09:40 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Pete" > wrote in message

>> DRS wrote:
>>> "Kathy Marie" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> (and yes, I know that strictly speaking we're not a democracy, but
>>>> let's not go there, 'kay?)
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking you're a representative democracy.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, you know about as much about our form of
>> government, as you do about the psychological effects of infant
>> circumcision.
>
>Good, because that means I'm right again because as usual I've done my
>homework. Free clue: Madison's terminology is obsolete so quoting the
>Federalist papers won't win you this argument.

And who are you quoting?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

slotman1958
October 6th 04, 03:27 PM
Brian Link > wrote in message >...
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:22:24 GMT, Not your business
> > wrote:
>
>
> Pretty boring television, actually. I think if you were undecided you
> woulda flipped channels after the first 15 minutes. If you're a
> partisan, your guy won.
>

Thank you. You just summed up this debate, the last one, and the next two to come.

Seth Breidbart
October 6th 04, 07:49 PM
In article >,
Brandon Berg > wrote:

>Agreed. Granted, there are a bunch of pretty smart people on the far left of
>the spectrum (I guess they fall into the "oblivious to the real world"
>category). In general, the brightest lights tend congregate on the fringes.
>That said, while I've encountered a few libertarians of fairly mediocre
>intellect, no one scrapes the bottom of the barrel like radical leftists do.

Except maybe the Religious Right (or are they the ones scraped off the
bottom of the barrel?)

Seth
--
Most people who have to quote their IQ to feel good are either 15 years old
or live in their mom's basement at 40. -- Will Brink

Seth Breidbart
October 6th 04, 07:56 PM
In article >,
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:

>Exactly -- and that's also the sort of age where you really want to start
>saving. A PhD can't even start until they're almost 30.

For a low 20's value of "almost 30".

Seth
--
Of course, common logic fails to hold up here on mfw, as a general rule
of thumb. -- Lyle McDonald

Donovan Rebbechi
October 6th 04, 08:33 PM
On 2004-10-06, Seth Breidbart > wrote:
> In article >,
> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>
>>Exactly -- and that's also the sort of age where you really want to start
>>saving. A PhD can't even start until they're almost 30.
>
> For a low 20's value of "almost 30".

Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you can put away a
substantial amount of money while on a graduate stipend, or suggesting
that one find other sources of income during grad school, or that one
can finish a PhD in the low 20s ?

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Seth Breidbart
October 6th 04, 08:45 PM
In article >,
Top Sirloin > wrote:

>Bush looked tired and haggerd (of course, he did
>spend his day visiting hurricane victims instead
>of getting a manicure).

And he hadn't taken a long vacation in almost a week.

Seth
--
99% of the time, he is rude to the people who do in fact deserve
it. -- Will Brink

Clever Nym
October 6th 04, 09:01 PM
On 6 Oct 2004 07:27:21 -0700, (slotman1958)
wrote:

>Brian Link > wrote in message >...
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:22:24 GMT, Not your business
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> Pretty boring television, actually. I think if you were undecided you
>> woulda flipped channels after the first 15 minutes. If you're a
>> partisan, your guy won.
>>
>
>Thank you. You just summed up this debate, the last one, and the next two to come.

I dunno, I'd disagree about the presidential debate last week. That
actually was fairly illuminating, for reasons discussed many places.
And even good TV.

But the VP debate was sort of standard debate fare. But that's
traditional, most minds are not made up over the number 2 (or in
Cheney's case, Hand in the Puppet) debates.

BLink

MJL
October 7th 04, 12:37 AM
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:17:04 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:


>PS.. best story about the Presidential debate I've heard..
>
>Guy was watching the debate with his 18 year old son. The son was not
>politically active, or even interested. After 20 minutes, the son
>asked "Dad, am I old enough to vote?". Dad said yes.. who would you
>like to vote for? Son answered "Kerry's the tall dude, right?" Dad
>says why do you want to vote for Kerry? Son replies "Cause if they
>were captured by terrorists, Kerry would tell them to go ****
>themselves, and Bush would be crying for his mommy".
>
>Priceless.

I don't get that impression from any of the candidates. They all seem
like pampered elitists to me who would crack like porcelain dolls
under the slightest strain.

The only high profile govt guy who strikes me as, possibly, an
authentic badass is Rumsfeld.


--
http://www.texansfortruth.org/

Proton Soup
October 7th 04, 01:14 AM
On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 23:37:22 GMT, MJL > wrote:

>On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 00:17:04 -0500, Brian Link > wrote:
>
>
>>PS.. best story about the Presidential debate I've heard..
>>
>>Guy was watching the debate with his 18 year old son. The son was not
>>politically active, or even interested. After 20 minutes, the son
>>asked "Dad, am I old enough to vote?". Dad said yes.. who would you
>>like to vote for? Son answered "Kerry's the tall dude, right?" Dad
>>says why do you want to vote for Kerry? Son replies "Cause if they
>>were captured by terrorists, Kerry would tell them to go ****
>>themselves, and Bush would be crying for his mommy".
>>
>>Priceless.
>
>I don't get that impression from any of the candidates. They all seem
>like pampered elitists to me who would crack like porcelain dolls
>under the slightest strain.
>
>The only high profile govt guy who strikes me as, possibly, an
>authentic badass is Rumsfeld.

Makes it easier to sleep at night, doesn't it?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Pete
October 7th 04, 05:13 AM
Proton Soup wrote:
> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:09:40 +1000, "DRS" >
> wrote:
>
>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>>
>>> DRS wrote:
>>>> "Kathy Marie" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>> (and yes, I know that strictly speaking we're not a democracy, but
>>>>> let's not go there, 'kay?)
>>>>
>>>> Strictly speaking you're a representative democracy.
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking, you know about as much about our form of
>>> government, as you do about the psychological effects of infant
>>> circumcision.
>>
>> Good, because that means I'm right again because as usual I've done
>> my homework. Free clue: Madison's terminology is obsolete so
>> quoting the Federalist papers won't win you this argument.
>
> And who are you quoting?
>
> -----------
> Proton Soup

No doubt those "authoritative" sources, Wikipedia and Nationmaster.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/4/2004

Pete
October 7th 04, 05:26 AM
DRS wrote:
> "Pete" > wrote in message
>
>> DRS wrote:
>>> "Kathy Marie" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> (and yes, I know that strictly speaking we're not a democracy, but
>>>> let's not go there, 'kay?)
>>>
>>> Strictly speaking you're a representative democracy.
>>
>> Strictly speaking, you know about as much about our form of
>> government, as you do about the psychological effects of infant
>> circumcision.
>
> Good, because that means I'm right again because as usual I've done my
> homework. Free clue: Madison's terminology is obsolete so quoting the
> Federalist papers won't win you this argument.

Good, because, as usual, your homework apparently was done with flawed
sources. Free clue: Quoting Wikipedia and Nationmaster don't qualify as
"doing your homework". Please explain how Madison's arguments are
"obsolete".

Representative democracy is more akin to socialism than the constitutional
republic the U.S. actually is. This fact drives liberals crazy, which makes
sense, considering their socialist driven agenda.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/4/2004

Pete
October 7th 04, 05:36 AM
Clever Nym wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:06:27 -0400, John M. Williams
> > wrote:
>
>> Brian Link > wrote:
>>>
>>> Gotta stop doing political posts on mfw.. gets my blood pressure up.
>>
>> That type of emotional breakdown seems to plague a lot of Democrats.
>
> Ah yes, if only I had the stamina of the Republithugs for lying like
> it was breathing..
>
> BLink

Doesn't it just drive you whining Dems crazy that the result of the election
is a foregone conclusion?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/4/2004

Proton Soup
October 7th 04, 06:14 AM
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:13:55 -0700, "Pete" >
wrote:

>Proton Soup wrote:
>> On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 20:09:40 +1000, "DRS" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> DRS wrote:
>>>>> "Kathy Marie" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>> (and yes, I know that strictly speaking we're not a democracy, but
>>>>>> let's not go there, 'kay?)
>>>>>
>>>>> Strictly speaking you're a representative democracy.
>>>>
>>>> Strictly speaking, you know about as much about our form of
>>>> government, as you do about the psychological effects of infant
>>>> circumcision.
>>>
>>> Good, because that means I'm right again because as usual I've done
>>> my homework. Free clue: Madison's terminology is obsolete so
>>> quoting the Federalist papers won't win you this argument.
>>
>> And who are you quoting?
>
>No doubt those "authoritative" sources, Wikipedia and Nationmaster.

Wasn't Wiki that little robot from Buck Rogers?

*wikiwikiwiki*

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Lyle McDonald
October 7th 04, 08:14 AM
Brian Link wrote:
> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:25:43 -0500, Proton Soup >
> wrote:

> That's just cuz you think all brown people are in cahoots. You
> obviously have no real appreciation for the complexities of the arabic
> tapestry. Read http://www.juancole.com

actually, it's true.

All of us brown peple get together every 2nd thursday to plot against
the whites. Hell, all us middle easterners are the smae, just like
Mexicans, Spanish people and Puerto Ricans are all interchangeagable.
Japanese, Chinese, etc, all the same people.

And we're all plotting to kill the white people.

ALL OF US.

Lyle

Brandon Berg
October 7th 04, 08:32 AM
"Kathy Marie" > wrote in message
...
>> Proton Soup wrote in message
> ...
>> He got something of a point. I think Usenet improved my own writing,
>> but that was a decade ago when it wasn't such a cesspool. It at least
>> improves the ability to form decent written arguments, because once
>> you send it out there, it's available for anyone to pick apart and you
>> can't unsend it (at least not anymore).
>
> ??? I have to agree with elzinator here, I think he needs to get a life.

Right. Why improve my mind when I could be out killing it with beer?

Anyway, it's not as if this is all I do. I frequently spend weeks or months
at a time away from Usenet, and these short bursts of intense activity in
which I pursue arguments until victory by Godwin rarely last more than a
couple of weeks. One can suffer the insufferable for only so long.

> As for improving writing, OK; but I thought there was still the ability to
> recall or cancel a post?

Sometimes--if your server honors it, and if others don't download it first.
But the ability to recall bad writing is about as good a substitute for the
ability to produce good writing as a ballot is for liberty.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Brandon Berg
October 7th 04, 08:32 AM
"John HUDSON" > wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 04 Oct 2004 17:09:33 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>>Brandon Berg wrote:
>>> In short, Usenet has made me a better writer, a better economist, a
>>> better
>>> thinker, and a better man.
>>
>>Sniff. That brought tears to my eyes. I very rarely see the virtues
>>extolled of spending endless hours on usenet.
>
> I agree, Brandon was waxing a trifle lyrical and being a bit of a
> luvvie!!

What can I say? I love me some waxing.

--
Brandon Berg
Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

DRS
October 7th 04, 12:07 PM
"Pete" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:

[...]

>> Good, because that means I'm right again because as usual I've done
>> my homework. Free clue: Madison's terminology is obsolete so
>> quoting the Federalist papers won't win you this argument.
>
> Good, because, as usual, your homework apparently was done with flawed
> sources. Free clue: Quoting Wikipedia and Nationmaster don't qualify
> as "doing your homework". Please explain how Madison's arguments are
> "obsolete".

I didn't say they were. I said his teminology is obsolete, which it is.
When he refers to "pure" democracy (Fed. #10) he is talking about what is
today called participatory democracy, and what he calls a republic is today
called a participatory democracy. "Republic" today refers simply to any
country, democratic or not, in which the head of state is a president,
whether elected or appointed. China is as much a republic as the United
States.

> Representative democracy is more akin to socialism than the
> constitutional republic the U.S. actually is. This fact drives
> liberals crazy, which makes sense, considering their socialist driven
> agenda.

You're an idiot. The United States is a representative democracy and a
republic. My country is a representative democracy and a constitutional
monarchy. These facts drive pig-ignorant rightwing nutjobs crazy because it
conflicts with their black and white view of the world.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Adam Fahy
October 7th 04, 04:31 PM
Seth Breidbart wrote:

> In article >,
> Top Sirloin > wrote:
>
>>Bush looked tired and haggerd (of course, he did
>>spend his day visiting hurricane victims instead
>>of getting a manicure).
>
> And he hadn't taken a long vacation in almost a week.

Long vacations are particularly important for Presidents and Senators.


-Adam

Axel of the North!
October 7th 04, 05:20 PM
On Sun, 3 Oct 2004 23:56:32 -0700, "Brandon Berg" >
wrote:

>"Jim" > wrote in message
...
>> Yer excused.. I argrue with my friends about this **** and it never
>> works..im sure this going back and forth on the internet is even worse.
>> So,as my favorite conservative says...we have to agree to disagree. G.
>> Gordon.
>
>True, one rarely accomplishes much in terms of conversions, but for me
>that's beside the point. I think of it less as an exercise in improving
>others than as an exercise in improving myself. Writing hundreds of
>thousands of words has taught me eloquence. Thinking and rethinking my
>positions in response to challenges has taught me more about economics than
>reading ever did. Embarassment over debunked claims of things I thought I
>knew has taught me to think rigorously and never to make a claim I'm not
>sure I can defend. Regret over heated words has taught me grace, civility,
>and patience.
>
>In short, Usenet has made me a better writer, a better economist, a better
>thinker, and a better man.
>
>--
>Brandon Berg
>Fix the obvious homonym substitution to reply.

Oh... you beautiful man!

Proton Soup
October 7th 04, 06:44 PM
On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 21:07:54 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Pete" > wrote in message

>> DRS wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>> Good, because that means I'm right again because as usual I've done
>>> my homework. Free clue: Madison's terminology is obsolete so
>>> quoting the Federalist papers won't win you this argument.
>>
>> Good, because, as usual, your homework apparently was done with flawed
>> sources. Free clue: Quoting Wikipedia and Nationmaster don't qualify
>> as "doing your homework". Please explain how Madison's arguments are
>> "obsolete".
>
>I didn't say they were. I said his teminology is obsolete, which it is.
>When he refers to "pure" democracy (Fed. #10) he is talking about what is
>today called participatory democracy, and what he calls a republic is today
>called a participatory democracy. "Republic" today refers simply to any
>country, democratic or not, in which the head of state is a president,
>whether elected or appointed. China is as much a republic as the United
>States.

Rong. Republic comes from the Latin "res publica", which literally
means "the thing of the people". Although communist nations like
China may choose to use "republic" in order spin their form of
government to the rest of the world as being somehow representative,
it is just propaganda, and you're falling hook, line, and sinker for
it.

>> Representative democracy is more akin to socialism than the
>> constitutional republic the U.S. actually is. This fact drives
>> liberals crazy, which makes sense, considering their socialist driven
>> agenda.
>
>You're an idiot. The United States is a representative democracy and a
>republic. My country is a representative democracy and a constitutional
>monarchy. These facts drive pig-ignorant rightwing nutjobs crazy because it
>conflicts with their black and white view of the world.

No amount of attempted re-engineering of the language by newspeakers
like yourself will change the fact that we are a republic in the US.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

DRS
October 7th 04, 07:09 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 21:07:54 +1000, "DRS" >
> wrote:
>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>>

[...]

>>> Please explain how Madison's
>>> arguments are "obsolete".
>>
>> I didn't say they were. I said his teminology is obsolete, which it
>> is. When he refers to "pure" democracy (Fed. #10) he is talking
>> about what is today called participatory democracy, and what he
>> calls a republic is today called a participatory democracy.
>> "Republic" today refers simply to any country, democratic or not, in
>> which the head of state is a president, whether elected or
>> appointed. China is as much a republic as the United States.
>
> Rong.

In your dreams.

> Republic comes from the Latin "res publica", which literally
> means "the thing of the people".

Actually, "res" means "concern (of)", not "thing", so it's "concern of the
people", if you want to start being pedantic. However, it came into English
via the French "republique", not directly from the Latin, none of which
changes the fact that Madison's use of the word in 1787 is archaic in 2004.

> Although communist nations like
> China may choose to use "republic" in order spin their form of
> government to the rest of the world as being somehow representative,
> it is just propaganda, and you're falling hook, line, and sinker for
> it.

Nope. These days "republic" means exactly what I said it means: any
country, democratic or not, in which the head of state is a president,
whether elected or appointed.

>>> Representative democracy is more akin to socialism than the
>>> constitutional republic the U.S. actually is. This fact drives
>>> liberals crazy, which makes sense, considering their socialist
>>> driven agenda.
>>
>> You're an idiot. The United States is a representative democracy
>> and a republic. My country is a representative democracy and a
>> constitutional monarchy. These facts drive pig-ignorant rightwing
>> nutjobs crazy because it conflicts with their black and white view
>> of the world.
>
> No amount of attempted re-engineering of the language by newspeakers
> like yourself will change the fact that we are a republic in the US.

Language changes. The US is a republic. It's also a representative
democracy. Deal.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Proton Soup
October 7th 04, 07:18 PM
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 04:09:39 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

>> On Thu, 7 Oct 2004 21:07:54 +1000, "DRS" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>>>
>
>[...]
>
>>>> Please explain how Madison's
>>>> arguments are "obsolete".
>>>
>>> I didn't say they were. I said his teminology is obsolete, which it
>>> is. When he refers to "pure" democracy (Fed. #10) he is talking
>>> about what is today called participatory democracy, and what he
>>> calls a republic is today called a participatory democracy.
>>> "Republic" today refers simply to any country, democratic or not, in
>>> which the head of state is a president, whether elected or
>>> appointed. China is as much a republic as the United States.
>>
>> Rong.
>
>In your dreams.
>
>> Republic comes from the Latin "res publica", which literally
>> means "the thing of the people".
>
>Actually, "res" means "concern (of)", not "thing", so it's "concern of the
>people", if you want to start being pedantic. However, it came into English

It can mean that, yes, so here, have a cookie. "Thing" is also a way
to translate it.

>via the French "republique", not directly from the Latin, none of which
>changes the fact that Madison's use of the word in 1787 is archaic in 2004.

Perhaps you'd like to reveal the source of your "knowledge". I'm not
really that interested this time in looking it up like I did with your
Dawkins squid stuff.

>> Although communist nations like
>> China may choose to use "republic" in order spin their form of
>> government to the rest of the world as being somehow representative,
>> it is just propaganda, and you're falling hook, line, and sinker for
>> it.
>
>Nope. These days "republic" means exactly what I said it means: any
>country, democratic or not, in which the head of state is a president,
>whether elected or appointed.

What is the source of your knowledge?

>>>> Representative democracy is more akin to socialism than the
>>>> constitutional republic the U.S. actually is. This fact drives
>>>> liberals crazy, which makes sense, considering their socialist
>>>> driven agenda.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot. The United States is a representative democracy
>>> and a republic. My country is a representative democracy and a
>>> constitutional monarchy. These facts drive pig-ignorant rightwing
>>> nutjobs crazy because it conflicts with their black and white view
>>> of the world.
>>
>> No amount of attempted re-engineering of the language by newspeakers
>> like yourself will change the fact that we are a republic in the US.
>
>Language changes. The US is a republic. It's also a representative
>democracy. Deal.

I have a dictionary on hand that lists my interpretation as the first
definition. It's a Webster's New World from Simon & Schuster. I
don't think they published in Madison's day.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

DRS
October 7th 04, 07:48 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 04:09:39 +1000, "DRS" >
> wrote:

[...]

>> Language changes. The US is a republic. It's also a representative
>> democracy. Deal.
>
> I have a dictionary on hand that lists my interpretation as the first
> definition. It's a Webster's New World from Simon & Schuster. I
> don't think they published in Madison's day.

If you want to have a battle of the dictionaries then Merriam-Webster and
the New Oxford support me. M-W does give the old meaning also, but not as
the main meaning, whilst the NO clearly states it as archaic. Encyclopedia
Brittanica says, "A republic may also be distinguished from direct
democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large
republics." It also says, "The concept of representative democracy arose
largely from ideas and institutions that developed during the European
Middle Ages and the Enlightenment and in the American and French
Revolutions. Democracy has come to imply universal suffrage, competition for
office, freedom of speech and the press, and the rule of law. See also
_republic_." Etc, etc. Get yourself a good book on political science and
stop embarassing yourself like you do.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

aj
October 7th 04, 08:17 PM
On 2004-10-07, Proton Soup > wrote:
> though not an imam, still professed faith in Allah, did he not?

Am I the only one who gets annoyed when the media translates every word
of Arabic into English except "God"?

--
-aj
I'll mess with Texas.

Seth Breidbart
October 7th 04, 11:16 PM
In article >,
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>On 2004-10-06, Seth Breidbart > wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>>
>>>Exactly -- and that's also the sort of age where you really want to start
>>>saving. A PhD can't even start until they're almost 30.
>>
>> For a low 20's value of "almost 30".
>
>Not sure what your point is. Are you saying that you can put away a
>substantial amount of money while on a graduate stipend, or suggesting
>that one find other sources of income during grad school, or that one
>can finish a PhD in the low 20s ?

I was 24.

5 years ago, grad students (in the right fields) could make lots of
money working part time; of course, it's no longer nearly so easy.

Seth
--
You have a remarkable lack of empathy. -- Penn Jillette (to me)

Donovan Rebbechi
October 8th 04, 12:50 AM
On 2004-10-07, Seth Breidbart > wrote:

> I was 24.

That might be possible. It's not exactly the norm though (in fact it's quite
exceptional)

Cheers,
--
Donovan Rebbechi
http://pegasus.rutgers.edu/~elflord/

Pete
October 8th 04, 06:22 AM
DRS wrote:

> Get yourself a good book on political science and stop embarassing
> yourself like you do.

You may want to actually read Madison.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/5/2004

Pete
October 8th 04, 06:49 AM
DRS wrote:

>> "Pete" > wrote in message


>> Representative democracy is more akin to socialism than the
>> constitutional republic the U.S. actually is. This fact drives
>> liberals crazy, which makes sense, considering their socialist driven
>> agenda.
>
> You're an idiot. The United States is a representative democracy and
> a republic. My country is a representative democracy and a
> constitutional monarchy. These facts drive pig-ignorant rightwing
> nutjobs crazy because it conflicts with their black and white view of
> the world.

And you're a proven dumb ****. Guess I hit a nerve. And, BTW, you're still
wrong. You obviously have a very limited understanding of the underpinnings
of our nation. That's OK, the vast majority of our citizens suffer the same
deficiency. Kinda like most professed Christians not having a clue about the
evolution of their faith.

Democracy is the direction all good socialists wish to push the U.S. Replace
the rule of law with rule of the mob. Dilute state's rights and sovereignty
and replace them with a powerful centralized bureaucracy. Sound familiar?
Witness the current outrage over and moves to abolish the electoral college
process. Witness the increased emphasis and use of the initiative process in
states such as Washington and Oregon. Pig-ignorant is a term best reserved
for foreigners who pretend to understand government and political process in
the United States.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/5/2004

Lucas Buck
October 8th 04, 11:30 AM
On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:04:06 -0400, Dally > wrote:

>Al Dykes wrote:
>
>> It looks like for the education-level/vote curve we have a "U" curve
>> here, with Bush getting the votes in the middle.
>>
>> I have no data to back this up, but you probably don't either.
>
>One of the question here is "how would the people who don't vote vote if
>they voted?" It's really tough to try to study this question as people
>will lie about whether they vote or not as well as lie about how they
>voted and none of these things can be determined.
>
>I liked Kathy's idea of only discussing politics with people who vote.
>I vote. What about you guys?
>
>By the way, I've got an interesting dilemma in this regard. I'm serving
>dinner at a soup kitchen on Nov. 2. In effect, I'm going to be with a
>crowd of very poor and/or homelss people. I could 'encourage' them to
>vote by hauling their asses down to the polling place in my minivan
>after dinner. Should I do this?

Something tells me that your minivan just won't happen to have any room for
any would-be GOP voters.

Lucas Buck
October 8th 04, 11:32 AM
On Sat, 2 Oct 2004 17:20:10 +0000 (UTC), Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:

>On 2004-10-02, Adam Fahy > wrote:
>> Donovan Rebbechi wrote:
>>
>>> My coworkers overwhelmingly support the Democrats, and I can assure
>>> you that they are overwhelmingly better educated than most of the
>>> arrogant right wing loudmouths on mfw.
>>
>> What an obnoxious and fatuous "argument."
>
>The reason I posted this was to forcefully rebut Pete and Williams' stereotype
>of Democrats as uneducated.

Oh, yeah, your anecdotal blatherings trump their actual data every time.

>I believe that I did that -- by drawing attention
>to the fact that Democrats do well among those with postgraduate education.

As well as others who don't actually have to work in industry (e.g. lifelong
students).

Lucas Buck
October 8th 04, 11:34 AM
On Tue, 5 Oct 2004 23:39:30 GMT, "Joe Laughlin" >
wrote:

>John Hanson wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 Oct 2004 23:00:02 GMT, "Joe Laughlin"
>> > wrote in
>> misc.fitness.weights:
>>
>>> Pete wrote:
>>>> Dally wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> When it comes right down to it, this election is going
>>>>> to be decided by the people who are undecided and they
>>>>> are typically lower education, uninformed and
>>>>> apathetic. They know Bush's name and he sounds
>>>>> presidential. oh, and he likes guns. Honestly,
>>>>> that's all it takes.
>>>>>
>>>>> Dally (but a Supreme Court in your favor helps)
>>>>
>>>> You may want to take a look at the demographics of the
>>>> Democratic Party, sweetheart.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I read a news article the other day and a much greater
>>> percentage of democratic voters correctly identified
>>> Kerry's views on assorted issues than republicans did on
>>> Bush's views.
>>>
>> That his position is both sides of an issue?
>
>Of course. Kerry has always came down on both sides of all issues that have
>been brought up. This is no exageration at all!


That is, when he bothers to show up at all.

Lucas Buck
October 8th 04, 11:42 AM
On Sat, 02 Oct 2004 01:09:36 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Hugh Beyer > wrote:
>>
>>John Hanson > wrote:
>>>
>>> My point is that if you enter into bilateral talks with North Korea
>>> and exclude China like John Kerry stated he want to, China will get
>>> very ****ed and will make us pay for it. And, if Kerry takes the
>>> added step of using military force, plan on WWIII.
>>
>>That's not Kerry's position. Kerry said he wants to continue multilateral
>>talks--he just thinks it's stupid not to talk to NK directly in addition.
>>No "excluding China" there at all.
>
>Bush is right: if you go into bilateral talks, the six-party talks
>will unwind, and China will not tolerate it. The talks are worthless
>if we cannot make clear at what point we would consider military force
>as a response, and that cannot be done without China's agreement, or
>at least their condonation.
>
>Perhaps you have forgotten what sneaked across the Yalu River in late
>October of 1951. I'll give you a hint: there were 300,000 of them.

Suicide Foreskins?

DRS
October 8th 04, 11:55 AM
"Pete" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>
>> Get yourself a good book on political science and stop embarassing
>> yourself like you do.
>
> You may want to actually read Madison.

I have. I haven't said a word about his arguments, merely about his
terminology.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

DRS
October 8th 04, 11:59 AM
"Pete" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>
>
>>> Representative democracy is more akin to socialism than the
>>> constitutional republic the U.S. actually is. This fact drives
>>> liberals crazy, which makes sense, considering their socialist
>>> driven agenda.
>>
>> You're an idiot. The United States is a representative democracy and
>> a republic. My country is a representative democracy and a
>> constitutional monarchy. These facts drive pig-ignorant rightwing
>> nutjobs crazy because it conflicts with their black and white view of
>> the world.
>
> And you're a proven dumb ****.

Er, no.

> Guess I hit a nerve. And, BTW, you're
> still wrong.

Er, no.

> You obviously have a very limited understanding of the
> underpinnings of our nation. That's OK, the vast majority of our
> citizens suffer the same deficiency. Kinda like most professed
> Christians not having a clue about the evolution of their faith.

I studied American history. That puts me well ahead of most Americans,
including you.

> Democracy is the direction all good socialists wish to push the U.S.
> Replace the rule of law with rule of the mob.

Wrong. Tyranny of the majority is not democracy.

> Dilute state's rights
> and sovereignty and replace them with a powerful centralized
> bureaucracy.

Wrong. There is nothing inherently centralising about democracy.

> Sound familiar? Witness the current outrage over and
> moves to abolish the electoral college process. Witness the increased
> emphasis and use of the initiative process in states such as
> Washington and Oregon. Pig-ignorant is a term best reserved for
> foreigners who pretend to understand government and political process
> in the United States.

I'm so far ahead of you on this it's sad. You're still an idiot.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

John HUDSON
October 8th 04, 12:23 PM
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:59:03 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Pete" > wrote in message

>> DRS wrote:
>>>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>>
>>
>>>> Representative democracy is more akin to socialism than the
>>>> constitutional republic the U.S. actually is. This fact drives
>>>> liberals crazy, which makes sense, considering their socialist
>>>> driven agenda.
>>>
>>> You're an idiot. The United States is a representative democracy and
>>> a republic. My country is a representative democracy and a
>>> constitutional monarchy. These facts drive pig-ignorant rightwing
>>> nutjobs crazy because it conflicts with their black and white view of
>>> the world.
>>
>> And you're a proven dumb ****.
>
>Er, no.
>
>> Guess I hit a nerve. And, BTW, you're
>> still wrong.
>
>Er, no.
>
>> You obviously have a very limited understanding of the
>> underpinnings of our nation. That's OK, the vast majority of our
>> citizens suffer the same deficiency. Kinda like most professed
>> Christians not having a clue about the evolution of their faith.
>
>I studied American history. That puts me well ahead of most Americans,
>including you.
>
>> Democracy is the direction all good socialists wish to push the U.S.
>> Replace the rule of law with rule of the mob.
>
>Wrong. Tyranny of the majority is not democracy.

Why does the will and intentions of the "majority" need to be
described as tyrannical?

Is it because the "majority" is perhaps out of step with small
vociferous minorities that want to turn our way of life upside down,
for their own selfish ends?

Your a bigot Dave that's for sure, we can't all be wrong - the vast
"majority" as you sneeringly call us!!

Have a great weekend anyway - you may rely on the fact that I will!!
;o)

TFIF!!

Proton Soup
October 8th 04, 04:27 PM
On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:55:26 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Pete" > wrote in message

>> DRS wrote:
>>
>>> Get yourself a good book on political science and stop embarassing
>>> yourself like you do.
>>
>> You may want to actually read Madison.
>
>I have. I haven't said a word about his arguments, merely about his
>terminology.

Learned men of that time studied Latin and Greek, and they didn't need
the French to tell them what a Republic was, although many probably
spoke French as well.

As for all this republic nonsense, it's just politics. Although the
US does do things by democratically electing representatives, we are
still a republic, and the name republic still implies a government of
and by the people, regardless of the political shenanigans of
liberal-minded professors. Their goal is simply to re-assign the
meaning to be associated with negative things like dictatorships.
They want you to think negative thoughts when you hear the word
republican. And I think you know this, but you are just unwilling to
admit it because of your hatred.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

DRS
October 8th 04, 04:56 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:55:26 +1000, "DRS" >
> wrote:
>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>>
>>> DRS wrote:
>>>
>>>> Get yourself a good book on political science and stop embarassing
>>>> yourself like you do.
>>>
>>> You may want to actually read Madison.
>>
>> I have. I haven't said a word about his arguments, merely about his
>> terminology.
>
> Learned men of that time studied Latin and Greek, and they didn't need
> the French to tell them what a Republic was, although many probably
> spoke French as well.

Lots of things were different in 1787, including the meanings of many words.

> As for all this republic nonsense, it's just politics. Although the
> US does do things by democratically electing representatives, we are
> still a republic,

And a representative democracy. "A republic may also be distinguished from
direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large
republics."

> and the name republic still implies a government of
> and by the people,

No, it doesn't. As I have already pointed out, my country meets that
criteria yet is not a republic. That's a fact you've been studiously
avoiding.

> regardless of the political shenanigans of
> liberal-minded professors.

There is no conspiracy. Language changes. "The concept of representative
democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during
the European Middle Ages and the Enlightenment and in the American and
French Revolutions. Democracy has come to imply universal suffrage,
competition for office, freedom of speech and the press, and the rule of
law. See also republic."

> Their goal is simply to re-assign the
> meaning to be associated with negative things like dictatorships.
> They want you to think negative thoughts when you hear the word
> republican. And I think you know this, but you are just unwilling to
> admit it because of your hatred.

I don't hate republics, I just hate idiots. You're an idiot.

--

"Self-delusion as a coping tool has always been a fairly useful strategy for
me."
Dally

Proton Soup
October 8th 04, 05:01 PM
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:56:41 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:55:26 +1000, "DRS" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> DRS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Get yourself a good book on political science and stop embarassing
>>>>> yourself like you do.
>>>>
>>>> You may want to actually read Madison.
>>>
>>> I have. I haven't said a word about his arguments, merely about his
>>> terminology.
>>
>> Learned men of that time studied Latin and Greek, and they didn't need
>> the French to tell them what a Republic was, although many probably
>> spoke French as well.
>
>Lots of things were different in 1787, including the meanings of many words.
>
>> As for all this republic nonsense, it's just politics. Although the
>> US does do things by democratically electing representatives, we are
>> still a republic,
>
>And a representative democracy. "A republic may also be distinguished from
>direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large
>republics."
>
>> and the name republic still implies a government of
>> and by the people,
>
>No, it doesn't. As I have already pointed out, my country meets that
>criteria yet is not a republic. That's a fact you've been studiously
>avoiding.
>
>> regardless of the political shenanigans of
>> liberal-minded professors.
>
>There is no conspiracy. Language changes. "The concept of representative
>democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during
>the European Middle Ages and the Enlightenment and in the American and
>French Revolutions. Democracy has come to imply universal suffrage,
>competition for office, freedom of speech and the press, and the rule of
>law. See also republic."
>
>> Their goal is simply to re-assign the
>> meaning to be associated with negative things like dictatorships.
>> They want you to think negative thoughts when you hear the word
>> republican. And I think you know this, but you are just unwilling to
>> admit it because of your hatred.
>
>I don't hate republics, I just hate idiots. You're an idiot.

You've been degenerating to name-calling with just about everyone
lately. Why is that?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

DRS
October 8th 04, 05:18 PM
"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:56:41 +1000, "DRS" >
> wrote:
>> "Proton Soup" > wrote in message
>>

[...]

>>> Their goal is simply to re-assign the
>>> meaning to be associated with negative things like dictatorships.
>>> They want you to think negative thoughts when you hear the word
>>> republican. And I think you know this, but you are just unwilling
>>> to admit it because of your hatred.
>>
>> I don't hate republics, I just hate idiots. You're an idiot.
>
> You've been degenerating to name-calling with just about everyone
> lately.

Pot, met kettle.

> Why is that?

Not everyone, pretty much you and Hanson. It's because you two have proven
yourselves pretty much immune to logic, facts and evidence on practically
any topic. After observing this over a lengthy period of time I have quite
seriously come to the conclusion you two are mentally deficient.

--

"There isn't a finite amount of oil in the Earth. It keeps being produced."
John Hanson

John HUDSON
October 8th 04, 05:23 PM
On Fri, 08 Oct 2004 11:01:13 -0500, Proton Soup >
wrote:

>On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:56:41 +1000, "DRS" >
>wrote:
>
>>"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

>>> On Fri, 8 Oct 2004 20:55:26 +1000, "DRS" >
>>> wrote:
>>>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> DRS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Get yourself a good book on political science and stop embarassing
>>>>>> yourself like you do.
>>>>>
>>>>> You may want to actually read Madison.
>>>>
>>>> I have. I haven't said a word about his arguments, merely about his
>>>> terminology.
>>>
>>> Learned men of that time studied Latin and Greek, and they didn't need
>>> the French to tell them what a Republic was, although many probably
>>> spoke French as well.
>>
>>Lots of things were different in 1787, including the meanings of many words.
>>
>>> As for all this republic nonsense, it's just politics. Although the
>>> US does do things by democratically electing representatives, we are
>>> still a republic,
>>
>>And a representative democracy. "A republic may also be distinguished from
>>direct democracy, though modern representative democracies are by and large
>>republics."
>>
>>> and the name republic still implies a government of
>>> and by the people,
>>
>>No, it doesn't. As I have already pointed out, my country meets that
>>criteria yet is not a republic. That's a fact you've been studiously
>>avoiding.
>>
>>> regardless of the political shenanigans of
>>> liberal-minded professors.
>>
>>There is no conspiracy. Language changes. "The concept of representative
>>democracy arose largely from ideas and institutions that developed during
>>the European Middle Ages and the Enlightenment and in the American and
>>French Revolutions. Democracy has come to imply universal suffrage,
>>competition for office, freedom of speech and the press, and the rule of
>>law. See also republic."
>>
>>> Their goal is simply to re-assign the
>>> meaning to be associated with negative things like dictatorships.
>>> They want you to think negative thoughts when you hear the word
>>> republican. And I think you know this, but you are just unwilling to
>>> admit it because of your hatred.
>>
>>I don't hate republics, I just hate idiots. You're an idiot.
>
>You've been degenerating to name-calling with just about everyone
>lately. Why is that?

PMT? ;o)

HAGW!!

TFIF!!

John HUDSON
October 8th 04, 05:32 PM
On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 02:18:41 +1000, "DRS" >
wrote:

>"Proton Soup" > wrote in message

>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 01:56:41 +1000, "DRS" >
>> wrote:
>>> "Proton Soup" > wrote in message
>>>
>
>[...]
>
>>>> Their goal is simply to re-assign the
>>>> meaning to be associated with negative things like dictatorships.
>>>> They want you to think negative thoughts when you hear the word
>>>> republican. And I think you know this, but you are just unwilling
>>>> to admit it because of your hatred.
>>>
>>> I don't hate republics, I just hate idiots. You're an idiot.
>>
>> You've been degenerating to name-calling with just about everyone
>> lately.
>
>Pot, met kettle.
>
>> Why is that?
>
>Not everyone, pretty much you and Hanson. It's because you two have proven
>yourselves pretty much immune to logic, facts and evidence on practically
>any topic. After observing this over a lengthy period of time I have quite
>seriously come to the conclusion you two are mentally deficient.

But you have said that about most people in this group at one time or
another, and most of us have allegedly been consigned to your
"killfiles"!!

Is it possible that it may be you out of step Dave?!!

HAGW!!

TFIF!!

John M. Williams
October 8th 04, 06:34 PM
Proton Soup > wrote:
> "DRS" > wrote:
>>"Proton Soup" > wrote:
>>>
>>> Their goal is simply to re-assign the
>>> meaning to be associated with negative things like dictatorships.
>>> They want you to think negative thoughts when you hear the word
>>> republican. And I think you know this, but you are just unwilling to
>>> admit it because of your hatred.
>>
>>I don't hate republics, I just hate idiots. You're an idiot.
>
>You've been degenerating to name-calling with just about everyone
>lately. Why is that?

He's short on facts and long on venom.

Pete
October 9th 04, 06:57 AM
DRS wrote:
>> "Pete" > wrote in message

>> DRS wrote:

>>>> "Pete" > wrote in message

>> And you're a proven dumb ****.

> Er, no.

Hey, let's use democracy here! Most folks in here believe you're a dumb
****. Hence, it's true.

>> Guess I hit a nerve. And, BTW, you're
>> still wrong.
>
> Er, no.

I'll paraphrase your profound answer. Er, yes.

>> You obviously have a very limited understanding of the
>> underpinnings of our nation. That's OK, the vast majority of our
>> citizens suffer the same deficiency. Kinda like most professed
>> Christians not having a clue about the evolution of their faith.
>
> I studied American history. That puts me well ahead of most
> Americans, including you.

Your arguments prove otherwise.

>> Democracy is the direction all good socialists wish to push the U.S.
>> Replace the rule of law with rule of the mob.

> Wrong. Tyranny of the majority is not democracy.

Miriam-Webster Dictionary of Law: "1 a : government by the people;
especially : rule of the majority"
The genius of the founders was recognition that the rights of minority
groups in society need protection. Rule of the majority is wisely thwarted
by the system of checks and balances. Absent these checks, the minority is
trampled.

>> Dilute state's rights and sovereignty and replace them with a powerful
centralized
>> bureaucracy.

> Wrong. There is nothing inherently centralising about democracy.

>> Sound familiar? Witness the current outrage over and
>> moves to abolish the electoral college process. Witness the increased
>> emphasis and use of the initiative process in states such as
>> Washington and Oregon. Pig-ignorant is a term best reserved for
>> foreigners who pretend to understand government and political process
>> in the United States.
>
> I'm so far ahead of you on this it's sad. You're still an idiot.

What a sad, pathetic soul you are.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/6/2004

Brian Link
October 9th 04, 07:16 AM
On Wed, 6 Oct 2004 21:36:39 -0700, "Pete" >
wrote:

>Clever Nym wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 02:06:27 -0400, John M. Williams
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> Brian Link > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Gotta stop doing political posts on mfw.. gets my blood pressure up.
>>>
>>> That type of emotional breakdown seems to plague a lot of Democrats.
>>
>> Ah yes, if only I had the stamina of the Republithugs for lying like
>> it was breathing..
>>
>> BLink
>
>Doesn't it just drive you whining Dems crazy that the result of the election
>is a foregone conclusion?
>
>
>---
>Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
>Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
>Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/4/2004
>

Well, yes, vote fraud does drive me crazy. Call me idealistic. Like
the constitution matters.

However, I'll make a prediction here and now: Baby Bush II would be
plagued by scandals and crises that will make the Clinton presidency
look like Romper Room. Oval Office blowjobs? Try War Crimes, murder,
drug trafficking. hehe.

Actually I'm hoping that Daschle loses in SD. He's the most pitiful
puppydog I've seen in his position - dems have to learn that to play
this game with the Repubs you need to be vicious, cruel and lie out
your ass till the hemmorhoids burn away. If Kerry has any major
disadvantage (besides not pretending he's a cowboy, like our current
monied New England preznit does) it's that he's stuck on that darn
Truth thing.

"2 + 2 = 4!!"
"Sometimes it equals five. Sometimes three. You must try harder,
O'Brien, sanity is very difficult"

The truly amazing thing to me about the Repubs is that they are so
blatantly stealing a page from Orwell. And peeps let em get away with
it. Which goes to show you get the democracy you deserve.

Flame Away. And check back in 2 years..

BLink Nostradamus

DRS
October 9th 04, 11:30 AM
"Pete" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>>> "Pete" > wrote in message

[...]

>>> You obviously have a very limited understanding of the
>>> underpinnings of our nation. That's OK, the vast majority of our
>>> citizens suffer the same deficiency. Kinda like most professed
>>> Christians not having a clue about the evolution of their faith.
>>
>> I studied American history. That puts me well ahead of most
>> Americans, including you.
>
> Your arguments prove otherwise.

In your dreams. My arguments are so far above the trash you spew out it's a
joke.

>>> Democracy is the direction all good socialists wish to push the U.S.
>>> Replace the rule of law with rule of the mob.
>
>> Wrong. Tyranny of the majority is not democracy.
>
> Miriam-Webster Dictionary of Law: "1 a : government by the people;
> especially : rule of the majority"
> The genius of the founders was recognition that the rights of minority
> groups in society need protection. Rule of the majority is wisely
> thwarted by the system of checks and balances. Absent these checks,
> the minority is trampled.

Indeed. That's called a tyranny of the majority. That's why the power of
the majority is checked in modern democracies. Democracy means rule of the
people. That means all of the people, not just those who happen to be in a
majority at any given point in time. Minorities are citizens too, they have
rights. Democracy recognises this.

[...]

>>> Sound familiar? Witness the current outrage over and
>>> moves to abolish the electoral college process. Witness the
>>> increased emphasis and use of the initiative process in states such
>>> as Washington and Oregon. Pig-ignorant is a term best reserved for
>>> foreigners who pretend to understand government and political
>>> process in the United States.
>>
>> I'm so far ahead of you on this it's sad. You're still an idiot.
>
> What a sad, pathetic soul you are.

You are spectacularly stupid.

--

"There isn't a finite amount of oil in the Earth. It keeps being produced."
John Hanson

Lucas Buck
October 9th 04, 11:56 AM
On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:14:20 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> wrote:

>Brian Link wrote:
>> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:25:43 -0500, Proton Soup >
>> wrote:
>
>> That's just cuz you think all brown people are in cahoots. You
>> obviously have no real appreciation for the complexities of the arabic
>> tapestry. Read http://www.juancole.com
>
>actually, it's true.
>
>All of us brown peple get together every 2nd thursday to plot against
>the whites. Hell, all us middle easterners are the smae, just like
>Mexicans, Spanish people and Puerto Ricans are all interchangeagable.
>Japanese, Chinese, etc, all the same people.
>
>And we're all plotting to kill the white people.
>
>ALL OF US.
>
>Lyle

That's why he moved to the whitest state in the Union.
Target-rich environment and all.

tacitrati
October 9th 04, 12:01 PM
Lucas Buck > wrote in message
news:1097319403.JZ/[email protected]
> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:14:20 -0600, Lyle McDonald
> > wrote:
>
> >Brian Link wrote:
> >> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:25:43 -0500, Proton Soup >
> >> wrote:
> >
> >> That's just cuz you think all brown people are in cahoots. You
> >> obviously have no real appreciation for the complexities of the arabic
> >> tapestry. Read http://www.juancole.com
> >
> >actually, it's true.
> >
> >All of us brown peple get together every 2nd thursday to plot against
> >the whites. Hell, all us middle easterners are the smae, just like
> >Mexicans, Spanish people and Puerto Ricans are all interchangeagable.
> >Japanese, Chinese, etc, all the same people.
> >
> >And we're all plotting to kill the white people.
> >
> >ALL OF US.
> >
> >Lyle
>
> That's why he moved to the whitest state in the Union.
> Target-rich environment and all.
>

fwiw, it's a rarely reported fact that most arabs in the US are not muslim.
they are christian

and most muslims in this country are not arab, they are black

whit

>

Dally
October 9th 04, 03:42 PM
Lucas Buck wrote:
> On Sun, 03 Oct 2004 17:04:06 -0400, Dally > wrote:
>
>
>>Al Dykes wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It looks like for the education-level/vote curve we have a "U" curve
>>>here, with Bush getting the votes in the middle.
>>>
>>>I have no data to back this up, but you probably don't either.
>>
>>One of the question here is "how would the people who don't vote vote if
>>they voted?" It's really tough to try to study this question as people
>>will lie about whether they vote or not as well as lie about how they
>>voted and none of these things can be determined.
>>
>>I liked Kathy's idea of only discussing politics with people who vote.
>>I vote. What about you guys?
>>
>>By the way, I've got an interesting dilemma in this regard. I'm serving
>>dinner at a soup kitchen on Nov. 2. In effect, I'm going to be with a
>>crowd of very poor and/or homelss people. I could 'encourage' them to
>>vote by hauling their asses down to the polling place in my minivan
>>after dinner. Should I do this?
>
>
> Something tells me that your minivan just won't happen to have any room for
> any would-be GOP voters.

Nah. That's why the democrats always lose, because we've got these
pesky values. I'd be honor-bound not to ask. Damn that honor.

Dally

Proton Soup
October 9th 04, 05:56 PM
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 11:01:32 GMT, "tacitrati" >
wrote:

>
>Lucas Buck > wrote in message
>news:1097319403.JZ/[email protected]
>> On Thu, 07 Oct 2004 01:14:20 -0600, Lyle McDonald
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >Brian Link wrote:
>> >> On Wed, 06 Oct 2004 19:25:43 -0500, Proton Soup >
>> >> wrote:
>> >
>> >> That's just cuz you think all brown people are in cahoots. You
>> >> obviously have no real appreciation for the complexities of the arabic
>> >> tapestry. Read http://www.juancole.com
>> >
>> >actually, it's true.
>> >
>> >All of us brown peple get together every 2nd thursday to plot against
>> >the whites. Hell, all us middle easterners are the smae, just like
>> >Mexicans, Spanish people and Puerto Ricans are all interchangeagable.
>> >Japanese, Chinese, etc, all the same people.
>> >
>> >And we're all plotting to kill the white people.
>> >
>> >ALL OF US.
>> >
>> >Lyle
>>
>> That's why he moved to the whitest state in the Union.
>> Target-rich environment and all.
>>
>
>fwiw, it's a rarely reported fact that most arabs in the US are not muslim.
>they are christian
>
>and most muslims in this country are not arab, they are black

Yeah, I knew one of those Christian arabs. He was a Lebanese Maronite
Catholic. Lebanon was apparently not a good place to grow up as a
non-Muslim.

And are the black muslims here true muslims, or those goofy racist,
here comes the mothership, Farakahn muslims?

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

Pete
October 9th 04, 06:51 PM
DRS wrote:

> You are spectacularly stupid.

Let me make a wild guess. You don't have many friends, do you?


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/7/2004

DRS
October 9th 04, 07:04 PM
"Pete" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>
>> You are spectacularly stupid.
>
> Let me make a wild guess. You don't have many friends, do you?

Well, it's true I don't hang out with stupid people.

--

"There isn't a finite amount of oil in the Earth. It keeps being produced."
John Hanson

John M. Williams
October 9th 04, 07:29 PM
Proton Soup > wrote:
> "tacitrati" > wrote:
>>Lucas Buck > wrote:
>>> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>>> >Brian Link wrote:
>>> >> Proton Soup > wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> That's just cuz you think all brown people are in cahoots. You
>>> >> obviously have no real appreciation for the complexities of the arabic
>>> >> tapestry. Read http://www.juancole.com
>>> >
>>> >actually, it's true.
>>> >
>>> >All of us brown peple get together every 2nd thursday to plot against
>>> >the whites. Hell, all us middle easterners are the smae, just like
>>> >Mexicans, Spanish people and Puerto Ricans are all interchangeagable.
>>> >Japanese, Chinese, etc, all the same people.
>>> >
>>> >And we're all plotting to kill the white people.
>>> >
>>> >ALL OF US.
>>> >
>>> >Lyle
>>>
>>> That's why he moved to the whitest state in the Union.
>>> Target-rich environment and all.
>>>
>>
>>fwiw, it's a rarely reported fact that most arabs in the US are not muslim.
>>they are christian
>>
>>and most muslims in this country are not arab, they are black
>
>Yeah, I knew one of those Christian arabs. He was a Lebanese Maronite
>Catholic. Lebanon was apparently not a good place to grow up as a
>non-Muslim.
>
>And are the black muslims here true muslims, or those goofy racist,
>here comes the mothership, Farakahn muslims?

I don't know about that, but I'm more than a bit concerned about the
percentage who seem to find their salvation through the correctional
system. One must wonder about the purity of the teachings there.

Proton Soup
October 9th 04, 07:32 PM
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 14:29:31 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>Proton Soup > wrote:
>> "tacitrati" > wrote:
>>>Lucas Buck > wrote:
>>>> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>>>> >Brian Link wrote:
>>>> >> Proton Soup > wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> That's just cuz you think all brown people are in cahoots. You
>>>> >> obviously have no real appreciation for the complexities of the arabic
>>>> >> tapestry. Read http://www.juancole.com
>>>> >
>>>> >actually, it's true.
>>>> >
>>>> >All of us brown peple get together every 2nd thursday to plot against
>>>> >the whites. Hell, all us middle easterners are the smae, just like
>>>> >Mexicans, Spanish people and Puerto Ricans are all interchangeagable.
>>>> >Japanese, Chinese, etc, all the same people.
>>>> >
>>>> >And we're all plotting to kill the white people.
>>>> >
>>>> >ALL OF US.
>>>> >
>>>> >Lyle
>>>>
>>>> That's why he moved to the whitest state in the Union.
>>>> Target-rich environment and all.
>>>>
>>>
>>>fwiw, it's a rarely reported fact that most arabs in the US are not muslim.
>>>they are christian
>>>
>>>and most muslims in this country are not arab, they are black
>>
>>Yeah, I knew one of those Christian arabs. He was a Lebanese Maronite
>>Catholic. Lebanon was apparently not a good place to grow up as a
>>non-Muslim.
>>
>>And are the black muslims here true muslims, or those goofy racist,
>>here comes the mothership, Farakahn muslims?
>
>I don't know about that, but I'm more than a bit concerned about the
>percentage who seem to find their salvation through the correctional
>system. One must wonder about the purity of the teachings there.

GG Liddy seems to think that they're good to have on your side if
you're in the joint.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

John M. Williams
October 9th 04, 08:01 PM
Proton Soup > wrote:
> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>Proton Soup > wrote:
>>> "tacitrati" > wrote:
>>>>Lucas Buck > wrote:
>>>>> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>>>>> >Brian Link wrote:
>>>>> >> Proton Soup > wrote:
>>>>> >
>>>>> >> That's just cuz you think all brown people are in cahoots. You
>>>>> >> obviously have no real appreciation for the complexities of the arabic
>>>>> >> tapestry. Read http://www.juancole.com
>>>>> >
>>>>> >actually, it's true.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >All of us brown peple get together every 2nd thursday to plot against
>>>>> >the whites. Hell, all us middle easterners are the smae, just like
>>>>> >Mexicans, Spanish people and Puerto Ricans are all interchangeagable.
>>>>> >Japanese, Chinese, etc, all the same people.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >And we're all plotting to kill the white people.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >ALL OF US.
>>>>> >
>>>>> >Lyle
>>>>>
>>>>> That's why he moved to the whitest state in the Union.
>>>>> Target-rich environment and all.
>>>>
>>>>fwiw, it's a rarely reported fact that most arabs in the US are not muslim.
>>>>they are christian
>>>>
>>>>and most muslims in this country are not arab, they are black
>>>
>>>Yeah, I knew one of those Christian arabs. He was a Lebanese Maronite
>>>Catholic. Lebanon was apparently not a good place to grow up as a
>>>non-Muslim.
>>>
>>>And are the black muslims here true muslims, or those goofy racist,
>>>here comes the mothership, Farakahn muslims?
>>
>>I don't know about that, but I'm more than a bit concerned about the
>>percentage who seem to find their salvation through the correctional
>>system. One must wonder about the purity of the teachings there.
>
>GG Liddy seems to think that they're good to have on your side if
>you're in the joint.

Well, during the 1993 Lucasville siege, the three main groups were the
Aryan Brotherhood, the Black Gangster Disciples, and the Muslims. The
Muslims seemed to have slightly more integrity than the others.

DRS
October 9th 04, 08:13 PM
"Pete" > wrote in message

> John Hanson wrote:
>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:51:51 -0700, "Pete" >
>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>> DRS wrote:
>>>
>>>> You are spectacularly stupid.
>>>
>>> Let me make a wild guess. You don't have many friends, do you?
>>>
>> I would be willing to bet that DRS does even have one.
>
> Given the charm he exudes here, I'd say that's a safe bet.

Going by your track record in here you might as well just send me your money
and cut out the middle man.

--

"There isn't a finite amount of oil in the Earth. It keeps being produced."
John Hanson

Pete
October 9th 04, 08:20 PM
DRS wrote:
> "Pete" > wrote in message
>
>> John Hanson wrote:
>>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:51:51 -0700, "Pete" >
>>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>> DRS wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> You are spectacularly stupid.
>>>>
>>>> Let me make a wild guess. You don't have many friends, do you?
>>>>
>>> I would be willing to bet that DRS does even have one.
>>
>> Given the charm he exudes here, I'd say that's a safe bet.
>
> Going by your track record in here you might as well just send me
> your money and cut out the middle man.

Struck that nerve again, eh? You really shouldn't make yourself such an easy
target.


---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.772 / Virus Database: 519 - Release Date: 10/7/2004

DRS
October 9th 04, 08:30 PM
"Pete" > wrote in message

> DRS wrote:
>> "Pete" > wrote in message
>>
>>> John Hanson wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 9 Oct 2004 10:51:51 -0700, "Pete" >
>>>> wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
>>>>> DRS wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You are spectacularly stupid.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me make a wild guess. You don't have many friends, do you?
>>>>>
>>>> I would be willing to bet that DRS does even have one.
>>>
>>> Given the charm he exudes here, I'd say that's a safe bet.
>>
>> Going by your track record in here you might as well just send me
>> your money and cut out the middle man.
>
> Struck that nerve again, eh?

You couldn't strike yourself, let alone anyone else.

> You really shouldn't make yourself such
> an easy target.

Skewering morons like you when they're begging for it is a weakness of mine.

--

"There isn't a finite amount of oil in the Earth. It keeps being produced."
John Hanson

tacitrati
October 9th 04, 09:15 PM
John M. Williams > wrote in message
...
> Proton Soup > wrote:
> > "tacitrati" > wrote:
> >>Lucas Buck > wrote:
> >>> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
> >>> >Brian Link wrote:
> >>> >> Proton Soup > wrote:
> >>> >
> >>> >> That's just cuz you think all brown people are in cahoots. You
> >>> >> obviously have no real appreciation for the complexities of the
arabic
> >>> >> tapestry. Read http://www.juancole.com
> >>> >
> >>> >actually, it's true.
> >>> >
> >>> >All of us brown peple get together every 2nd thursday to plot against
> >>> >the whites. Hell, all us middle easterners are the smae, just like
> >>> >Mexicans, Spanish people and Puerto Ricans are all interchangeagable.
> >>> >Japanese, Chinese, etc, all the same people.
> >>> >
> >>> >And we're all plotting to kill the white people.
> >>> >
> >>> >ALL OF US.
> >>> >
> >>> >Lyle
> >>>
> >>> That's why he moved to the whitest state in the Union.
> >>> Target-rich environment and all.
> >>>
> >>
> >>fwiw, it's a rarely reported fact that most arabs in the US are not
muslim.
> >>they are christian
> >>
> >>and most muslims in this country are not arab, they are black
> >
> >Yeah, I knew one of those Christian arabs. He was a Lebanese Maronite
> >Catholic. Lebanon was apparently not a good place to grow up as a
> >non-Muslim.
> >
> >And are the black muslims here true muslims, or those goofy racist,
> >here comes the mothership, Farakahn muslims?
>
> I don't know about that, but I'm more than a bit concerned about the
> percentage who seem to find their salvation through the correctional
> system. One must wonder about the purity of the teachings there.

malcolm X was very savvy in that regard. he knew the unfortunately high #'s
of blacks in the prison system were open to a religion that "spoke to them"
and he was quite successful in increasing the prison "ministries"

whit

John M. Williams
October 9th 04, 10:17 PM
"tacitrati" > wrote:
>John M. Williams > wrote:
>> Proton Soup > wrote:
>> > "tacitrati" > wrote:
>> >>Lucas Buck > wrote:
>> >>> Lyle McDonald > wrote:
>> >>> >Brian Link wrote:
>> >>> >> Proton Soup > wrote:
>> >>> >
>> >>> >> That's just cuz you think all brown people are in cahoots. You
>> >>> >> obviously have no real appreciation for the complexities of the
>> >>> >> arabic tapestry. Read http://www.juancole.com
>> >>> >
>> >>> >actually, it's true.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >All of us brown peple get together every 2nd thursday to plot against
>> >>> >the whites. Hell, all us middle easterners are the smae, just like
>> >>> >Mexicans, Spanish people and Puerto Ricans are all interchangeagable.
>> >>> >Japanese, Chinese, etc, all the same people.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >And we're all plotting to kill the white people.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >ALL OF US.
>> >>> >
>> >>> >Lyle
>> >>>
>> >>> That's why he moved to the whitest state in the Union.
>> >>> Target-rich environment and all.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>fwiw, it's a rarely reported fact that most arabs in the US are not
>> >>muslim. they are christian
>> >>
>> >>and most muslims in this country are not arab, they are black
>> >
>> >Yeah, I knew one of those Christian arabs. He was a Lebanese Maronite
>> >Catholic. Lebanon was apparently not a good place to grow up as a
>> >non-Muslim.
>> >
>> >And are the black muslims here true muslims, or those goofy racist,
>> >here comes the mothership, Farakahn muslims?
>>
>> I don't know about that, but I'm more than a bit concerned about the
>> percentage who seem to find their salvation through the correctional
>> system. One must wonder about the purity of the teachings there.
>
>malcolm X was very savvy in that regard. he knew the unfortunately high #'s
>of blacks in the prison system were open to a religion that "spoke to them"
>and he was quite successful in increasing the prison "ministries"
>
>whit

There has also been an extensive increase in Buddhist prison
ministries. Given the inherently violent nature of that population,
it's a pretty easy guess which one I believe is more beneficial.

Proton Soup
October 10th 04, 12:10 AM
On Sat, 09 Oct 2004 17:17:30 -0400, John M. Williams
> wrote:

>"tacitrati" > wrote:
>>John M. Williams > wrote:
>>> Proton Soup > wrote:
>>> > "tacitrati" > wrote:

>>> >>fwiw, it's a rarely reported fact that most arabs in the US are not
>>> >>muslim. they are christian
>>> >>
>>> >>and most muslims in this country are not arab, they are black
>>> >
>>> >Yeah, I knew one of those Christian arabs. He was a Lebanese Maronite
>>> >Catholic. Lebanon was apparently not a good place to grow up as a
>>> >non-Muslim.
>>> >
>>> >And are the black muslims here true muslims, or those goofy racist,
>>> >here comes the mothership, Farakahn muslims?
>>>
>>> I don't know about that, but I'm more than a bit concerned about the
>>> percentage who seem to find their salvation through the correctional
>>> system. One must wonder about the purity of the teachings there.
>>
>>malcolm X was very savvy in that regard. he knew the unfortunately high #'s
>>of blacks in the prison system were open to a religion that "spoke to them"
>>and he was quite successful in increasing the prison "ministries"
>>
>>whit
>
>There has also been an extensive increase in Buddhist prison
>ministries. Given the inherently violent nature of that population,
>it's a pretty easy guess which one I believe is more beneficial.

Buddhists are gun nuts.

-----------
Proton Soup

"Homo sapiens non urinat in ventum."

John M. Williams
October 10th 04, 12:47 AM
Proton Soup > wrote:
> John M. Williams > wrote:
>>"tacitrati" > wrote:
>>>John M. Williams > wrote:
>>>> Proton Soup > wrote:
>>>> > "tacitrati" > wrote:
>
>>>> >>fwiw, it's a rarely reported fact that most arabs in the US are not
>>>> >>muslim. they are christian
>>>> >>
>>>> >>and most muslims in this country are not arab, they are black
>>>> >
>>>> >Yeah, I knew one of those Christian arabs. He was a Lebanese Maronite
>>>> >Catholic. Lebanon was apparently not a good place to grow up as a
>>>> >non-Muslim.
>>>> >
>>>> >And are the black muslims here true muslims, or those goofy racist,
>>>> >here comes the mothership, Farakahn muslims?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know about that, but I'm more than a bit concerned about the
>>>> percentage who seem to find their salvation through the correctional
>>>> system. One must wonder about the purity of the teachings there.
>>>
>>>malcolm X was very savvy in that regard. he knew the unfortunately high #'s
>>>of blacks in the prison system were open to a religion that "spoke to them"
>>>and he was quite successful in increasing the prison "ministries"
>>>
>>>whit
>>
>>There has also been an extensive increase in Buddhist prison
>>ministries. Given the inherently violent nature of that population,
>>it's a pretty easy guess which one I believe is more beneficial.
>
>Buddhists are gun nuts.

As long as you don't sell them.

Seth Breidbart
October 12th 04, 02:37 AM
In article >,
Donovan Rebbechi > wrote:
>On 2004-10-07, Seth Breidbart > wrote:
>
>> I was 24.
>
>That might be possible.

Clearly, since it happened.

> It's not exactly the norm though (in fact it's quite
>exceptional)

It should have been a year earlier, but I'm lazy, and life as a grad
student suited me.

Seth
--
Sometimes we have to forget studies and theories and just lift like a
****er! -- George UK