junior wrote, "Clinton is Having sex with a 13 yr old"
Connie E. Perry
night and this woman came forward and said that President Clinton
rapped her when she was 12 or 13 in a hotel. She is now 25 to 30 years
old so they arent sure if she is creditable. They say she should of
come out with that long before the monica thing.
----------------------------------
Connie E. Perry
Poetry Forum/Poetry from the Heart
http://users.lamarelectric.com/~poetry/
jan sand
learn he is into rapping. Does he tap dance when he rapps, or does he
spin on his head?
Jan Sand
Dale Houstman
As we should all well know by now anything is possible within
the realms of scientific potential. This "story" (it barely rates as
that) may be true.
It doesn't however appear to me that Clinton is the rapist type;
he is a sociopath entirely interested in making people like him
by constant compromise and amelioration of his "non-stance".
He is a hedonist who wished to be serviced with the least amount
of offense and time wasted, but he is the next best thing to an
auto-erotic personality, only having a partner so he can deny his
basic narcissistic impulse and disguise it as an "encounter".
He controls by backing away and smiling. He would most
like to leave off with everyone loving him for doing precisely
the nothing he never promised to do. He desires to leave a
clean plate and a full stomach. He is affability raised to a
political power by means of an empty ethos surrounded by
that most ephemeral of "characteristics" charisma.
I just don't (personally) find this vacuum capable of rape,
and (despite all the noise) don't find his sexual dalliances
to be in the least interesting or even strange. They are constituted
of the most common coin of the sexual realm.
The one thing I do like about him is his getting a whopping
O'Henry while talking on the telephone to one or another
empty suit of state. It was at that moment he became "my
president." Other than that, you can hang him from the
yum yum tree. I simply find politicians boring. And (in the
final tally) irrelevent to my desires and my art.
DMH
George Washington rubbed a gorilla with banana leaves
John Adams licked dung beetles off the brow of a Boston whore
Thomas Jefferson had sex with his mind
Andrew Jackson drank fermented sperm from a Dixie cup
Abraham Lincoln loved it "Southern style"
Ulysses S Grant stood up and fell over into a kitty litter box
Woodrow Wilson wasn't named "Wilty Woody" for nothing
Harding wasn't (ever)
Franklin Roosevelt had a security blanket made out of missionaries
Truman liked it "Japanese style"
Eisenhower built a highway system so he could visit brothels
Kennedy threw out his back humping the editors of the New York Times
LBJ: Loved Blow Jobs
Richard Nixon loved it "Cambodian style"
Gerald Ford stood up and fell over into a kitty litter box
Jimmy Carter lusted for "peanut-love" (anal insertion)
Ronald Reagan blew out his cortex "doing the trickledown"
Bush is bushed
____________________________
etc. for a long long time
Connie E. Perry
Perry) wrote:
I dunno I never pictured the man using a cigar either but hehe umm I
know what I am sending him for christmas *LOL*
Joshua P. Hill
<dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>As we should all well know by now anything is possible within
>the realms of scientific potential. This "story" (it barely rates as
>that) may be true.
>
>It doesn't however appear to me that Clinton is the rapist type;
>he is a sociopath entirely interested in making people like him
>by constant compromise and amelioration of his "non-stance".
I don't think Clinton is a sociopath, although he clearly has
sociopathic tendencies. He strikes me as a man ideally adapted to life
with an alcoholic stepfather. He sidesteps situations when he can; but
when push comes to shove, he draws the line, as he did when he punched
his stepfather, or stood against the Gringrichites. A sociopath would
not have taken such a stand except as a matter of convenience.
I think history will look rather kindly on him. He took office at a
very difficult time for any Democrat, managed to staunch the bleeding,
and pretty effectively defanged the radical right. If he had continued
to go with traditional democratic policies--national health insurance,
gays in the military, etc.--not only would he not have achieved them,
but things would be much worse than they are.
>He is a hedonist who wished to be serviced with the least amount
>of offense and time wasted, but he is the next best thing to an
>auto-erotic personality, only having a partner so he can deny his
>basic narcissistic impulse and disguise it as an "encounter".
These characteristics are I think the result of an almost classic case
of hypomania (or ADD or whatever they're calling it this month).
Impulsiveness, irascibility (hidden from the public), extreme
narcissism, hedonism, overwhelming ambition, quickeness of thought,
garrulity, boundless energy, sociability, monomania (typically
referred to as his "capacity for compartmentalization"), risk taking,
a need for constant gratification, bloated ego, an endless capacity
for self-justification.
jan sand
a cigar is a good smoke" , but I suppose Clinton has changed all of
that.
Jan Sand
On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 17:30:25 GMT, poe...@lamarelectric.com (Connie E.
Dale Houstman
> I don't think Clinton is a sociopath, although he clearly has
> sociopathic tendencies.
Agreed; I do tend to overstate things in my rush to understate things.
> I think history will look rather kindly on him. He took office at a
> very difficult time for any Democrat, managed to staunch the bleeding,
> and pretty effectively defanged the radical right. If he had continued
> to go with traditional democratic policies--national health insurance,
> gays in the military, etc.--not only would he not have achieved them,
> but things would be much worse than they are.
This I cannot agree with, not because it isn't true: political
compromise
always seems to be the order of the day, but because I don't care what
"history" will think of him. And while it is probably true that Clinton
wouldn't have achieved much given a firmer left lean, for my money he
hasn't achieved anything of value anyway. The fact is Hillary's
"half-assed"
notion of leaving insurance companies in the driver's seat of health care
led to a massive departure of the smaller providers, and the further
centralization of health care in the hands of the few. By any account,
managed care is a bureaucratic nightmare and a disaster for people.
And Clinton's proud cockcrowing over "getting the folks off the welfare
rolls" nauseates me. The prisons continue to go up, and even though
Bill has been much too busy of late to fly off to Arkansas to oversee
the execution of a mentally-challenged man (as he did during his first
campaign) he hasn't been too busy to enact further draconian drug
laws (furthering the corruption of the police and the inner cities) and
(in the wake of Oklahoma) to cut deeply into the Constitution by
his huge extension of wiretapping powers. I won't discuss his
convenient bombing of Iraq, his lack of even the easiest compassion
in such cases as Leonard Pelltier (the Indian community here talks of one
of
his advisors "hinting" that Bill would move on a pardon; and this is
something I don't put past him at all). He apologized for raising taxes
on the wealthy (I felt like punching him in his self-satisfied face for
that!),
and has constantly sent more money to the Pentagon than even they want.
Furthermore, Reagan's dumbass Star Wars notion was merely moved
earthward where it attracted little attention, but plenty of money.
The list goes on and on...
I think history will find him impossible to ignore (a Democrat! A two
term president!), but his legacy is corrupted for me, and certainly not
by his sexual proclivities, which I think are dull as doormats.
As for defanging the right; only at the cost of fanging the left. It
isn't
enough to keep the right at bay by stealing their notions and having
the charisma to pass them off as ideals. A true left will only rise in
this
country again if these spinky little liberals have the guts to lose some
elections on principle, in the hopes that an idea or an ideal might leak
through the fingers of all the glad-handing.
Politics either has to be more than a shallow presentation of another
Punch n Judy show, or I would rather seem them all hung!
DMH
Dale Houstman
Getting people "off the welfare rolls" is all well and nice, but the jobs
don't pay enough to keep them there, and the child care system is
atrocious and expensive. This is a dumping system, not a caring
rethinking of policy. Part of the reason (by the by) that wages have
not risen even though we are supposedly going through the greatest
economic times since the Universe fell out of its debthole, is that
(A) Prisoners (who work very cheap, the dears!) are doing more
and more of capitalism's dirty work for nothing (B) welfare dumpees
are taking up the rest of the slack. None of this is coincidental, of course.
All of it stinks.
Everyone loves to talk of how the welfare system has ruined two
generations, but no one likes to talk of how ruthless exploitation of labor
(happily bereft of unionism and government oversite) ruins everything
it touches but the Bosses' leather wallets. The fact is that the government
has always been a support behind the greatest achievements of this
nation; the train system (it used to work!), the highway system, the GI
Bill, etc etc etc. The point is finally that we wouldn't need a welfare
system at all if the government would stop pampering the wealthy few
and force thosae goddamn monsters to pay a decent wage. They could
start by ceasing their attacks on unions (the folks who gave us the weekend
just before corporate America gave us the two or three job existence)
and continue by rewarding government contracts only to those who
can get it through their heads that employment is a contract, not a
bill-of-sale. Welfare is a hypocritical response to the government's
abdication of its responsibilities, and to call and end to it without
addressing those inadequacies is mere extension of hypocrisy.
As for the Pentagon, Clinton has gone on record endlessly in requesting
more money for the Pentagon. He has led the charge several times.
He isn't afraid of overspending to salve those who might hate him
for not going to Vietnam. He always promises increased military spending.
The money spent on the military (as history proves) is always used
eventually; there will be more of America's cowardly little wars against
the defenseless; and isn't it interesting that America is THE arms trader
of the world? How many people suffer directly because of our bloated
adventurism. And why can't we have less military spending AND decent
abortion regulations? By the way; Clinton has gotten behind the privatization
of Social Security. He thinks it's a grand idea! As for public television,
that would be gone too, if the Republicans hadn't turned their attentions
elsewhere, although I find it odd that you would rather have public TV
than decreased military spending; this strikes me as an odd priority.
What are Democratic ideals if the only way to win an election is
to steal Republican ideals? The Republicans are only in distress
because their powerbase is being eaten by that omnivore Bill; it
isn't because their "ideas" haven't won out. For the most part,
right wing "visions" have been running this country seeminlgy forever
now. If abortion rights have held their precarious sway, it is only
because Clinton knows (smartly enough) that the vast majority of
Americans support them. If they didn't he wouldn't touch it.
Hillary's half-ass health care initiiatve created the mess we're in now.
No action at all would have been preferable; by driving out the smaller
competitors (who left because they didn't feel they would be able to
compete) her notion has left healthcare even more in the hands of
the few.
I am not interested in "Democratic" policies: I am interested in radical
justice and punishment of the ravagers. It is well past the time when
small adjustments and compromises are effective; Clinton is selling
off our oil, our forests, our rights, and our sense of justice.
If the outcome of elections is essentially random, then what has anyone
to lose by stating what they believe rather than what they must say to
get elected? Obviously elections are not random; they weren't meant
to be (the Electoral College was created to muffle the voice of the
rabble), and (with the influx of media and money) they are even less
so now. Money isn't random; investments in potential leaders are
debated and delineated for maximum income and outcome. Even
the "surprises" only occur within a rather small spectrum of possibility:
the independently wealthy, the charm school pretty boy, the military
half-hero. etc. I think the narrow margin of victory in elections occurs
because most people (without quite knowing why) feel that the
choice is "6 of one, half-a-dozen of the other."
Johnson's civil rights legislation happened because he deeply felt
they had to, and yes he had the strength to push them through. But
when the next strong "Democratic" government occurs, what will
be left of even the weak-tea liberalism we are getting now?
To invest too much effort in selecting between two miserable choices
again and again won't get us very far. It is rigged; the outcome is
not in question for those who wield the cash and influence to protect
themselves from harm.
DMH
Dale Houstman
Josh,
I also want to say that this is all we should say on this damn subject;
I am not out to convince you, and this isn't AT ALL what I want to
do here. Your ideas seem valid and heartfelt, and I have absolutely
no interest in more political banter.
Let us both assume that I don't know what I'm talking about (and
heaven knows I don't!) and get back to other stupidities of a more
endearing nature.
Thank you!
DMH
"Hang the Bastards from a Yardarm!"
Bobby
food when we finish the creep off in the 2000 primaries. It's Bradley all
the way. Bet on it.
Bobby
Joshua P. Hill wrote in message <36de058b...@news.mindspring.com>...
>On Sun, 28 Feb 1999 12:00:09 -0600, Dale Houstman
><dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
>
>>Joshua P. Hill wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think Clinton is a sociopath, although he clearly has
>>> sociopathic tendencies.
>>
>> Agreed; I do tend to overstate things in my rush to understate things.
>>
>>> I think history will look rather kindly on him. He took office at a
>>> very difficult time for any Democrat, managed to staunch the bleeding,
>>> and pretty effectively defanged the radical right. If he had continued
>>> to go with traditional democratic policies--national health insurance,
>>> gays in the military, etc.--not only would he not have achieved them,
>>> but things would be much worse than they are.
>>
>> This I cannot agree with, not because it isn't true: political
>>compromise
>>always seems to be the order of the day, but because I don't care what
>>"history" will think of him. And while it is probably true that Clinton
>>wouldn't have achieved much given a firmer left lean, for my money he
>>hasn't achieved anything of value anyway. The fact is Hillary's
>>"half-assed"
>>notion of leaving insurance companies in the driver's seat of health care
>>led to a massive departure of the smaller providers, and the further
>>centralization of health care in the hands of the few. By any account,
>>managed care is a bureaucratic nightmare and a disaster for people.
>
>It's the right wing version of socialized medicine. We would have been
>better off with Hillary's plan. A shame that it was so poorly
>wrought--but that was I think an attempt to get it passed in the face
>of some of the greediest and most powerful lobbies anywhere. Other
>presidents including Truman and Carter have tried to come up with a
>reasonable system of socialized medicine and have been uniformly shot
>down by the greedsters.
>
>>And Clinton's proud cockcrowing over "getting the folks off the welfare
>>rolls" nauseates me.
>
>Not me. Welfare is I think the single worst social policy this country
>has ever been misguided enough to create--it's destroyed two
>generations. Culture arises through the observations a group makes on
>what works in a given environment. Create a perverted environment, and
>one perverts a culture. That's true of the Indian Reservation, and
>it's true of the welfare ghetto. I think the whole damn business
>should be abolished, and replaced with a system in which the
>government is the employer of last resort. Not workfare, but jobs.
>
>>The prisons continue to go up, and even though
>>Bill has been much too busy of late to fly off to Arkansas to oversee
>>the execution of a mentally-challenged man (as he did during his first
>>campaign) he hasn't been too busy to enact further draconian drug
>>laws (furthering the corruption of the police and the inner cities) and
>>(in the wake of Oklahoma) to cut deeply into the Constitution by
>>his huge extension of wiretapping powers. I won't discuss his
>>convenient bombing of Iraq, his lack of even the easiest compassion
>>in such cases as Leonard Pelltier (the Indian community here talks of one
>>of
>>his advisors "hinting" that Bill would move on a pardon; and this is
>>something I don't put past him at all). He apologized for raising taxes
>>on the wealthy (I felt like punching him in his self-satisfied face for
>>that!),
>>and has constantly sent more money to the Pentagon than even they want.
>
>Seems to me that's not Clinton but Congress.
>
>>Furthermore, Reagan's dumbass Star Wars notion was merely moved
>>earthward where it attracted little attention, but plenty of money.
>>The list goes on and on...
>
>Depends on how you look at it. Seems to me like a simple case of
>triage, of accepting the less harmful or beneficial right wing
>policies, e.g. mdoerate overspending on the military or the balanced
>budget, and standing firm against the worst ones. I would rather see
>too much spent on the military than see a ban on abortions,
>privatization of social security, elimination of public television,
>the complete abolition of affirmitive action, school vouchers, and
>even lower taxes for the rich.
>>
>> I think history will find him impossible to ignore (a Democrat! A two
>>term president!), but his legacy is corrupted for me, and certainly not
>>by his sexual proclivities, which I think are dull as doormats.
>>
>> As for defanging the right; only at the cost of fanging the left. It
>>isn't
>>enough to keep the right at bay by stealing their notions and having
>>the charisma to pass them off as ideals.
>
>
>
>
>A true left will only rise in
>>this
>>country again if these spinky little liberals have the guts to lose some
>>elections on principle, in the hopes that an idea or an ideal might leak
>>through the fingers of all the glad-handing.
>
>I'm not sure about that. It seems to me that because the opposition
>lacks a clear leader, the American system of government strongly
>favors the party in power over the party that controls the congress,
>which fractures and so cannot present a unified voice The hardships of
>the Republican party, over which they are so desperately wringing
>hands right now, are almost identical in nature to the difficulties
>experienced by the Democrats after the Carter years. It's absolutely
>necessary to have a popular Democrat in the presidency if Democratic
>policies are to have a hearing.
>
>It also seems that a president today must be at least as much showman
>as policy maker; and as to liberals losing elections, they've done
>that effectively for many years--there hasn't been a liberal President
>since Johnson, who did as you suggest and traded the electoral future
>of the Democratic party for civil rights legislation--a noble
>tradeoff, but one that could only be made from a position of strength
>which the Democrats have not had since.
>
>> Politics either has to be more than a shallow presentation of another
>>Punch n Judy show, or I would rather seem them all hung!
>
>The improbably narrow margin of victory in even landslide elections,
>which is quite out of keeping with the Gaussian distribution one would
>expect if voters were chosing on the basis of a systematic reaction to
>events, and this has led me to believe that the outcome of elections
>is essentially random. Democracy is for the most part a complex power
>sharing arrangement and a tamer of hubris rather than a mechanism for
>informed choice on the part of the electorate.
>
>Josh
Joshua P. Hill
Dale Houstman
Bobby wrote:
> Don't count us Northern Urban Liberals out Babe. Gore is going to be dog
> food when we finish the creep off in the 2000 primaries. It's Bradley all
> the way. Bet on it.
Why? I don't like losing money. And finally: who cares?
Bradley: another politician. And could you have dug up a speaker
almost as uninspiring as Gore without concerted effort? Of course,
since the entire point is to avoid saying anything that meaning could be
attached to, he may be perfect. But Gore will have the money and
Clinton's still very formidable political machinery.
I'm voting for Gore Vidal and Edward Gorey, for the 3rd time.
DMH
Bobby
got in your short pockets HUH HUH HUH???
Bobby
Dale Houstman wrote in message <7bdc92$c15$1...@news-1.news.gte.net>...
>
>
>Bobby wrote:
>
>> Don't count us Northern Urban Liberals out Babe. Gore is going to be dog
>> food when we finish the creep off in the 2000 primaries. It's Bradley
all
>> the way. Bet on it.
>
Joshua P. Hill
<dale.h...@gte.net> wrote:
>Joshua P. Hill
>
>
>Getting people "off the welfare rolls" is all well and nice, but the jobs
>don't pay enough to keep them there, and the child care system is
>atrocious and expensive. This is a dumping system, not a caring
>rethinking of policy.
I agree. I do not like "workfare." I believe in giving people jobs.
But given a choice between the current welfare system and workfare, I
prefer the latter. It is not what I would like. But welfare thoroughly
destroys people. I've lived in New York City most of my life and
watched it happen. It turns people into animals.
>Part of the reason (by the by) that wages have
>not risen even though we are supposedly going through the greatest
>economic times since the Universe fell out of its debthole, is that
>(A) Prisoners (who work very cheap, the dears!) are doing more
>and more of capitalism's dirty work for nothing (B) welfare dumpees
>are taking up the rest of the slack. None of this is coincidental, of course.
>All of it stinks.
The main reason wages haven't risen (have fallen actually in real
terms) is the "internationalization" of the economy which has
introduced a vast oversupply of unskilled labor. One possible solution
is a system of sliding tariffs, but the power of the greedy rich is
such that I don't see this happening without a massive economic
reversal.
>Welfare is a hypocritical response to the government's
>abdication of its responsibilities, and to call and end to it without
>addressing those inadequacies is mere extension of hypocrisy.
I agree. But one must work within the possible if one is to do any
good at all.
>As for the Pentagon, Clinton has gone on record endlessly in requesting
>more money for the Pentagon. He has led the charge several times.
>He isn't afraid of overspending to salve those who might hate him
>for not going to Vietnam. He always promises increased military spending.
>The money spent on the military (as history proves) is always used
>eventually; there will be more of America's cowardly little wars against
>the defenseless; and isn't it interesting that America is THE arms trader
>of the world? How many people suffer directly because of our bloated
>adventurism.
Some. But at the same time we spend a lot of money helping people who
are basically frying their own asses. As to the overall military
budget, it again boils down to what's possible. The military itself
would like to eliminate useless bases, etc., but Congress won't let
them. To the best of my knowledge the administration is stuck on that
and other issues of military spending--though if I were in office I
would propose massive cuts in many areas.
>And why can't we have less military spending AND decent
>abortion regulations? By the way; Clinton has gotten behind the privatization
>of Social Security. He thinks it's a grand idea!
Not, as I understand it, where it would hurt people. Once again, the
right wing majority wants to effectively turn Social Security into
individual retirement accounts, which would benefit the rich but hurt
simplicities who would quite likely put all their money into high
flying stocks and mutual funds which will likely have crashed by the
time they're older. I don't think the social security trust fund
should invest in Wall Street, that's hairbrained, but as far as I know
Clinton's proposal is better than the Republican alternatives.
>As for public television,
>that would be gone too, if the Republicans hadn't turned their attentions
>elsewhere, although I find it odd that you would rather have public TV
>than decreased military spending; this strikes me as an odd priority.
I thought it might. I'm beginning with the assumption that we produce
more than we need to, can afford to waste some of it (and indeed it
may be socially beneficial to waste some of it to keep the economy
moving and provide jobs), and, most important of all, that we will
waste some of it--that boondoggles and corruption are a part of the
political system and that as much as I abhor them I do not know how to
get rid of them.
> What are Democratic ideals if the only way to win an election is
>to steal Republican ideals? The Republicans are only in distress
>because their powerbase is being eaten by that omnivore Bill; it
> isn't because their "ideas" haven't won out.
I agree. But I basically said that. The ideas don't mean squat. The
electorate understands things only in a ridiculously oversimple way.
> For the most part,
>right wing "visions" have been running this country seeminlgy forever
>now. If abortion rights have held their precarious sway, it is only
>because Clinton knows (smartly enough) that the vast majority of
>Americans support them. If they didn't he wouldn't touch it.
>
>Hillary's half-ass health care initiiatve created the mess we're in now.
>No action at all would have been preferable; by driving out the smaller
>competitors (who left because they didn't feel they would be able to
>compete) her notion has left healthcare even more in the hands of
>the few.
>
>I am not interested in "Democratic" policies: I am interested in radical
>justice and punishment of the ravagers. It is well past the time when
>small adjustments and compromises are effective; Clinton is selling
>off our oil, our forests, our rights, and our sense of justice.
>
>If the outcome of elections is essentially random, then what has anyone
>to lose by stating what they believe rather than what they must say to
>get elected? Obviously elections are not random; they weren't meant
>to be (the Electoral College was created to muffle the voice of the
>rabble),
The electoral college no longer serves its original function, if it
ever did. It's a rubber stamp.
As to elections not being random, you are wrong. Oh, they respond to
major events on the presidential level, but in an effectively
uncorrelated way. EG, public kicks out Democrats over Vietnam, and
elects Nixon. Public kicks out Republicans over Watergate, and elects
a smiley guy who does nothing. Public kicks out smiley guy who does
nothing over being a smiley guy who does nothing, and elects a
grandfatherly presinilitic.
None of these decisions, or the many decisions that are made on the
basis of charisma, have anything to do with the issues, except insofar
as the public pins failure on whoever's in office (sometimes unfairly,
as in blaming Bush for a cyclical downturn in the economy) and
replaces him with someone else who is chosen on the basis of his
campaigning ability. The public likes the performance of people who
like FDR or Regan or Clinton have pleasing personas. The public
dislikes the performance of people like Harry Truman who don't. And
I'm really exaggerating the causal nature of electoral results.
> and (with the influx of media and money) they are even less
>so now. Money isn't random; investments in potential leaders are
>debated and delineated for maximum income and outcome. Even
>the "surprises" only occur within a rather small spectrum of possibility:
>the independently wealthy, the charm school pretty boy, the military
>half-hero. etc. I think the narrow margin of victory in elections occurs
>because most people (without quite knowing why) feel that the
>choice is "6 of one, half-a-dozen of the other."
Some people feel that way, but at least as many believe profoundly in
one party or another. Just listen to a man on the street interview.
Everybody gives different reasons for their own decisions. Very few
have even the faintest idea what's going on, because very few read a
decent newspaper--and even reading decent newspapers gives one a very
whitewashed view of things.
But again, by "random" I meant "random with respect to the question of
whether a leader's policies will be more or less beneficial with
respect to the country." It is not random with respect to the
prettiness of a leader's face, or a campaigner's wallet. So the
politicians hold their contests on that level, and accept the
vicissitudes, and those who are in office then go on to represent a
conglomeration of things--and so we end up with an effective power
sharing arrangement which is tilted somewhat towards the rich, the
elderly, the white, etc.
>Johnson's civil rights legislation happened because he deeply felt
>they had to, and yes he had the strength to push them through. But
>when the next strong "Democratic" government occurs, what will
>be left of even the weak-tea liberalism we are getting now?
I don't know. It's been fairly said that these things go in
cycles--periods of change followed by periods of retrenchment. It
seems to me that the whole thing is a bit like a critically damped
feedback mechanism, which tries something, overshoots the mark, then
corrects for it. The actual systematic process is overwhelmed by the
noise, but it is there, and it is detectable through correlation. And
it has little to do with the outcome of elections, though the fact
that it occurs has a lot to do with the fact of elections.
>To invest too much effort in selecting between two miserable choices
>again and again won't get us very far. It is rigged; the outcome is
>not in question for those who wield the cash and influence to protect
>themselves from harm.
Has it ever been? Human societies are run by the powerful, and the
powerful take more for themselves on the basis of instincts that were
formed because it was in large measure desireable for the fittest
members of a species to stay that way during times of famine. I'm
reminded of those dominant chimpanzees who steal monkeys that have
been hunted by other chimpanzees and share them with their friends and
mates. If we differ, it's only because we seem to combine the
agressive social structure of the chimpanzee with the polymorphously
perverse one of the bonobo
Josh
Joshua P. Hill
OK (I replied to your other message before I read this).
Josh
GSI52 US104
thnak you U'all for your thoughtful discussions.
But the question still remains, i haven't learned
satisfactorily. please have mercy on me,
for i maybe slower to learn. But i say, even the
slower to learn should have the right to learn.
junior wrote, on another thread, for the Whole Wide World to read,
"Clinton is having sex with 13 yr old"
A simple question, i think
A valid question, i think
Thus far, several confirmations from long time and credible cyberspace
writers.
Please keep in mind, mr j r Sherman is a long time
cyberspace Writer and "Teacher" with many followings.
Thank you in advance for your thoughtful replies.
And Jan, rumours are "hear says", and it maybe
a good place to quote Mark Twain, "while truth is
putting on the left shoe, rumour traveled halfway
around the world". A wise man, i think.
by the way, it maybe fair to give credit to mr. Gary Gamble, aka gg, who
gave unselfishly addressing this issue. most probably due to gg running
around from NG to NG doing their buddy buddy things with the famous mr j
r Sherman. just speculating.
BTW am one of those people who waved off, voluntarily and legally, my
right to political affiliations. Personally, i think it was a burden
off my shoulders. So much Big Spins in that games, you know.
i thank you again for your thoughtful replies.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Life is Ahead of you
while Life is behind me" GSI
Dale Houstman
> i thank you again for your thoughtful replies.
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> "Life is Ahead of you
> while Life is behind me"
Here's a thoughtful reply for you:
Your " 'umble wittle me" act is bullshit, as is your "poor old soul"
schtick. If "Life is ahead of you" it is only because you're too
intellectually lazy to get up and run a little.
Piss off you little trickle...
DMH
"Maturity may lie in knowing that speaking of a problem
doesn't necessarily make it go away."
Hegel