The Ticket
Queenie
This is going to be interesting to watch! I can't wait to see Mrs.
Palin at the convention tonight. Maybe she'll wear her patriotic
bikini (they have bikinis in Alaska?) Check out John Howard
Kunstler's blog for that jpg.
http://www.kunstler.com/Grunt%20Archive.html
"At first glance, this is a little like dropping Peter Pan into the
middle of Anbar province. On the other hand, former senator Fred
Thompson pointed out last night that Palin may be the only national
candidate in history who knows how to field-dress a moose."
"It's hard to see how that skill will translate into politics, but we
are about to find out."
~Newsweek
My cynical opinion: it doesn't matter who's president anymore. The
bankers have sucked the country dry, and both the American public and
foreign investors fell for the hocus-pocus (now you see it, now you
don't) loan Ponzi scheme like an internet newbie falling for a
Nigerian cash-back scam.
At least The Apocalypse is entertaining.
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Queenie
wrote:
>At least The Apocalypse is entertaining.
Oh. And for Tim... How about those "Service" signs all over the
convention hall?
Heh heh.
Steve Thompson
Entertaining for whom? The fish? I don't think so.
You mean the spectacle is entertaining for people like you who are
able to remain largely detached from the destructive juggernaut of
contemporary government. The sheeplike fuck-toys are your playthings
and entertainment; you are of course so superior for arranging your
life in that way.
> ** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
Paid for, unquestionably, by income acquired from the avails of
slavery.
Regards,
Steve
--
Six nines reliability: A standard of availabilty in which the system
in question will perform to its design specification with negligable
downtime. Such a system might work as intended over the course of one
million years while only being out of the game for less than 365 days
in total. It is left as an excercise to the student to prove that one
cannot choose the periods of unavailability to suit his or her schedule.
Steve Thompson
> On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 14:10:43 -0700, Queenie <queen...@pacbell.net>
> wrote:
>
> >At least The Apocalypse is entertaining.
>
> Oh. And for Tim...
To which Tim do you refer, dumbfuck Nazi bitch?
spamtr...@gmail.com
> OMG, what are the Republicans thinking?
>
> This is going to be interesting to watch! I can't wait to see Mrs.
> Palin at the convention tonight. Maybe she'll wear her patriotic
> bikini (they have bikinis in Alaska?) Check out John Howard
> Kunstler's blog for that jpg.
>
> http://www.kunstler.com/Grunt%20Archive.html
>
photoshop or real?
Queenie
Good question. I'll email and try to find out...
~Queenie
Queenie
>photoshop or real?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/charlotte-hilton-andersen/sarah-palin-bikini-pictur_b_123234.html
~Queenie
Jeff Liebermann
>photoshop or real?
I can't tell for sure, but the picture sorta looks faked. If she were
a real gun nut (everyone in Alaska seems to be), she would know enough
to keep her finger off the trigger. The picture also doesn't show the
figure of someone that has had 5 children and is 42 years old.
However, bikini's are possible in Alaska, after global warming has
done it's thing.
Also:
<http://www.bookpool.com/sm/1598634054>
Queenie... be suspicious. It helps.
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 je...@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com je...@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
David Arnstein
It is a joke. Look here:
http://flickr.com/photos/97897149@N00/208036176
And I am done with Kunstler now. Screw him. Either he was duped, or he
thinks this is a funny joke. It is not. The quality of American
leadership is such that the image on Kunstler's web site was
believable, and I believed it. I don't think I was being stupid. Kunstler
was being a swine.
--
David Arnstein (00)
arnstei...@pobox.com {{ }}
^^
Steve Thompson
Whatever you do, avoid personal confrontational argument or discussion.
Regards,
Steve
--
Six nines reliability: A standard of availabilty in which the system
in question will perform to its design specification with negligable
downtime. Such a system might work as intended over the course of one
million years while only being out of the game for less than 365 days
in total. It is left as an excercise to the student to prove that one
cannot choose the periods of unavailability to suit his or her schedule.
This is your brain on pop culture: @. This is your brain on Mary Jane: .
Any Questions?
Millenium Hand&Fish
>
> However, bikini's are possible in Alaska, after global warming has
> done it's thing.
No apostroph'e
MH&F.
Queenie
wrote:
>I can't tell for sure, but the picture sorta looks faked. If she were
>a real gun nut (everyone in Alaska seems to be), she would know enough
>to keep her finger off the trigger. The picture also doesn't show the
>figure of someone that has had 5 children and is 42 years old.
Make it 44. I looked pretty good at 40 after two kids, so who knows.
(These days I look every bit of my 50+ years; and if I get any more
chin hairs they'll stop me in airports as a suspected Al Qaeda
operative. Sigh.)
>However, bikini's are possible in Alaska, after global warming has
>done it's thing.
You decided to believe in global warming? Welcome to the dark side.
Now, what are we going to do next?
I'm thinking Canada... Or, hey! Alaska!
http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/rural/story/8715347p-8617345c.html
><http://www.bookpool.com/sm/1598634054>
Photo forensics, cool. Except it's not free.
>Queenie... be suspicious. It helps.
My paranoia keeps getting trumped by my cynicism. Oh well, nobody's
perfect.
~Queenie
Queenie
Arnstein) wrote:
>It is a joke. Look here:
>http://flickr.com/photos/97897149@N00/208036176
>
>And I am done with Kunstler now. Screw him. Either he was duped, or he
>thinks this is a funny joke. It is not. The quality of American
>leadership is such that the image on Kunstler's web site was
>believable, and I believed it. I don't think I was being stupid. Kunstler
>was being a swine.
He's an angry, pessimistic swine. I still like to read his stuff,
though.
~Queenie
Jeff Liebermann
wrote:
>On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 17:17:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann <je...@cruzio.com>
>wrote:
>
>>I can't tell for sure, but the picture sorta looks faked. If she were
>>a real gun nut (everyone in Alaska seems to be), she would know enough
>>to keep her finger off the trigger. The picture also doesn't show the
>>figure of someone that has had 5 children and is 42 years old.
>
>Make it 44. I looked pretty good at 40 after two kids, so who knows.
Hard to tell, but methinks unlikely. I'm not even sure that the head
belongs to the governor and might be someone that looks similar. Her
press photos do look rather on the thin side, which doesn't match the
picture. Let's just say I'm suspicious.
>(These days I look every bit of my 50+ years; and if I get any more
>chin hairs they'll stop me in airports as a suspected Al Qaeda
>operative. Sigh.)
Electric shaver. Take about 30 seconds. Nobody will know.
If that's too much trouble, there are various ways of removing facial
hair ranging from chemical to laser methods.
>>However, bikini's are possible in Alaska, after global warming has
>>done it's thing.
>
>You decided to believe in global warming? Welcome to the dark side.
I only believe in global warming when convenient. Indecision is the
key to flexibility.
>I'm thinking Canada... Or, hey! Alaska!
>http://dwb.adn.com/news/alaska/rural/story/8715347p-8617345c.html
Methinks the moon would be more hospitable.
>><http://www.bookpool.com/sm/1598634054>
>Photo forensics, cool. Except it's not free.
I found quite a few references to photographic forensics software with
Google, but all of it was either an unfathomable research project, or
overpriced commercial versions. Adobe apparently has a plug in for
CS3 that will do something useful. I didn't persue it (because I was
late for a meeting).
>>Queenie... be suspicious. It helps.
>
>My paranoia keeps getting trumped by my cynicism. Oh well, nobody's
>perfect.
I'm cynical but not parnoid, so I know it's possible to be suspicious
without overdoing it. I'm also at least half serious about this.
There's so much garbage on the internet, that it's very difficult to
seperate the truth from artificially butchered reality, especially
when dealing with video clips and images. It does take some practice.
The main thing is to look for oddities and anomalies that don't
belong. The finger on the trigger and the lack of stretch marks is a
good start. May I suggest some practice. Dive into:
<http://www.worth1000.com>
and look at the images. Some of them are quite good, but all of them
are faked and edited with Photoshop. After a while, you'll see a
pattern.
Here's an easy one for a start:
<http://www.worth1000.com/emailthis.asp?entry=482196>
Here's another easy one. Note that the shadows are all wrong:
<http://www.worth1000.com/emailthis.asp?entry=482455>
which was assembled from:
<http://i224.photobucket.com/albums/dd263/JohnJijrvy/Scoures.jpg>
Anyway, get used to being suspicious and looking for signs of photo
editing.
--
Jeff Liebermann je...@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Chris Miller
You can generally tell if you blow up the picture. Notice the
different in pixel colors between the body and head?
http://www.flickr.com/photos/33675668@N00/2827797001/
Chris
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
Maybe I can finally make some money as a homeless pundit. Palin's
speech was total airhead. While I'm standing out there begging for
money, she's saying people don't need money, only religion, like
nobody has to pay her fuel expenses, and like McCain's campaign
doesn't have to solicit funds, and like I don't have to pay my monthly
bills. She's like a Luddite who I used to know - he wouldn't touch a
computer, he hated technology, but he drove a reliable car and had
electricity. Airhead Palin is like telling the Hindu untouchable
undercastes to accept the status quo because Faith in Religion is more
valuable than money. She's running for the wrong office in the wrong
country.
God isn't donating to me via PayPal any more than Tim is. Maybe the
New York Times will.
Ok, let me say this posting is copyright by me so if any newspaper
wants to print it they will need to pay me something.
BearCreekMan
"Chris Miller" <inv...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:GIVvk.26233$Ri....@flpi146.ffdc.sbc.com...
Yeah, something like this, between the neck and face ... <grin>
http://timesonline.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2008/04/16/cindy_mccain_recipes.jpg
Geoff Miller
<dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Maybe I can finally make some money as a homeless pundit.
> Palin's speech was total airhead. While I'm standing out
> there begging for money, she's saying people don't need
> money, only religion, like nobody has to pay her fuel
> expenses, and like McCain's campaign doesn't have to
> solicit funds, and like I don't have to pay my monthly
> bills.
"Total airhead?" You must've seen a different speech than
the one I saw.
Palin didn't hit the ball out of the park; she knocked it
clear into low earth orbit. The woman fuckin' rocks.
I take it that by now, you've had ample time to catch up
on current events (no doubt from a taxpayer-funded vacant
terminal at a public library) and digest how well she was
received, how the McCain ticket has overtaken the Obames-
siah's in the polls...and how scared the Dems are, to the
point eher they're getting nasty and personal...not just
with Palin, but with her family.
Indeed, if the liberal hypocrisy gets any deeper, I'll have
to drive over to Scotts Valley and get my hip waders out of
storage. How about the insinuation that Palin either isn't
fit to be Veep because she has five kids, or isn't a fit
mother if she devotes her attention to the campaign and then
(hopefully) to the demands of the vice-presidency? Isn't that
<ghasp> *sexist?*
If anyone has wondered out loud whether Obama is fit to be a
parent because *he's* running for high office, I must've missed
it. A male candidate's having small children certainly didn't
seem to be a problem to the chattering classes when JFK was
president. And even if you're one of those tinfoil-beanie
types who believes that Cheney works Dubya like marionette,
I'm sure you'd agree that the POTUS's job carries more respon-
sibilities than the vice-president's. Sauce/goose/gander?
"The more liberals mistreat Palin and act like transparent
2-year-olds in projecting onto conservatives their own
patronizing proclivities the more their true colors will
be apparent. So please keep it up." -- David Limbaugh
On another subject, You're standing out there begging for
money because you're a fuckup and a social parasite and a
ne'er-do-well and a LOO-zer who's made a pluperfect mess of
his life, not because there's anything wrong with the country.
There've always been people like you, and there always will be,
no matter how good the economy is. (And as an aside, if "the
homeless" are Reagan's fault, I can't help noticing that you
libs have done fuck-all about the problem in the 34 years since
Reagan has been governor or the nigh-on twenty that he's been
president.) Your being the social equivalent of a lamprey is
neither here nor there, state-of-the-friggin'-union-wise.
> Ok, let me say this posting is copyright by me so if any
> newspaper wants to print it they will need to pay me some-
> thing.
Snork. Spoken like the true "contributor to society" that
you are.
Anyhow, the bottom line is this: you smug-assed liberal
beeyotches are going down in flames come November. Do
you hear me? In *flames!* Muahahahahahaa!
And if the diversity cries "racism" and riots 'cause they
man didn't win, I hope the National Guard uses live ammo,
just like they did on those punks at Kent State back when
I was in junior high school. "Tin soldiers and Palin's
comin..."
Say, is anyone taking bets on which liberal Hollywood celeb-
rities will swear they'll leave the country (again) if McCain
wins, and then renege? Back in 2004, I actually considered
starting a Web site, the purpose of which would've been to
hook up liberals who swore they'd leave the country if Bush
won with conservatives who'd have been happy to help them
pack, and maybe even drive them to the airport gratis.
Geoff
--
"I might add that in small towns, we don't quite know what
to make of a candidate who lavishes praise on working people
when they are listening, and then talks about how bitterly
they cling to their religion and guns when those people aren't
listening. We tend to prefer candidates who don't talk about
us one way in Scranton and another way in San Francisco."
-- Sarah Palin
Geoff Miller
Queenie <queen...@pacbell.net> writes:
> OMG, what are the Republicans thinking?
One word: victory.
More words: seeing our enemies driven before us, and hearing
the lamentations of the women.
> This is going to be interesting to watch! I can't wait to
> see Mrs. Palin at the convention tonight. Maybe she'll
> wear her patriotic bikini (they have bikinis in Alaska?)
> Check out John Howard Kunstler's blog for that jpg.
>http://www.kunstler.com/Grunt%20Archive.html
Quote:
"Meet America's first trailer-trash vice-presidential candidate:
Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska ("the state closest to Russia!" )
-- soon-to-be grandmother of out-of-wedlock child carried by 17-
year-old daughter, Bristol. Shown here relaxing, Alaska-style."
Charming.
I'd never heard of this guy before, but he really puts the "kunt"
into "Kunstler," doesn't he?
Good Ghod, anyone with an eye for fine filly-flesh can tell that
that photo was 'shopped. Palin has a much more slender figure
than that. She'd probably have been carrying a larger-caliber
rifle, too. The one in the picture looks like it could be a
.22.
> My cynical opinion: it doesn't matter who's president anymore.
> The bankers have sucked the country dry, and both the American
> public and foreign investors fell for the hocus-pocus (now you
> see it, now you don't) loan Ponzi scheme like an internet newbie
> falling for a Nigerian cash-back scam.
What happened to global warming and the Pacific Gyre? You Chicken
Little types are so damned *fickle.*
Geoff
--
"Well, it just goes to show you, it's always something!"
-- Roseanne Roseannadanna
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
No. I actually favored McCain over Obama until I heard Palin talk.
There's also some credible stuff online about her firing a library
worker who did not approve of censorship. There was also a self-
righteous quote of hers about her philosophy of criminal punishment.
You liberals are much too liberal about allowing people like Palin get
into power. It's not only an issue of "experience". It's another
case of misplaced altruism. As an old, wise member of this newsgroup
might say, you are a hormone case.
Obama should be exploiting this soon and will probably win the
election because of it. Do I like what Obama represents? Hell no. I
simply can not favor McCain anymore. Obama will win a millions of
votes if he comes out with the press statement, "As far a Vice
President or President, she's obviously an airhead who you wouldn't
want there. But she gives good head."
I wrote to the McCain campaign and told them if they sent me a poster
I'd split my panhandling take. I heard no reply. Talk about
Republican hypocrisy. As I said here before, the Democrats and
Republicans are neither.
I can make a lot of money panhandling with a photo of Palin with a red
circle and slash.
JC Dill
> No. I actually favored McCain over Obama until I heard Palin talk.
I am not a supporter of McCain or Palin. I think Palin was a horrible
choice for Veep and picking her for the position shows what a poor POTUS
McCain would be if we were so foolish as to elect him. However, to be
fair...
> There's also some credible stuff online about her firing a library
> worker who did not approve of censorship.
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
Quote:
She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some
of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the
time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the
librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
and further down:
Quote:
One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla’s
librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions
of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly
attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no
books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin
supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving
that the list is a fabrication.
jc
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
Yes, it could be an unfair story. But my judgment is from what I
heard coming out of her mouth.
You must also feel that Waco was unfair to that new female attorney
general Janet Reno. I think more in terms of unfairness towards the
people who were shot.
spamtr...@gmail.com
> > There's also some credible stuff online about her firing a library
> > worker who did not approve of censorship.
>
> http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
>
> Quote:
>
> She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla library. Some
> of the books on a widely circulated list were not even in print at the
> time. The librarian has said Palin asked a "What if?" question, but the
> librarian continued in her job through most of Palin's first term.
>
> and further down:
>
> Quote:
>
> One accusation claims then-Mayor Palin threatened to fire Wasilla’s
> librarian for refusing to ban books from the town library. Some versions
> of the rumor come complete with a list of the books that Palin allegedly
> attempted to ban. Actually, Palin never asked that books be banned; no
> books were actually banned; and many of the books on the list that Palin
> supposedly wanted to censor weren't even in print at the time, proving
> that the list is a fabrication.
There is no list of books to be removed, and their never was. I wonder
who circulated that rumor, and why?
The exact story is still up in the air. factcheck.org is still
processing the letter from Anne Kilkenny, who claims to be one of the
citizens who fought to have the librarian reinstated, when Palin fired
her soon after she flunked the "loyalty test" (would you remove books
from the collection if I asked you to?). The pro librarian citizens
are now on Palin's "Enemies List."
Frankly I'm not looking forward to having Richard Nixon in a
miniskirt.
The librarian passed a subsequent loyalty test, but quit when Palin
was reelected. Apparently she had had enough of Palin for a boss.
JC Dill
> You must also feel that Waco was unfair to that new female attorney
> general Janet Reno.
I have no idea why you think I would feel that.
> I think more in terms of unfairness towards the
> people who were shot.
I'm just concerned with getting the facts straight - that's all.
Factcheck.org has been going gang-busters researching and debunking
false rumors that are spreading about all the candidates, or spreading
from the candidates. It's a good resource to check before you "rely" on
something you read on the internet, heard from a talking head on TV, on
the radio, or in an ad from either party.
jc
Queenie
> One word: victory.
>
> More words: seeing our enemies driven before us, and hearing
> the lamentations of the women.
We'll see, won't we, Conan?
> Quote:
>
> "Meet America's first trailer-trash vice-presidential candidate:
> Governor Sarah Palin of Alaska ("the state closest to Russia!" )
> -- soon-to-be grandmother of out-of-wedlock child carried by 17-
> year-old daughter, Bristol. Shown here relaxing, Alaska-style."
>
> Charming.
>
> I'd never heard of this guy before, but he really puts the "kunt"
> into "Kunstler," doesn't he?
He does. You should read his blog/commentary on the state of the
union: Clusterfuck Nation.
Anyway, Mrs. Palin is the conservative candidate, is she not? So why
isn't she taking care of her five children? Who's watching the
"special needs" baby? Since when is it a conservative approach to
have a bunch of kids and leave them to others to raise?
And is it true that she believes in "Intelligent Design"? Good Ghod
indeed.
> Good Ghod, anyone with an eye for fine filly-flesh can tell that
> that photo was 'shopped. Palin has a much more slender figure
> than that. She'd probably have been carrying a larger-caliber
> rifle, too. The one in the picture looks like it could be a
> .22.
I'm not used to imagining women without their clothes on.
> What happened to global warming and the Pacific Gyre? You Chicken
> Little types are so damned *fickle.*
How many hurricanes are lined up in a row behind the current one? I'm
in Greece. Here the issue is heat.
~Q, arguing from an internet cafe because all the tax offices are on
strike... typical!
Vent
wrote:
[...]
>Indeed, if the liberal hypocrisy gets any deeper, I'll have
>to drive over to Scotts Valley and get my hip waders out of
>storage. How about the insinuation that Palin either isn't
>fit to be Veep because she has five kids, or isn't a fit
>mother if she devotes her attention to the campaign and then
>(hopefully) to the demands of the vice-presidency? Isn't that
><ghasp> *sexist?*
>
>If anyone has wondered out loud whether Obama is fit to be a
>parent because *he's* running for high office, I must've missed
>it. A male candidate's having small children certainly didn't
>seem to be a problem to the chattering classes when JFK was
>president. And even if you're one of those tinfoil-beanie
>types who believes that Cheney works Dubya like marionette,
>I'm sure you'd agree that the POTUS's job carries more respon-
>sibilities than the vice-president's. Sauce/goose/gander?
>
>"The more liberals mistreat Palin and act like transparent
> 2-year-olds in projecting onto conservatives their own
> patronizing proclivities the more their true colors will
> be apparent. So please keep it up." -- David Limbaugh
Clive Crook from the Financial Times has an interesting article on the
whole _Liberal Elitist_ motif that has so forcefully injected itself
into the media limelight over the past week:
He concludes:
"The problem in my view is less Mr Obama and more the attitudes of the
claque of official and unofficial supporters that surrounds him. The
prevailing liberal mindset is what makes the criticisms of Mr Obama’s
distance from working Americans stick.
If only the Democrats could contain their sense of entitlement to
govern in a rational world, and their consequent distaste for wide
swathes of the US electorate, they might gain the unshakeable grip on
power they feel they deserve. Winning elections would certainly be
easier – and Republicans would have to address themselves more
seriously to economic insecurity. But the fathomless cultural
complacency of the metropolitan liberal rules this out.
The attitude that expressed itself in response to the Palin nomination
is the best weapon in the Republican armoury. Rely on the Democrats to
keep it primed. You just have to laugh.
The Palin nomination could still misfire for Mr McCain, but the
liberal reaction has made it a huge success so far. To avoid endlessly
repeating this mistake, Democrats need to learn some respect.
It will be hard. They will have to develop some regard for the values
that the middle of the country expresses when it votes Republican.
Religion. Unembarrassed flag-waving patriotism. Freedom to succeed or
fail through one’s own efforts. Refusal to be pitied, bossed around or
talked down to. And all those other laughable redneck notions that
made the United States what it is."
Pretty much spot on.
--
Vent
"Down the toilet, lookit me,
What a silly thing ta do!
Hope nobody takes a pee,
Yippy dippy dippy doo..."
Veronique
> Palin didn't hit the ball out of the park; she knocked it
> clear into low earth orbit. The woman fuckin' rocks.
Woman? Damn, he picked the wrong Palin.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jf1y9s73Nos
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Geoff Miller
<dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com> writes:
> No. I actually favored McCain over Obama until I heard
> Palin talk.
Only you know the truth about that, of course, but it strikes
me as improbable. How could've Palin done anything but amplify
McCain's own message? I find it more likely that you were never
a McCain supporter at all, and just didn't have enough to go on
as far as denouncing him was concerned until Palin arrived on
the scene and primed the ol' pump for you.
> There's also some credible stuff online about her firing a
> library worker who did not approve of censorship.
Details about that have emerged since your original post in
this thread and my first followup. It seems that Palin was
merely exploring the librarian's thoughts on the matter, and
eventually ended up firing her for unrelated reasons. (She
was re-hired the next day.) There was never any attempt by
Palin to ban or censor books in the public library.
"She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla
library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list
were not even in print at the time. The librarian has
said Palin asked a 'What if?' question, but the librarian
continued in her job through most of Palin's first term."
-- http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/sliming_palin.html
> There was also a self-righteous quote of hers about her
> philosophy of criminal punishment.
I don't know anything about that. Do you have any details?
It seems to me that if you hold self-righteous quotes against
a candidate during a campaign, of all times, you're actively
looking for a pretext to denounce him. That's like faulting
an Olympic swimmer for getting wet.
> You liberals are much too liberal about allowing people like
> Palin get into power.
One, seeing as how I'm a conservative Republican, I'm not sure
I understand where you get off calling me a liberal.
Two, you scarcely knew anything about Palin when you composed
your post; few people did. So again, it's increasingly clear
that you were gunning for Palin from the outset, simply because
she's (a) a Republican who (b) has turned the campaign around
and for the first time, cast serious doubt on the Anointed One's
ability to win the election.
> It's not only an issue of "experience". It's another case
> of misplaced altruism. As an old, wise member of this news-
> group might say, you are a hormone case.
Oh? On whose behalf are you saying I'm being altruistic?
> Obama should be exploiting this soon and will probably win
> the election because of it.
How do you feel about that now, in hindsight? The attacks on
Palin have been unprecedentedly vicious, attacking not only her
political record but her personally (see the link that Queenie
provided, for example) and even her family.
When Clinton was running for president (and when he actually
*was* president), his kid was considered off-limits to (and
by) media. What's changed?
Granted, most of those atatcks didn't originate from within
the Obama campaign, but from among the nutroots of the Daily
Kos and its ilk. But they *were* made on the campaign's
behalf, and so it's inevitable that there'll be a certain
amount of blowback.
So far, while it's admittedly still early and anything could
happen, it seems that the blowback might even be strong enough
to cost him the election. As I type this, McCain's pulling
ahead, slowly but surely. I predict that the attacks on Palin
will become even nastier as the point spread widens.
> Do I like what Obama represents? Hell no. I simply can not
> favor McCain anymore.
A lot of Republicans, myself among them, weren't at all enthus-
iastic about McCain, but saw the importance of voting for him
in order to deny the presidency to Obama, whom many believe
is much further to the left than he's letting on. But Palin's
arrival on the scene has energized the base.
(Nobody ever talked about the "base" of one party or another
until the 2004 election. It's interesting how these expres-
sions appear spontaneously out of thin air. I'm reminded of
how, at some point back in the Seventies or Eighties, sports-
casters all suddenly started talking about quarterbacks being
"sacked" rather than merely tackled.)
> Obama will win a millions of votes if he comes out with the
> press statement, "As far a Vice President or President, she's
> obviously an airhead who you wouldn't want there. But she
> gives good head."
Even I'd laugh my ass off and give him points for style --
although personally, I'd suggest saying that she's a lousy
lay but at least she swallows. Of course, that would be a
risky move, as it would inevitably leave a bad taste in many
people's mouths.
An airhead? N'way. Between her intellect and her experience,
Palin's not only well qualified to be the vice president, she's
actually more qualified than Obama is to be *president.* Like
she said, being the mayor of a small town is kind of like being
a "community organizer," except that it involves actual respon-
sibilities. Hyuck!
> I wrote to the McCain campaign and told them if they sent me
> a poster I'd split my panhandling take. I heard no reply.
> Talk about Republican hypocrisy. As I said here before, the
> Democrats and Republicans are neither.
Why was that an example of hypocrisy? Your offer simply wasn't
worth the campaign's while. It's simple business sense. Always
go for the simplest possible explanation, 'cause it's usually the
more likely one.
> I can make a lot of money panhandling with a photo of Palin
> with a red circle and slash.
But you'd just be pandering to the prejudices of whatever lefty
enclave you chose to do that in. That takes neither talent nor
imagination. Determining the amount of satisfaction to rightfully
be obtained from such a stunt is left to the student as an exercise.
Geoff
--
"Sustainable" is the new "diversity."
Geoff Miller
Queenie <HRH...@gmail.com> writes:
> Anyway, Mrs. Palin is the conservative candidate, is she not?
> So why isn't she taking care of her five children?
Why does it necessarily follow that she ought to be? While
some conservatives believe that the best place for a woman
is in the home, what reason do you have to believe that she's
one of them, and is therefore being hypocritical by running
for national office with young 'uns under her roof?
> Who's watching the "special needs" baby?
You mean the 'tard? (Hey, it needed to be said. If I hear
much more of this mealy-mouthed "special needs" nonsense,
I'm going to launch lunch. Whatever happened to "develop-
mentally disabled?" Maybe the PC mavens realized that its
absurd unwieldiness made it a caricature of political cor-
rectness.) His daddy and his siblings, presumably -- yet
another example of how their family lives "family values"
every day.
> Since when is it a conservative approach to have a bunch of
> kids and leave them to others to raise?
Oh, please. There's more than one conception of conservatism.
Hers obviously doesn't coincide with the "women should be bare-
foot and pregnant" interpretation, just as mine doesn't have any
truck with sexual prudishness or that Jeezemoid nonsense.
(Although as a coworker of mine -- from Alaska, in fact --
observed the other day, "If *I* were married to her, she'd
have a lot more than five kids!")
Why are you asking these questions, anyway? You're a con-
servative yourself, or at least have cultivated that image.
What you're doing amounts to giving aid and comfort to the
enemy.
> And is it true that she believes in "Intelligent Design"?
> Good Ghod indeed.
Well, factcheck.org has this to say about that (as Tricky Dick
used to say):
----- Begin Quote -----
On Aug. 29, the Boston Globe reported that Palin was open to
teaching creationism in public schools. That's true. She
supports teaching creationism alongside evolution, though she
has not actively pursued such a policy as governor.
In an Oct. 25, 2006, debate, when asked about teaching alter-
natives to evolution, Palin replied:
Palin, Oct. 25, 2006: "Teach both. You know, don't be afraid of
information. Healthy debate is so important and it's so valuable
in our schools. I am a proponent of teaching both. And you know,
I say this too as the daughter of a science teacher. Growing up
with being so privileged and blessed to be given a lot of infor-
mation on, on both sides of the subject . creationism and evolution.
It's been a healthy foundation for me. But don't be afraid of
information and let kids debate both sides."
A couple of days later, Palin amended that statement in an
interview with the Anchorage Daily News, saying:
Palin, Oct. 2006: "I don't think there should be a prohibition
against debate if it comes up in class. It doesn't have to be
part of the curriculum."
After her election, Palin let the matter drop. The Associated
Press reported Sept 3: "Palin's children attend public schools
and Palin has made no push to have creationism taught in them.
... It reflects a hands-off attitude toward mixing government
and religion by most Alaskans." The article was headlined,
"Palin has not pushed creation science as governor." It was
written by Dan Joling, who reports from Anchorage and has
covered Alaska for 30 years.
----- End Quote -----
> I'm not used to imagining women without their clothes on.
As if women don't size each other up physically as a matter
of course, just to know where they stand in the social pecking
order.
> How many hurricanes are lined up in a row behind the current
>one? I'm in Greece. Here the issue is heat.
There were three in train. Hardly unprecedented.
> ~Q, arguing from an internet cafe because all the tax offices
> are on strike... typical!
What do the tax offices have to do with posting from an Internet
cafe?
Geoff Miller
Vent <tatooi...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Clive Crook from the Financial Times has an interesting
> article on the whole _Liberal Elitist_ motif that has so
> forcefully injected itself into the media limelight over
> the past week:
I enjoyed that immensely, and have passed it on. Thanks for
posting the link.
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
> <dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > No. I actually favored McCain over Obama until I heard
> > Palin talk.
>
> Only you know the truth about that, of course, but it strikes
> me as improbable. How could've Palin done anything but amplify
> McCain's own message? I find it more likely that you were never
> a McCain supporter at all, and just didn't have enough to go on
> as far as denouncing him was concerned until Palin arrived on
> the scene and primed the ol' pump for you.
>
> > There's also some credible stuff online about her firing a
> > library worker who did not approve of censorship.
>
> Details about that have emerged since your original post in
> this thread and my first followup. It seems that Palin was
> merely exploring the librarian's thoughts on the matter, and
> eventually ended up firing her for unrelated reasons. (She
> was re-hired the next day.) There was never any attempt by
> Palin to ban or censor books in the public library.
>
> "She did not demand that books be banned from the Wasilla
> library. Some of the books on a widely circulated list
> were not even in print at the time. The librarian has
> said Palin asked a 'What if?' question, but the librarian
> continued in her job through most of Palin's first term."
>
As Tim might say, you are a hormone case.
Geoff Miller
<dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com> writes:
[my *entire post* quoted]
> As Tim might say, you are a hormone case.
Ad hominem attacks and namecalling do not a valid
rebuttal make. You forfeit the debate. G'bai.
Vent
wrote:
>
>Vent <tatooi...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
>> Clive Crook from the Financial Times has an interesting
>> article on the whole _Liberal Elitist_ motif that has so
>> forcefully injected itself into the media limelight over
>> the past week:
>
>> http://tinyurl.com/6ge6z5
>
>
>I enjoyed that immensely, and have passed it on. Thanks for
>posting the link.
You're quite welcome. I'm happy to be able to return [even in
surrogate fashion] a minute measure of the enjoyment I've received
from your usenet writings, in lurkerdom, lo these many years.
As a Canuck observer, I have to say that your sempiternal election
betwixt the Snooty Saint and the Worn-out Warmonger often provides
more fascinating twists within a twenty-four hour period than _our_
staid and genteel federal contest will during the entirety of its
six-week run. We get our knickers in a twist about such silly things
as _Puffin-Poop_ [see http://tinyurl.com/5bgd4x] and Cosby sweater
propaganda. [http://tinyurl.com/5w2fl6].
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
> <dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com> writes:
>
> [my *entire post* quoted]
>
> > As Tim might say, you are a hormone case.
>
> Ad hominem attacks and namecalling do not a valid
> rebuttal make. You forfeit the debate. G'bai.
>
I'll leave it to John Mann or Queenie to _pin you down_ in this
argument. I'm not your type.
Geoff Miller
<dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> As Tim might say, you are a hormone case.
: Ad hominem attacks and namecalling do not a valid
: rebuttal make. You forfeit the debate. G'bai.
> I'll leave it to John Mann or Queenie to _pin you
> down_ in this argument.
The most John Ackerman can hope for is to die in the
gutter in one of the nicer parts of town. His mind,
such as it is, is a thing of shards and fragments.
As for Queenie, she has the intellectual wherewithall
to start her own threads (as she did with this one)
and defend her own positions. She doesn't need to
hitch a ride on _your_ shabby coattails.
> I'm not your type.
You bet your bippy you're not my type. You aren't
even a member of my social class.
Say, while we're here, you never did explain what you
meant by your accusation that I'm a "hormone case."
That would seem to imply that I was overcome with
emotion. But quite the contrary, looking back at
what I wrote, I have to say that everything I wrote
was quite calm and rational.
Tell ya what, spud: if you really believe that I'm a
"hormone case," then it should be little trouble for
you to quote a passage or three as evidence of that.
"The world doesn't owe you a living. The world owes
you nothing. It was here first." -- Mark Twain, para-
phrased.
Geoff Miller
<spamtr...@gmail.com> writes:
> Frankly I'm not looking forward to having Richard Nixon in a
> miniskirt.
Y'know, I *really* didn't need that visual: the jowls, the hairy
legs, the perpetual five o'clock shadow. If I wake up screaming
tonight, it'll be your fault.
<shudder>
> The librarian passed a subsequent loyalty test, but quit when
> Palin was reelected. Apparently she had had enough of Palin for
> a boss.
So why is the problem necessarily at Palin's end?
Palin had the right to vet her people as she saw fit. And her
people had the right to move on to greener pastures if they
didn't like Palin's style. Is this a great country, or what?
As someone wrote about the bitchin' freeze incident several years
back: "Dented fender. Dead dog. No big deal either way."
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
> <dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > No. I actually favored McCain over Obama until I heard
> > Palin talk.
>
> Only you know the truth about that, of course, but it strikes
> me as improbable. How could've Palin done anything but amplify
> McCain's own message? I find it more likely that you were never
> a McCain supporter at all, and just didn't have enough to go on
> as far as denouncing him was concerned until Palin arrived on
> the scene and primed the ol' pump for you.
>
>
I genuinely favored McCain from the heart. From the brain, it appears
that a President is going to be only as good as his supporters. If
you are typical of his supporters, then there is no way I can favor
him.
Geoff Miller
<dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com> writes:
> I genuinely favored McCain from the heart. From the brain,
> it appears that a President is going to be only as good as
> his supporters. If you are typical of his supporters, then
> there is no way I can favor him.
Oh? What have I said that impels you to say that?
You may dislike me personally, but what have I said of a
political nature that you believe to be in error? It
seems to me that had you found any such thing to take
issue with, you'd have rebutted it at the time. But
all you've done is to make childish ad hominem attacks.
Disliking me personally is a lousy basis for being against
whatever candidates I support.
Geoff
--
"Si se pudenda!"
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
How could I dislike you? I've never met you.
Politically I disagree with you. You seem to construct McCain in your
own image. It's like you are saying "McCain is _my_ candidate, not
yours", and anyone else who disagrees with you is a "liberal". I'd
like to know how I am a "liberal". I don't think of myself as a
"liberal". I don't even know what you mean by the term.
McCain might become the greatest President ever, but if his supporters
start firing off their basement M16's at people who you don't like,
then he's nobody's President. He'll be a President of a dream world
that will never exist. You will ruin it for him.
--
The whole problem with the world is that fools and fanatics are always
so
certain of themselves, but wiser people so full of doubts.
-- Bertrand Russell
Geoff Miller
<dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com> writes:
> How could I dislike you? I've never met you.
Come, come now. On Usenet, we are what we write.
And you clearly don't like what I write. The
obvious conclusion is left to the student as an
exercise.
> Politically I disagree with you. You seem to construct
> McCain in your own image.
That's a strange thing to say, considering how I've said
that he's to the left of me and that I had no great
enthusiasm for his campaign until I heard Sarah Palin's
speech at the convention.
> It's like you are saying "McCain is _my_ candidate, not
> yours", and anyone else who disagrees with you is a
> "liberal".
Disagreeing with what you've said about him somehow
implies possessiveness on my part? That's...novel.
> I'd like to know how I am a "liberal".
You expect other people to give you money for the asking,
instead of taking it upon yourself to acquire marketable
skills and use them to get a job. In fact, based on what
you've written here, it's that selfsame sense of entitle-
ment that got you into the predicament you're in to begin
with. "The world *owes* me!" The world owes you jack.
> I don't think of myself as a "liberal".
Oh, no, of course not. It's a common conceit of liberals
to fancy themselves centrists. That's why, for example,
it's so hard to get a liberal to admit that the mainstream
news media have a liberal bias.
> I don't even know what you mean by the term.
Why would I mean anything different than what anybody else
means? You come across as though you never encounter the
term unless you see me using it.
> McCain might become the greatest President ever, but if
> his supporters start firing off their basement M16's at
> people who you don't like, then he's nobody's President.
> He'll be a President of a dream world that will never
> exist. You will ruin it for him.
News flash: The country is more divided than it's been
since that _anno horribilis_ 1968, at the height of the
Vietnam era. The culture wars are flaring up due to the
election, a symbolic battle of worldviews even at the
best of times, and now in no small part due to the
seething anger of a part of the electorate that remains
convinced, against all evidence and reason, that their
candidate was robbed of rightful victory eight years ago.
Why should I pretend that this isn't so?
Geoff
--
"You know how a pool dries and leaves puddles?
That's how culture works. Santa Cruz is the
sump of the sixties. -- Gadabout Ghandi
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
> <dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > How could I dislike you? I've never met you.
>
> Come, come now. On Usenet, we are what we write.
> And you clearly don't like what I write. The
> obvious conclusion is left to the student as an
> exercise.
I guess that depends on what you mean by "dislike".
>
> > Politically I disagree with you. You seem to construct
> > McCain in your own image.
>
> That's a strange thing to say, considering how I've said
> that he's to the left of me and that I had no great
> enthusiasm for his campaign until I heard Sarah Palin's
> speech at the convention.
Same difference?
>
> > It's like you are saying "McCain is _my_ candidate, not
> > yours", and anyone else who disagrees with you is a
> > "liberal".
>
> Disagreeing with what you've said about him somehow
> implies possessiveness on my part? That's...novel.
But that is what it amounts to.
>
> > I'd like to know how I am a "liberal".
>
> You expect other people to give you money for the asking,
> instead of taking it upon yourself to acquire marketable
> skills and use them to get a job. In fact, based on what
> you've written here, it's that selfsame sense of entitle-
> ment that got you into the predicament you're in to begin
> with. "The world *owes* me!" The world owes you jack.
>
You don't seem to understand why you get money. I presume your skills
are mundane. When you got your job, a financial hand wanted to give
money to you. Skills are a necessary but not a sufficient condition
for getting a paying job. Maybe it's been so long since you applied
for your job that you forget.
Would your company hire Tim?
> > I don't think of myself as a "liberal".
>
> Oh, no, of course not. It's a common conceit of liberals
> to fancy themselves centrists. That's why, for example,
> it's so hard to get a liberal to admit that the mainstream
> news media have a liberal bias.
>
> > I don't even know what you mean by the term.
>
What is a "centrist"?
> Why would I mean anything different than what anybody else
> means? You come across as though you never encounter the
> term unless you see me using it.
Basically because you don't seem to know what you are talking about.
>
> > McCain might become the greatest President ever, but if
> > his supporters start firing off their basement M16's at
> > people who you don't like, then he's nobody's President.
> > He'll be a President of a dream world that will never
> > exist. You will ruin it for him.
>
> News flash: The country is more divided than it's been
> since that _anno horribilis_ 1968, at the height of the
> Vietnam era. The culture wars are flaring up due to the
> election, a symbolic battle of worldviews even at the
> best of times, and now in no small part due to the
> seething anger of a part of the electorate that remains
> convinced, against all evidence and reason, that their
> candidate was robbed of rightful victory eight years ago.
>
> Why should I pretend that this isn't so?
>
> Geoff
>
Because you are irrational.
> --
> "You know how a pool dries and leaves puddles?
> That's how culture works. Santa Cruz is the
> sump of the sixties. -- Gadabout Ghandi
Nice metaphor from the other Tim, from the Dead Beat generation.
Geoff Miller
<dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com> writes:
: Come, come now. =A0On Usenet, we are what we write.
: And you clearly don't like what I write. =A0The
: obvious conclusion is left to the student as an
: exercise.
> I guess that depends on what you mean by "dislike".
I see that you're an honors graduate of the Bill Clinton
Academy Of Dissembling And Obfuscation. Too bad that
didn't get you a marketable skill.
>> Politically I disagree with you. You seem to construct
>> McCain in your own image.
: That's a strange thing to say, considering how I've said
: that he's to the left of me and that I had no great
: enthusiasm for his campaign until I heard Sarah Palin's
: speech at the convention.
> Same difference?
Er, no; not at all.
>> It's like you are saying "McCain is _my_ candidate, not
>> yours", and anyone else who disagrees with you is a
>> "liberal". =A0
: Disagreeing with what you've said about him somehow
: implies possessiveness on my part? =A0That's...novel.
> But that is what it amounts to.
In what way?
And does that apply to disagreeing with anyone about other
topics as well? If not, _why_ not?
> You don't seem to understand why you get money. I presume
> your skills are mundane.
Not at all. Acquiring them took hard work, dedication, and
no small amount of experience.
> When you got your job, a financial hand wanted to give money
> to you.
A "financial hand?" Put down the Adam Smith and back away
slowly. Nobody has to get hurt.
If a financial hand wanted to give me money, it was because
I'd worked to make myself worth that money and therefore
attractive to that financial hand.
> Skills are a necessary but not a sufficient condition for
> getting a paying job.
So let the other shoe drop: what are the other necessary
conditions?
> Maybe it's been so long since you applied for your job that
> you forget.
I honestly don't know what you're talking about. I acquired
certain skills, and I made my desire to be hired known to my
present employer. They made me an offer, I signed on the
dotted line, and they crossed my palm with silver. Badda-
bing, badda-boom. Now I'm farting through silk underwear,
metaphorically speaking.
> Would your company hire Tim?
I'm sure they would.
> What is a "centrist"?
What the fuck do you *think* a "centrist" is?
: Why would I mean anything different than what anybody
: else means? You come across as though you never encounter
: the term unless you see me using it.
> Basically because you don't seem to know what you are
> talking about.
Well, I'll tellya, sport. I've been on the Net since 1989,
and have been involved in any number of political discussions
and debates during that time. And you're the only person
who's ever told me that. So I hope you understand if I don't
grant your opinion a whole lot of credence.
: News flash: The country is more divided than it's been
: since that _anno horribilis_ 1968, at the height of the
: Vietnam era. =A0The culture wars are flaring up due to the
: election, a symbolic battle of worldviews even at the
: best of times, =A0and now in no small part due to the
: seething anger of a part of the electorate that remains
: convinced, against all evidence and reason, that their
: candidate was robbed of rightful victory eight years ago.
: Why should I pretend that this isn't so? =A0
> Because you are irrational.
Am I? I don't hear that very often, either. I've been
told that I deserve to be burned alive for being a Repub-
lican, but no one has ever told me I'm irrational before.
Please quote some passages of mine that you believe offer
evidence of my irrationality, and we'll talk about it.
> Nice metaphor from the other Tim, from the Dead Beat
> generation.
I like it. I added it to a small but growing category of
my quotes file that's devoted to wry observations about
Santa Cruz.
Geoff
Millenium Hand&Fish
He would make a splendid manager of HR.
MH&F.
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
> <dhm_at_best_dot_...@yahoo.com> writes:
> > You don't seem to understand why you get money. I presume
> > your skills are mundane.
>
> Not at all. Acquiring them took hard work, dedication, and
> no small amount of experience.
Ok, I'm all ears. It better be good...
Geoff Miller
<dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com> writes:
>> You don't seem to understand why you get money. =A0I presume
>> your skills are mundane.
: Not at all. =A0Acquiring them took hard work, dedication, and
: no small amount of experience.
> Ok, I'm all ears. It better be good...
What's left to tell? I explained the gist of it already.
I took classes, got hired, accumulated experience, and moved up
through the pay grades. Now I earn a paycheck that's positively
trouser-tenting because my company values my skills, experience,
and work ethic. Eventually I changed my political affiliation
to Republican. It's good, being a member of the oppressor class.
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
> >> You don't seem to understand why you get money. I presume
> >> your skills are mundane.
>
> : Not at all. Acquiring them took hard work, dedication, and
> : no small amount of experience.
>
> > Ok, I'm all ears. It better be good...
>
> What's left to tell? I explained the gist of it already.
>
> I took classes, got hired, accumulated experience, and moved up
> through the pay grades. Now I earn a paycheck that's positively
> trouser-tenting because my company values my skills, experience,
> and work ethic. Eventually I changed my political affiliation
> to Republican. It's good, being a member of the oppressor class.
>
> Geoff
>
Not good enough.
> --
> "You know how a pool dries and leaves puddles?
It's often called 'evaporation'.
Geoff Miller
<dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com> writes:
> Not good enough.
Not good enough for what?
And why should I care that you think so?
Geoff
--
"You know how a pool dries and leaves puddles?
QueeniePie
wrote:
>Queenie <HRH...@gmail.com> writes:
>
>> Anyway, Mrs. Palin is the conservative candidate, is she not?
>> So why isn't she taking care of her five children?
>
>Why does it necessarily follow that she ought to be? While
>some conservatives believe that the best place for a woman
>is in the home, what reason do you have to believe that she's
>one of them, and is therefore being hypocritical by running
>for national office with young 'uns under her roof?
You don't have to be a conservative to believe that parents are
ultimately responsible for how their kids are raised. So who's taking
care of the babies? Daddy is a commercial fisherman, works 700 miles
from home. I read one article that said the 14 year old wathces the
baby while mom is on stage. No wonder the 17 year old is pregnant.
>> Who's watching the "special needs" baby?
>
>You mean the 'tard? (Hey, it needed to be said. If I hear
>much more of this mealy-mouthed "special needs" nonsense,
>I'm going to launch lunch. Whatever happened to "develop-
>mentally disabled?" Maybe the PC mavens realized that its
>absurd unwieldiness made it a caricature of political cor-
>rectness.) His daddy and his siblings, presumably -- yet
>another example of how their family lives "family values"
>every day.
Maybe daddy just straps him to the mast.
>> Since when is it a conservative approach to have a bunch of
>> kids and leave them to others to raise?
>
>Oh, please. There's more than one conception of conservatism.
>Hers obviously doesn't coincide with the "women should be bare-
>foot and pregnant" interpretation, just as mine doesn't have any
>truck with sexual prudishness or that Jeezemoid nonsense.
>
>(Although as a coworker of mine -- from Alaska, in fact --
>observed the other day, "If *I* were married to her, she'd
>have a lot more than five kids!")
>
>Why are you asking these questions, anyway? You're a con-
>servative yourself, or at least have cultivated that image.
>What you're doing amounts to giving aid and comfort to the
>enemy.
I'm an independent, I have posted that over and over. Nobody seems to
get that. Yeah, I've been conservative on many issues and I'm
conservative on the responsibilities of raising kids, once one has
decided to pop them out. A pregnant 17 year old is not a mark on the
plus side for this woman's parenting awareness, yeah and let's see how
long the shotgun marriage lasts. That and the fact that she has no
clue what is going on in the world (she's in way deep over her head)
and is next in line to be president after an older John McCain who's
had several melanomas... Too bizarre.
>What do the tax offices have to do with posting from an Internet
>cafe?
I couldn't get my business done. Two weeks of gov't office strikes,
than last week customs workers on strikes meant no deliveries to gas
stations.
I sat in line awaiting rationed gas for the first time since the 70s.
I'm really glad to be home. Um, so far...
~Queenie
** Posted from http://www.teranews.com **
QueeniePie
wrote:
>"Total airhead?" You must've seen a different speech than
>the one I saw.
>
>Palin didn't hit the ball out of the park; she knocked it
>clear into low earth orbit. The woman fuckin' rocks.
She did a great job, but the speech was pre-written and the focus was
on beating up Obama. Big deal.
When she went on tv interviews and didn't know what the hell the 'Bush
Doctrine' was, that's a worry. She HAD NO CLUE. McCain, who's a hero
in so many ways, should have known better. Somebody younger is good,
a woman is fine, but a clueless ex- beauty queen with bandaids on her
nipples, a religion delusion and FIVE children, FIVE of them, (one
too-young pregnant and one who is going to be forever dependant, in
this overpopulated resource-strained world) isn't someone I can
respect for the second highest office in the land - particularly
behind a man who's got a death dealing bunch of melanoma cells lurking
around in there...
Fuck. And Obama. He's idealistic but he's yound and inexperienced.
He may be in over his head, too. Still he has Biden who's been around
a while and he thinks things over, instead of acting out impulsively,
and seems to have the sense to pick his advisers well.
No matter. The unregulated bankers have got us all screwed - it's
getting ugly out there, and pretty soon we're going to be feeling it
real close to home.
Oops, gotta run. Time to go stock up on rice and guns, then start
building the water reservoir...
~Queenie, What Me Worry?
Peter Lawrence
> On Mon, 15 Sep 2008 22:14:15 -0500, geo...@lava.net (Geoff Miller)
> wrote:
>> Queenie <HRH...@gmail.com> writes:
>>>
>>> Anyway, Mrs. Palin is the conservative candidate, is she not?
>>> So why isn't she taking care of her five children?
> >
>> Why does it necessarily follow that she ought to be? While
>> some conservatives believe that the best place for a woman
>> is in the home, what reason do you have to believe that she's
>> one of them, and is therefore being hypocritical by running
>> for national office with young 'uns under her roof?
>
> You don't have to be a conservative to believe that parents are
> ultimately responsible for how their kids are raised. So who's taking
> care of the babies? Daddy is a commercial fisherman, works 700 miles
> from home.
Uh no. If you actually care, it has been noted in the press that Todd
Palin, Sarah's husband, has been a stay-at-home dad since Sarah became
Governor. He is on family leave from his oil company job.
- Peter
Queenie
wrote:
I read he's a part-time commercial fisherman, too.
If the Wikipedia article is correct...
"Seven months later, because the family needed more income, Todd
returned to BP. In order to avoid potential conflict of interest, this
time he accepted a non-management position as a production
operator.[10][1]"
"He is also a commercial salmon fisherman at Bristol Bay on the
Nushugak River.[5] Financial statements filed in 2007 show that Palin
earned $92,790 from BP and fishing.[6]"
Anyway, he's been home for a year and a half or so, then. He has less
experience full-time daddying than Sarah has in government.
Praying,
~Queenie
"'Andrew, I watch you at these debates with no notes, no papers, and
yet when asked questions, you spout off facts, figures and policies,
and I'm amazed. But then I look out into the audience and I ask
myself, 'Does any of this really matter?' " Palin said.
http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1001/p09s01-coop.html
Steve Daniels
compelled Queenie <queen...@pacbell.net>, to say:
> Praying, <for an Obama win, one presumes>
I'm predicting a McCain loss. People are going to look at the
current financial adventure as the fault of the current
Republicans, and will not want to see at least four more years of
that. The Palin pick is starting to look a lot like the Harriet
Miers fiasco, especially if she leaves the campaign to spend more
time with her family.
I'm also wondering if McCain is the best the Republicans could
muster, or if they are saving their first tier candidates for
2012. I can't imagine how the next four years are going to make
anyone look good, and the Republicans figure that if someone is
going to look ineffectual, it may as well be a Democrat.
Or maybe they just figured they had no chance in this election
anyway, even before this Most Excellent Adventure started, and
are running McCain as a placeholder, just to stay in the game.
--
"The ABS system can not overcome the laws of physics."
Audi Owner's Manual
QueeniePie
wrote:
>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:54:54 -0700, against all advice, something
>compelled Queenie <queen...@pacbell.net>, to say:
>
>> Praying, <for an Obama win, one presumes>
I was praying to the Almighty, just in case there is one (covering all
the bases, these days.) Otherwise, we're at the mercy of pirates...
Obama is smart, and he's thoughtful, but he's young and inexperienced.
He's a leader because of his rehtoric, his idealism, and because
people want the help he seems to sincerely promise. Can he do
anything, though?
Where are all these 700 billion of dollars going to come from? They're
just going to get printed into existence; or maybe (to be precise)
into pixels, and then, voila! We're that much more in debt. And the
dollars that are already out there are worth less.
>I'm predicting a McCain loss. People are going to look at the
>current financial adventure as the fault of the current
>Republicans, and will not want to see at least four more years of
>that. The Palin pick is starting to look a lot like the Harriet
>Miers fiasco, especially if she leaves the campaign to spend more
>time with her family.
At least Miers went to law school; Palin makes her look like a genius.
>I'm also wondering if McCain is the best the Republicans could
>muster, or if they are saving their first tier candidates for
>2012. I can't imagine how the next four years are going to make
>anyone look good, and the Republicans figure that if someone is
>going to look ineffectual, it may as well be a Democrat.
If things get better, Obama might be a two term president, of course.
As to the "first tier", jeez who might that be? Because we need them.
>Or maybe they just figured they had no chance in this election
>anyway, even before this Most Excellent Adventure started, and
>are running McCain as a placeholder, just to stay in the game.
I have been wondering about McCain, too. I think the Republicans
wanted the "Maverick" to differentiate the party from the Bush
administration, since the popularity numbers there are so low.
Sigh. I'm going to need a pitcher of margaritas for Thursday night, I
can tell.
Check out the previews:
http://palinquotes.sillycloud.com/
BearCreekMan
"QueeniePie" <HRH...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:63s5e4d0v0p8jr2i2...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:06:19 -0700, Steve Daniels <sdan...@gorge.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:54:54 -0700, against all advice, something
>>compelled Queenie <queen...@pacbell.net>, to say:
>
>
<snip>
> Sigh. I'm going to need a pitcher of margaritas for Thursday night, I
> can tell.
>
"Who am I? Why am I here?"
Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot's running mate in 1992 who, IMHO, is a
genuine war hero.
Steve Thompson
I know, I know. It's _easy_ to write nearly anything you want and
sound sincere about it. We get it.
But logic has it's place in the interpretation of human
communications, no matter how much you may dislike the fact. Thus we
know that your complaint regarding 'ineffectual government' is
misleading, and you are once again and as usual, blowing smoke up my
ass in the service of your miniscule paycheque.
You worthless fuckers have made ineffectuality a goddamned RELIGION,
with the provisio that effective action in the direct service of the
religion is ok. We are aware that the doctrinal qualification is a
necessary compromise since without effective action in that area, you
could not force ineffectuality into so many other departments of life.
And so we return again to the current situation in which murdering
little monsters (like you) get a free pass from law enforcement
because to do otherwise would satisfy the stated criterion of law
enforcement operations. In reality, however, we know that
contemporary law enforcemnt is all about supporting the right kinds of
gangsters and warlords.
All your juvenile posturing is pointless. We get it; you are beyond
awesome in your greatness. Now fuck off and die before you
accidentally ask the wrong questions and get answers that you cannot
spin in the direction you are instructed to spin.
Regards,
Steve
--
No other company is authorized to provide this exclusive service.
Free use of this service is provided only for individuals and non-
commercial purposes. Everyone else must obtain a site licence.
jazzplayer
meant the two questions as a philosophical opening to why he was part of
Perot's effort, but looked comical. You don't know jack about James
Stockdale, that's clear.
Regards,
Queenie
<You_go...@aol.com> wrote:
>"Who am I? Why am I here?"
Heh heh. That was begging to be taken out of context.
>Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot's running mate in 1992 who, IMHO, is a
>genuine war hero.
John McCain is a genuine war hero, no question about it. He's a good
guy; principled, courageous and self-defined. That said, he isn't
likely to be president from what the current polls say.
~Queenie
~Queenie
BearCreekMan
"jazzplayer" <f...@foo.com> wrote in message
news:ALXEk.2265$YU2...@nlpi066.nbdc.sbc.com...
> BearCreekMan wrote:
>>
>> "QueeniePie" <HRH...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:63s5e4d0v0p8jr2i2...@4ax.com...
>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 17:06:19 -0700, Steve Daniels <sdan...@gorge.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 16:54:54 -0700, against all advice, something
>>>> compelled Queenie <queen...@pacbell.net>, to say:
>>>
>>> At least Miers went to law school; Palin makes her look like a genius.
>>>
>>
>> <snip>
>>
>>> Sigh. I'm going to need a pitcher of margaritas for Thursday night, I
>>> can tell.
>>>
>>
>> "Who am I? Why am I here?"
>>
>> Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot's running mate in 1992 who, IMHO, is
>> a genuine war hero.
> In fact that would be a bogus red herring. He won a Medal of Honor, he
> meant the two questions as a philosophical opening to why he was part of
> Perot's effort, but looked comical. You don't know jack about James
> Stockdale, that's clear.
Yes, he had a Medal of Honor and actually wanted two POWs prosecuted for
aiding the enemy. Actually his opening salvo looked unfortunately pathetic,
not comical, but I blame Ross Perot's campaign. A little debate preparation
would had gone a long way.
You really take yourself too seriously ...
BearCreekMan
"Queenie" <queen...@pacbell.net> wrote in message
news:7bi9e4pqp7ns3ccl5...@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 30 Sep 2008 23:07:17 -0700, "BearCreekMan"
> <You_go...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>>"Who am I? Why am I here?"
>
> Heh heh. That was begging to be taken out of context.
>
>>Admiral James Stockdale, Ross Perot's running mate in 1992 who, IMHO, is a
>>genuine war hero.
In a way, but I felt sorry for Stockdale during the debate with even both
Gore and Quayle holding their punches. It might had been different if
Stockdale had some debate preparation, but he was rushed out by the Perot
campaign who himself was even more uneven as a candidate. The Palin-Biden
debate will probably be a bit different but I see Joey the Shark having to
hold his punches as well. Its not nice to punch a woman especially if she's
a twit and contribute to a sympathy vote for McCain.
>
> John McCain is a genuine war hero, no question about it. He's a good
> guy; principled, courageous and self-defined. That said, he isn't
> likely to be president from what the current polls say.
>
Despite what some may think, McCain has soiled himself with Palin. Palin is
dragging this ticket down and McCain is hunkered into a defensive position
which is making him look brooding and nasty. I once admired McCain and even
contributed some bucks when he was running against Bush for his "agent of
intolerance" remarks. Now he's getting caught out in some of his campaign
lies and its turning the undecided voters against him. If he does lose this
election, which its looking more so like every day, hopefully he does come
back to the center and works with the Obama administration.
Signing off for probably two weeks as I'm leaving today for the Far East on
business. It will be interesting what some of the Chinese and Malays think
about our election.
JC Dill
>> John McCain is a genuine war hero, no question about it. He's a good
>> guy; principled, courageous and self-defined. That said, he isn't
>> likely to be president from what the current polls say.
>>
>
> Despite what some may think, McCain has soiled himself with Palin. Palin
> is dragging this ticket down and McCain is hunkered into a defensive
> position which is making him look brooding and nasty. I once admired
> McCain and even contributed some bucks when he was running against Bush
> for his "agent of intolerance" remarks. Now he's getting caught out in
> some of his campaign lies
His supporters say "he was a war hero" and yet ignore his self-serving
choice of Palin (I haven't seen anyone say she was the "best choice" for
VEEP), and his advertising lies, his self-serving[1] "postpone the
campaign and rush back to Washington" stunt to try to postpone the
debate, and then claim he's "principled" - I just don't get it. This is
what I don't like about most Republicans - they admire what they admire
and outright refuse to recognize the flaws in their candidate's actions
and positions.
Yes, Obama is not as experienced in politics as McCain. But he knows
how to select and hire great people, and McCain doesn't. THAT is the
most important skill for a president. We aren't electing a person, we
are electing a team. What type of team are they putting together now?
Is their team experienced, effective, honest? IMHO there's no question
that Obama has the better team, and will make a better president.
My biggest fear is that he won't be able to quickly fix the mess he's
going to inherit from Shrub's disastrous "leadership" of the past 8
years, and will be blamed 4 years from now for being on watch while his
predecessors decisions came home to roost. He's going to need a heck of
a team to deal with this, but I'm positive his team will do a better job
than McCain's team.
jc
[1] Yes, both of those were obviously self-serving stunts - neither
were in the best interest of the country.
Millenium Hand&Fish
>
> Obama is smart, and he's thoughtful, but he's young and inexperienced.
I would ask you this:
1: What would satisfy you as to "sufficiently experienced"?
2: How would the presidents of the last 100 years, on election night,
stack up against your experience criteria?
3: On completion of their term(s) of office, how would you rate those
presidents?
4: What correlation is there between success in office, as measured by
you, and qualification by experience on taking that office, again
measured by you?
MH&F.
Queenie
<jw...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>On Sep 30, 9:30�pm, QueeniePie <HRHQ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> Obama is smart, and he's thoughtful, but he's young and inexperienced.
>
>I would ask you this:
>
>1: What would satisfy you as to "sufficiently experienced"?
I'm not suggesting he's "insufficiently" experienced. That said, I
think his relative inexperience might be a problem at times. Eg:
"Still, Mr. Obama also said in a Democratic debate in July 2007 that
he would be willing �to meet separately, without precondition� with
the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."
A faux pas based on inexperience? Naivete? Or is it pure idealism?
I don't know but I agree with jc that his choice of advisers is
important. I was interested to read in the International Herald
Tribune that he turned to well-respected and, yes, experienced,
financial experts. (The ones McCain chose were not as applauded, in
said article.)
>2: How would the presidents of the last 100 years, on election night,
>stack up against your experience criteria?
Uh...
>3: On completion of their term(s) of office, how would you rate those
>presidents?
This reminds me of AP U.S. History.
>4: What correlation is there between success in office, as measured by
>you, and qualification by experience on taking that office, again
>measured by you?
I think you're assuming. Look, if you want to make a point, and
particularly if you know the history of all the presidents, their
ages, experience and perceived (by anyone) success rates, then please
just make your point. I swore never to take another exam after I
passed my orals.
~Queenie, and away we go...
~Queenie
Millenium Hand&Fish
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 13:57:18 -0700 (PDT), "Millenium Hand&Fish"
>
> >On Sep 30, 9:30 pm, QueeniePie <HRHQ...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> Obama is smart, and he's thoughtful, but he's young and inexperienced.
>
> >I would ask you this:
>
> >1: What would satisfy you as to "sufficiently experienced"?
>
> I'm not suggesting he's "insufficiently" experienced.
Yes, actually, you were. If he were, in your opinion, sufficiently
experienced, you would have had no cause to write what you wrote.
> That said, I
> think his relative inexperience might be a problem at times. Eg:
> "Still, Mr. Obama also said in a Democratic debate in July 2007 that
> he would be willing “to meet separately, without precondition” with
> the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."
>
> A faux pas based on inexperience? Naivete? Or is it pure idealism?
How about a courageous and well-thought-out approach to a set of
problems that have been intractable by other methods?
Of course his opponents decry it as inexperience, naivete, and so on.
Does that make them right?
> >2: How would the presidents of the last 100 years, on election night,
> >stack up against your experience criteria?
>
> Uh...
>
> >3: On completion of their term(s) of office, how would you rate those
> >presidents?
>
> This reminds me of AP U.S. History.
>
> >4: What correlation is there between success in office, as measured by
> >you, and qualification by experience on taking that office, again
> >measured by you?
>
> I think you're assuming.
My turn to Uh? Assuming what?
> Look, if you want to make a point, and
> particularly if you know the history of all the presidents, their
> ages, experience and perceived (by anyone) success rates, then please
> just make your point.
I don't particularly (know the history...), and the point, such as it
was, is that the experience issue is a political bumper sticker put
about by Obama's opponents. It bears examination before swallowing.
I was interested in your analysis of experience as a factor in
eligibility for office, not mine. My purely personal opinion is that
character and certain abilities count far more. Among them the ability
to pick advisers, at which it seems Obama excels.
MH&F.
Queenie
<jw...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>> >I would ask you this:
>>
>> >1: What would satisfy you as to "sufficiently experienced"?
>>
>> I'm not suggesting he's "insufficiently" experienced.
>
>Yes, actually, you were. If he were, in your opinion, sufficiently
>experienced, you would have had no cause to write what you wrote.
OK, maybe I was. I was thinking that we're in difficult straights,
during even more difficult times. When looking for leadership, I want
somebody who knows what they're doing.
>>�That said, I
>> think his relative inexperience might be a problem at times. �Eg:
>> "Still, Mr. Obama also said in a Democratic debate in July 2007 that
>> he would be willing �to meet separately, without precondition� with
>> the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea." �
>>
>> A faux pas based on inexperience? �Naivete? �Or is it pure idealism?
>
>How about a courageous and well-thought-out approach to a set of
>problems that have been intractable by other methods?
Maybe. Maybe not. Do you have any reason to think it was
well-thought-out? If so I'd like to know why. I know from experience
that it does little to no good to attempt negotiations with certain
types of people. Maybe more harm than good would be done by having
the President meet with Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il.
>Of course his opponents decry it as inexperience, naivete, and so on.
>Does that make them right?
Well... maybe.
>My turn to Uh? Assuming what?
You might be jumping to conclusions about my opinion as to his
likelihood of being a good president. I have concerns, that said,
he's the one I'm voting for.
>I don't particularly (know the history...), and the point, such as it
>was, is that the experience issue is a political bumper sticker put
>about by Obama's opponents. It bears examination before swallowing.
Point taken. Yes, maybe I was reacting to a "bumper sticker", now
that you mention it. We'll see.
>I was interested in your analysis of experience as a factor in
>eligibility for office, not mine. My purely personal opinion is that
>character and certain abilities count far more. Among them the ability
>to pick advisers, at which it seems Obama excels.
Thanks for you interest! I agree with you but next time could we have
the test be multiple choice? Heh.
I'm still curious about the whole "speaking to the enemies without
preconditions" issue. Do you think that's a good idea? Why or why
not?
~Q, the Sarah Palin of Usenet
(Nice smile, occasionally freezes in the headlights.)
JC Dill
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:23:13 -0700 (PDT), "Millenium Hand&Fish"
> <jw...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> That said, I
>>> think his relative inexperience might be a problem at times. Eg:
>>> "Still, Mr. Obama also said in a Democratic debate in July 2007 that
>>> he would be willing �to meet separately, without precondition� with
>>> the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."
>>>
>>> A faux pas based on inexperience? Naivete? Or is it pure idealism?
>> How about a courageous and well-thought-out approach to a set of
>> problems that have been intractable by other methods?
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. Do you have any reason to think it was
> well-thought-out? If so I'd like to know why. I know from experience
> that it does little to no good to attempt negotiations with certain
> types of people. Maybe more harm than good would be done by having
> the President meet with Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il.
If you believe that the way Bush "negotiates" and the way Obama will
negotiate are interchangeable then maybe Obama is misguided in his
approach. I believe that other world leaders will negotiate differently
with a new US leader than they will with the current one, and that it's
a good idea to engage in dialog with them (and without "preconditions")
to find out.
When DO we talk with our enemies? Usually we "send messages" that we
are going to invade them if they don't do what we want. What's the
point of "not talking" only to then "threaten"? Somehow, this will
produce cooperation? How's that working out? ISTM that this is how we
end up in wars we can't win - because we don't understand our enemy,
because we didn't engage them before it came to war. Obama says he's
going to bring change, and IMHO this would be a very welcome change.
jc
QueeniePie
wrote:
>If you believe that the way Bush "negotiates" and the way Obama will
>negotiate are interchangeable then maybe Obama is misguided in his
>approach. I believe that other world leaders will negotiate differently
>with a new US leader than they will with the current one, and that it's
>a good idea to engage in dialog with them (and without "preconditions")
>to find out.
I can't give carte blanche to the idea of no preconditions. Some
people can not be negotiated with to good ends. The idea of sending a
president, or presidential team, to a hostile country to attempt
negotiations, and have the result turn out with them being rebuffed,
treated badly, or worse, is repugnant. Further it would only be
rewarding bad behavior. Face it, some adults are like very spoiled
children, they need a precondition. There have to be limitations.
Preconditions don't have to mean "give us all your weapons" or some
such extreme demand.
>When DO we talk with our enemies? Usually we "send messages" that we
>are going to invade them if they don't do what we want. What's the
>point of "not talking" only to then "threaten"? Somehow, this will
>produce cooperation? How's that working out? ISTM that this is how we
>end up in wars we can't win - because we don't understand our enemy,
>because we didn't engage them before it came to war. Obama says he's
>going to bring change, and IMHO this would be a very welcome change.
What he says he'll do and what he's able to do might be two different
things.
"You are so clever that you are understanding everything."
~Mr. Nikolsky, hostage, helping "negotiations" with pirates.
Millenium Hand&Fish
> On Thu, 2 Oct 2008 22:23:13 -0700 (PDT), "Millenium Hand&Fish"
>
> >> think his relative inexperience might be a problem at times. Eg:
> >> "Still, Mr. Obama also said in a Democratic debate in July 2007 that
> >> he would be willing “to meet separately, without precondition” with
> >> the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea."
>
> >> A faux pas based on inexperience? Naivete? Or is it pure idealism?
>
> >How about a courageous and well-thought-out approach to a set of
> >problems that have been intractable by other methods?
>
> Maybe. Maybe not. Do you have any reason to think it was
> well-thought-out? If so I'd like to know why.
I have no inside information of any sort. I mainly wanted to point out
that different interpretations are possible. However, everything I
have seen this man do seems to be exceptionally well thought out. He
doesn't make gaffes. He doesn't speak carelessly. Therefore I suspect
that he has thought this one out too. He might be wrong, of course,
but thoughtless -- no.
> I know from experience that it does little to no good to attempt negotiations
> with certain types of people.
Mine too.
> Maybe more harm than good would be done by having
> the President meet with Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il.
It's possible. We don't know.
> Thanks for you interest! I agree with you but next time could we have
> the test be multiple choice? Heh.
I looked back at my post and it did come across as a bit
schoolmasterly.
> I'm still curious about the whole "speaking to the enemies without
> preconditions" issue. Do you think that's a good idea? Why or why
> not?
I trundled back through Google to find the original quote, as I don't
think there was anything about "enemies" in it. After peeling back
more levels of commentary than in the Talmud, here it is:
-------------------------
CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC,
7/23/07:
QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without
precondition, during the first year of your administration, in
Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria,
Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that
divides our countries?"...
OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow
not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the
guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."
With this amplification, on 9/27/2008:
OBAMA: Now, understand what this means, "without preconditions." It
doesn't mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means
is that we don't do what we've been doing, which is to say until you
agree to do exactly what we say, we won't have direct contacts with
you.
-------------------------
First, none of those countries are enemies. Second, "without
preconditions" can be drawn narrowly. It certainly does not mean Obama
is going to give away the farm. It just means he is willing to hear
what the other side has to say.
So yes, I do think it is a good idea. I would particularly like to see
the US and Cuba talking. The current situation is just bizarre.
MH&F.
JC Dill
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 08:24:51 -0700, JC Dill <jcdill...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> If you believe that the way Bush "negotiates" and the way Obama will
>> negotiate are interchangeable then maybe Obama is misguided in his
>> approach. I believe that other world leaders will negotiate differently
>> with a new US leader than they will with the current one, and that it's
>> a good idea to engage in dialog with them (and without "preconditions")
>> to find out.
>
> I can't give carte blanche to the idea of no preconditions. Some
> people can not be negotiated with to good ends.
Very true. But how do you determine that without at least initiating
conversations (not negotiations, just contact and conversations) with
them? IMHO, these people are less common than one might believe, and it
is very rare for one to make it to head-of-state without being
assassinated.
> The idea of sending a
> president, or presidential team, to a hostile country to attempt
> negotiations, and have the result turn out with them being rebuffed,
> treated badly, or worse, is repugnant.
When Obama says he would meet with them without preconditions, he didn't
say he would automatically agree to do so on hostile territory. One can
send an envoy to establish that the meeting can be held safely, or agree
to meet in a neutral 3rd country. Or exchange phone calls, or emails,
or video conference. There are many ways to engage in dialog without
being at physical risk.
And frankly, if they want to rebuff the POTUS what is the harm? Are you
really concerned that we would "lose face" if something like that
happened? If this did happen then it tells us how sincere they are at
engaging in dialog. Now, because they were rude, we can set
preconditions on further engagements. To say "because you were rude (or
whatever) to my idiot predecessor, I'm going to be rude and harsh to you
*before* our first meeting by laying down preconditions to our initial
meeting" is not a good way to move forward.
> Further it would only be rewarding bad behavior.
I disagree.
> Face it, some adults are like very spoiled
> children, they need a precondition. There have to be limitations.
> Preconditions don't have to mean "give us all your weapons" or some
> such extreme demand.
Many spoiled children react quite well to being treated with courtesy
and respect - and limits. You start with the courtesy and respect
first. You don't walk up to the child and lay down the law before you
have even said "hello". Even if this is a problem child. Even a
hostile child.
Preconditions are great once we know each other, and when the other side
wants something from us - aid, easing of sanctions, removal of troops
from a neighboring country, etc. We can put preconditions on the table
as part of talks to head in that direction. But to *just talk* - what
is the point of putting preconditions in? It just gets in the way of
establishing open lines of communication. It *never* works to cut
yourself off from communication with your enemies. Would you do that
with a problem child - refuse to talk to them until (whatever
precondition you want to establish)? What would you hope to accomplish
by this action?
>> When DO we talk with our enemies? Usually we "send messages" that we
>> are going to invade them if they don't do what we want. What's the
>> point of "not talking" only to then "threaten"? Somehow, this will
>> produce cooperation? How's that working out? ISTM that this is how we
>> end up in wars we can't win - because we don't understand our enemy,
>> because we didn't engage them before it came to war. Obama says he's
>> going to bring change, and IMHO this would be a very welcome change.
>
> What he says he'll do and what he's able to do might be two different
> things.
True. But there's no way to know until he tries. He can't do worse
than our current POTUS - the worst president ever.
jc
Queenie
wrote:
>> I can't give carte blanche to the idea of no preconditions. Some
> > people can not be negotiated with to good ends.
>
>Very true. But how do you determine that without at least initiating
>conversations (not negotiations, just contact and conversations) with
>them? IMHO, these people are less common than one might believe, and it
>is very rare for one to make it to head-of-state without being
>assassinated.
I take it those things are done via "back channels". I don't know
about your opinion about how many world leaders are... well, corrupt
and or dangerous. I have the opposite impression: they're more common
than you believe, IMO.
(That would be another good topic of discussion, by the way.)
>> The idea of sending a
>> president, or presidential team, to a hostile country to attempt
>> negotiations, and have the result turn out with them being rebuffed,
>> treated badly, or worse, is repugnant.
>
>When Obama says he would meet with them without preconditions, he didn't
>say he would automatically agree to do so on hostile territory. One can
>send an envoy to establish that the meeting can be held safely, or agree
>to meet in a neutral 3rd country. Or exchange phone calls, or emails,
>or video conference. There are many ways to engage in dialog without
>being at physical risk.
Sounds like preconditions.
>And frankly, if they want to rebuff the POTUS what is the harm? Are you
>really concerned that we would "lose face" if something like that
>happened? If this did happen then it tells us how sincere they are at
>engaging in dialog. Now, because they were rude, we can set
>preconditions on further engagements. To say "because you were rude (or
>whatever) to my idiot predecessor, I'm going to be rude and harsh to you
>*before* our first meeting by laying down preconditions to our initial
>meeting" is not a good way to move forward.
There's harm in serious loss of respect. Check this article in Der
Spiegel:
http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,581502,00.html
It's probably too late to worry about, but a sense of appropriateness
and good judgment should be our goal. We can't have the President of
the United States of America running after meetings like a spurned
lover, just as we are hurt when a president becomes too arrogant.
> > Further it would only be rewarding bad behavior.
>
>I disagree.
OK.
>> Face it, some adults are like very spoiled
>> children, they need a precondition. There have to be limitations.
>> Preconditions don't have to mean "give us all your weapons" or some
>> such extreme demand.
>
>Many spoiled children react quite well to being treated with courtesy
>and respect - and limits. You start with the courtesy and respect
>first. You don't walk up to the child and lay down the law before you
>have even said "hello". Even if this is a problem child. Even a
>hostile child.
Some world leaders aren't worthy of our respect. Courtesy, as Miss
Manners suggests, is always appropriate.
>Preconditions are great once we know each other, and when the other side
>wants something from us - aid, easing of sanctions, removal of troops
>from a neighboring country, etc. We can put preconditions on the table
>as part of talks to head in that direction. But to *just talk* - what
>is the point of putting preconditions in? It just gets in the way of
>establishing open lines of communication. It *never* works to cut
>yourself off from communication with your enemies. Would you do that
>with a problem child - refuse to talk to them until (whatever
>precondition you want to establish)? What would you hope to accomplish
>by this action?
I might have to do that, yes. If my kid has a history of smoking
crack, I might have to cut off all contact until he was ready for a
treatent program. One example.
Besides, this is the President, not a therapist.
>>> When DO we talk with our enemies? Usually we "send messages" that we
>>> are going to invade them if they don't do what we want. What's the
>>> point of "not talking" only to then "threaten"? Somehow, this will
>>> produce cooperation? How's that working out? ISTM that this is how we
>>> end up in wars we can't win - because we don't understand our enemy,
>>> because we didn't engage them before it came to war. Obama says he's
>>> going to bring change, and IMHO this would be a very welcome change.
If you're in a dark alley and you're being threatened, negotiating is
probably not as effective as brandishing a weapon. That said, I don't
disagree with your overall point. Of course it's better to use
diplomacy whenever possible. Just saying, the experience comes in as
to knowing the history, knowing when it's realistic, and when it
isn't.
Anyway, Sarah Palin says she and "The Maverick" are going to bring
change, too. Ahnold Schwarzenegger said that, they all say that.
Let's see what happens.
>> What he says he'll do and what he's able to do might be two different
>> things.
>
>True. But there's no way to know until he tries. He can't do worse
>than our current POTUS - the worst president ever.
"Remember to help spread the "meme" -- help "re-brand" the Republicans
as The Party That Wrecked America" ~James Howard Kunstler
~Queenie
Queenie
<jw...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>I have no inside information of any sort. I mainly wanted to point out
>that different interpretations are possible. However, everything I
>have seen this man do seems to be exceptionally well thought out. He
>doesn't make gaffes. He doesn't speak carelessly. Therefore I suspect
>that he has thought this one out too. He might be wrong, of course,
>but thoughtless -- no.
The "no preconditions" comment was considered a gaffe.
Here's Charles Krauthammer:
"A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate
him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs'
isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would
come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements
-- undermining the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he
would employ against Iran."
and further:
"Having lashed himself to the ridiculous, unprecedented promise of
unconditional presidential negotiations -- and then having compounded
the problem by elevating it to a principle -- Obama keeps trying to
explain. On Sunday, he declared in Pendleton, Ore., that by Soviet
standards Iran and others "don't pose a serious threat to us." (On the
contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was
not.) The next day in Billings, Mont.: "I've made it clear for years
that the threat from Iran is grave." "
"That's the very next day, mind you."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/05/22/AR2008052203016.html
OK, you can say Krauthammer is not a fan. But yesterday's column had
him praising Obama for intellect and temperament.
>> I know from experience that it does little to no good to attempt negotiations
>> with certain types of people.
>
>Mine too.
>
>> Maybe more harm than good would be done by having
>> the President meet with Hugo Chavez or Kim Jong Il.
>
>It's possible. We don't know.
>
>> Thanks for you interest! I agree with you but next time could we have
>> the test be multiple choice? Heh.
>
>I looked back at my post and it did come across as a bit
>schoolmasterly.
I really was a bit overwhelmed. Maybe I could just stay after and
clean the erasers?
>I trundled back through Google to find the original quote, as I don't
>think there was anything about "enemies" in it. After peeling back
>more levels of commentary than in the Talmud, here it is:
>-------------------------
>CNN/YouTube Democrat Presidential Candidate Debate, Charleston, SC,
>7/23/07:
>
>QUESTION: "[W]ould you be willing to meet separately, without
>precondition, during the first year of your administration, in
>Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria,
>Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea, in order to bridge the gap that
>divides our countries?"...
>
>OBAMA: "I would. And the reason is this, that the notion that somehow
>not talking to countries is punishment to them — which has been the
>guiding diplomatic principle of this administration - is ridiculous."
>
>With this amplification, on 9/27/2008:
>
>OBAMA: Now, understand what this means, "without preconditions." It
>doesn't mean that you invite them over for tea one day. What it means
>is that we don't do what we've been doing, which is to say until you
>agree to do exactly what we say, we won't have direct contacts with
>you.
>-------------------------
>
>First, none of those countries are enemies.
Well.... depends on who you're talking to (heh) about it.
>Second, "without
>preconditions" can be drawn narrowly. It certainly does not mean Obama
>is going to give away the farm. It just means he is willing to hear
>what the other side has to say.
>
>So yes, I do think it is a good idea. I would particularly like to see
>the US and Cuba talking. The current situation is just bizarre.
Agreed on that one.
JC Dill
AS I Understand It, the "preconditions" under discussion are about the
country's policy towards its own people or towards neighboring people,
or trade policies, or a policy on nuclear weapons, etc. For examples, see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Erik_Solheim
2006 Peace talks
Solheim announced on September 12, 2006, that the Government of Sri
Lanka and the Tamil Tigers had agreed to hold "unconditional peace
talks" in October in Oslo, Norway.[2]
Solheim told BBC News officials that "Both parties have expressed
willingness to come back to the table. We expect the violence will be
stopped. The government has throughout its existence for 10 months
repeatedly told us that they are ready for talks without any
preconditions and the LTTE has today confirmed that they are ready for
talks without any preconditions."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_Armenia
On June 5, 2005, Armenian President Robert Kocharian announced that he
was ready to "continue dialogue with Azerbaijan for the settlement of
the Nagorno-Karabakh conflict and with Turkey on establishing relations
without any preconditions." [4] Armenia has also stated that as a legal
successor to the Armenian SSR, it is loyal to the Treaty of Kars and all
agreements inherited by the former Soviet Armenian government.[5] Yet
Turkey continues to lay preconditions on relations, insisting that
Armenia abandon its efforts to have the Genocide recognized, which
official Yerevan is not willing to do.
In the wake of the 2008 South Ossetia war] between Russia and Georgia,
Armenia and Turkey have shown signs of an inclination to reconsider
their relationship. According to The Economist magazine, 70% of
Armenia's imports enter via Georgia. Because of the apparently
belligerent posture of the Russian state, economic ties with Turkey
appear especially attractive.[6]
http://www.encyclopedia.com/doc/1P2-645706.html
China renewed an offer for reunification talks with Taiwan, saying the
island would not have to recognize Beijing's sovereignty as a precondition.
<http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull&cid=1184766016694>
Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad's visit to Damascus proves that
Israel must not open negotiations with Syria, GIL Chairman Rafi Eitan
said Friday.
"[Syrian President Bashar] Assad is not showing any indication that he
will cut his strong ties with Iran, Hamas and Hizbullah even after he
starts peace talks with Israel," Eitan told Israel Radio.
Ahmadinejad's visit Thursday posed a snub to Prime Minister Ehud Olmert,
who has called on Syria to cut its relations with Iran as a precondition
to restart peace talks, deadlocked since 2000.
The political Hot Issue for Obama is that the US's present policy is
that we won't meet with Ahmadinejad of Iran unless Iran first agrees
(precondition) to suspend uranium enrichment.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2006/aug/30/iran.roberttait
http://rightweb.irc-online.org/rw/4938.html
http://www.antiwar.com/lobe/?articleid=13184
These "preconditions" have nothing to do with the physical conditions of
the meeting (when, where, security details, etc.), to ensure the safety
of the POTUS or others at the meeting.
>> And frankly, if they want to rebuff the POTUS what is the harm? Are you
>> really concerned that we would "lose face" if something like that
>> happened? If this did happen then it tells us how sincere they are at
>> engaging in dialog. Now, because they were rude, we can set
>> preconditions on further engagements. To say "because you were rude (or
>> whatever) to my idiot predecessor, I'm going to be rude and harsh to you
>> *before* our first meeting by laying down preconditions to our initial
>> meeting" is not a good way to move forward.
>
> There's harm in serious loss of respect. Check this article in Der
> Spiegel:
>
> http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/0,1518,581502,00.html
>
> It's probably too late to worry about, but a sense of appropriateness
> and good judgment should be our goal. We can't have the President of
> the United States of America running after meetings like a spurned
> lover, just as we are hurt when a president becomes too arrogant.
The POTUS doesn't need to "run after meetings" - it is the smaller
country that is seeking to engage in dialog with the US. As POTUS,
Obama would merely be viewing such requests with interest instead of
disinterest, and agreeing to engage in dialog and negotiations without
preconditions.
>>> Further it would only be rewarding bad behavior.
>> I disagree.
>
> OK.
>
>>> Face it, some adults are like very spoiled
>>> children, they need a precondition. There have to be limitations.
>>> Preconditions don't have to mean "give us all your weapons" or some
>>> such extreme demand.
>> Many spoiled children react quite well to being treated with courtesy
>> and respect - and limits. You start with the courtesy and respect
>> first. You don't walk up to the child and lay down the law before you
>> have even said "hello". Even if this is a problem child. Even a
>> hostile child.
>
> Some world leaders aren't worthy of our respect. Courtesy, as Miss
> Manners suggests, is always appropriate.
One should respect their position (head of state) even if one doesn't
respect their policies. For instance, I may disagree with you on
politics, but I can still respect you as a person and friend.
Further, it is unwise to assume that the behavior shown to ones
predecessor will automatically be shown to the next person in a given
position. What is the harm in giving the other party a chance to come
to the table and engage in discussions?
>> Preconditions are great once we know each other, and when the other side
>> wants something from us - aid, easing of sanctions, removal of troops
>>from a neighboring country, etc. We can put preconditions on the table
>> as part of talks to head in that direction. But to *just talk* - what
>> is the point of putting preconditions in? It just gets in the way of
>> establishing open lines of communication. It *never* works to cut
>> yourself off from communication with your enemies. Would you do that
>> with a problem child - refuse to talk to them until (whatever
>> precondition you want to establish)? What would you hope to accomplish
>> by this action?
>
> I might have to do that, yes. If my kid has a history of smoking
> crack, I might have to cut off all contact until he was ready for a
> treatent program. One example.
OK, I'll take this one. Suppose the kid doesn't appear high at the
moment, and says "I quit" (which, of course, you have heard dozens of
times before). Do you say "first you have to take a drug test to prove
you haven't smoked crack recently" before you agree to talk - about
anything? That is the type of precondition that is usually applied in a
situation like this. i.e. Iraq's UN Inspections for WMDs.
> Besides, this is the President, not a therapist.
You brought in the analogy of talking to spoiled kids, not me.
>>>> When DO we talk with our enemies? Usually we "send messages" that we
>>>> are going to invade them if they don't do what we want. What's the
>>>> point of "not talking" only to then "threaten"? Somehow, this will
>>>> produce cooperation? How's that working out? ISTM that this is how we
>>>> end up in wars we can't win - because we don't understand our enemy,
>>>> because we didn't engage them before it came to war. Obama says he's
>>>> going to bring change, and IMHO this would be a very welcome change.
>
> If you're in a dark alley and you're being threatened, negotiating is
> probably not as effective as brandishing a weapon. That said, I don't
> disagree with your overall point. Of course it's better to use
> diplomacy whenever possible. Just saying, the experience comes in as
> to knowing the history, knowing when it's realistic, and when it
> isn't.
Obama's policy is that it is good diplomacy to engage in dialog, and I
agree. We will get further in our relations with other countries if we
speak softly (and carry a big stick), than if we refuse to speak (and
carry a big stick).
> Anyway, Sarah Palin says she and "The Maverick" are going to bring
> change, too. Ahnold Schwarzenegger said that, they all say that.
> Let's see what happens.
LOL. The only reason McCain said he's going to bring change is because
he saw that this was the hot button that put Obama in front of Clinton,
and he decided to take that claim and try to reinvent himself as being
for change too, since it worked so well for Obama. So far the only
thing he has "changed" is his mind: "Oh, I must suspend my campaign to
rush back to Washington (to do the job I'm presently being paid to do
but have all-but-abandoned in my quest for the presidency) and help sort
out the financial crisis. We must postpone the debate until this is
solved! Wait, no one is paying any attention to me! Me, Me, Me! No
one is listening! OK, I change my mind, the debate is still on."
>>> What he says he'll do and what he's able to do might be two different
>>> things.
>> True. But there's no way to know until he tries. He can't do worse
>> than our current POTUS - the worst president ever.
>
> "Remember to help spread the "meme" -- help "re-brand" the Republicans
> as The Party That Wrecked America" ~James Howard Kunstler
McCain is one of the "best" Republican candidate choices offered in a
long, long time, but that doesn't mean he's the best choice for the
country. My biggest problems with McCain as a leader concern his poor
choices for the people in his team. Come on, was Palin *really* the
best qualified person to be named as VEEP? Hell No! McCain is doing
what he can to get elected (rather than what is best for the country)
and trying to pull the wool over our eyes, and we have had enough of
that type of behavior with Shrub, thankyouverymuch.
Earlier in the year when it became apparent that our choice would be
Obama or Clinton or McCain I was feeling quite a bit of relief - this is
the first time in a long, long time that none of the major contenders
was a candidate that I truly feared for the future of our country. I
greatly feared for our future under Bush - given his education and
intelligence (or rather, lack thereof) and experience, and choices of
teammates (Cheney) and advisors and the like. Unfortunately history has
proven that fear well-founded. I'm glad that Republicans picked a more
reasonable candidate this time. Maybe this is the beginning of a trend.
jc
Steve Thompson
Poor judgement; clinically selfish; cooks the numbers to suit her
political agenda of; pisses away money like there's no tomorrow;
Enjoys all of the benefits of slavery and none of its disadvantages;
Should be shipped off to a prison and eventual execution.
Millenium Hand&Fish
> On Fri, 3 Oct 2008 19:33:15 -0700 (PDT), "Millenium Hand&Fish"
>
>
> Here's Charles Krauthammer:
>
> "A meeting with Ahmadinejad would not just strengthen and vindicate
> him at home, it would instantly and powerfully ease the mullahs'
> isolation, inviting other world leaders to follow. And with that would
> come a flood of commercial contracts, oil deals, diplomatic agreements
> -- undermining the very sanctions and isolation that Obama says he
> would employ against Iran."
I read the article with interest. Unfortunately some of the reference
chains were too long to follow conveniently. Krauthammer's reference
to Obama's reference to Truman, for example. I would like to read what
Obama actually said, in context, rather than take Krauthammer's word
for it. There was enough slant in the article to distrust it.
For example, the play on the relative threats posed by the Soviet
Union and Iran. Obama said, "by Soviet standards Iran and others
"don't pose a serious threat to us."; with the comment "(On the
contrary. Islamic Iran is dangerously apocalyptic. Soviet Russia was
not.)"
Threat analysis looks at capabilities, not intentions. Intentions can
change with appalling speed; capabilities take time to build.
In 1980, the USSR had approximately 7,800 nuclear warheads loaded on
strategic delivery systems, and another 30,000 stockpiled.
Currently, Iran has zero warheads and zero delivery systems capable of
reaching the U.S. (outside of container freight, of course).
Which would *you* think would pose the greater threat?
More quote:
> The next day in Billings, Mont. Obama said: "I've made it clear for years
> that the threat from Iran is grave."
What's inconsistent? Iran can easily be (a) a grave threat, and (b) by
the standards of the Soviet Union, not serious.
BTW, I don't agree with Obama's second statement. Iran is
*potentially* a threat; not actually, now, in the present.
So anyway -- the article had enough selectivity about it to make it,
IHMO, an unreliable source.
MH&F.
QueeniePie
wrote:
>AS I Understand It, the "preconditions" under discussion are about the
>country's policy towards its own people or towards neighboring people,
>or trade policies, or a policy on nuclear weapons, etc. For examples, see:
<examples snipped>
>Further, it is unwise to assume that the behavior shown to ones
>predecessor will automatically be shown to the next person in a given
>position. What is the harm in giving the other party a chance to come
>to the table and engage in discussions?
This is the crux of the question, isn't it? Here's a quote from
Obama's running mate:
Sen. Joseph Biden, who has emerged as the clear-eyed antiwar realist
in the Democratic race, told National Review Online that the idea of a
president meeting with Ahmadinejad, Chavez, and others was “naïve.”
“World leaders should not meet with other world leaders unless they
know what the agenda is, so you don’t end up being used,” Biden said.
“When I went to meet with Milosevic before the war, the condition I
met with him was that no press would be available, I’d only meet him
in his office late at night, and I wouldn’t dignify being seen with
him.”
I have a queasy feeling in my gut about the "without preconditions"
stance.
>OK, I'll take this one. Suppose the kid doesn't appear high at the
>moment, and says "I quit" (which, of course, you have heard dozens of
>times before). Do you say "first you have to take a drug test to prove
>you haven't smoked crack recently" before you agree to talk - about
>anything? That is the type of precondition that is usually applied in a
>situation like this. i.e. Iraq's UN Inspections for WMDs.
Now we're splitting hairs, but seriously, yes. Unless the little
crack-smoker is looking for a ride to rehab, I wouldn't be talking to
him period. Once someone proves they're untrustworthy, there's no
point to talking unless there are preconditions.
>> Besides, this is the President, not a therapist.
>
>You brought in the analogy of talking to spoiled kids, not me.
Right. So I'm suggesting that love and understanding aren't the role
of the president when dealing with people who are unbalanced.
(Yes, I used the analogy of a child, but now I wish I'd been clearer.
A leader like Kim Jong Il, apparently a narcissist and heedless of his
peoples' suffering isn't the same as a naughty child, of course.)
I certainly hope so.
QueeniePie
<jw...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
<snippage>
>Threat analysis looks at capabilities, not intentions. Intentions can
>change with appalling speed; capabilities take time to build.
>
>In 1980, the USSR had approximately 7,800 nuclear warheads loaded on
>strategic delivery systems, and another 30,000 stockpiled.
>
>Currently, Iran has zero warheads and zero delivery systems capable of
>reaching the U.S. (outside of container freight, of course).
>
>Which would *you* think would pose the greater threat?
Depends who's the biggest hater. The Iranians are moving merrily
along with their nuclear plans, so maybe we'll find out.
(ObRandomThought: What can Obama do to help Mr. Ahmadinejad believe in
The Holocaust, anyway? Do you think he could invite him along to some
concentration camp memorials? Show him photos? He could use those
fancy programs.to prove they're not photoshopped? Maybe there could
be a way, if the guy isn't mentally ill but simply a victim of his
limited experience.)
>So anyway -- the article had enough selectivity about it to make it,
>IHMO, an unreliable source.
Ok, I tend to like Krauthammer but I agree that, while there's a lot
of information available, sometimes it's not all the information or
even, at least, enough information to figure out the truth, the whole
truth and nothing but the truth.
So help us, God.
JC Dill
>> OK, I'll take this one. Suppose the kid doesn't appear high at the
>> moment, and says "I quit" (which, of course, you have heard dozens of
>> times before). Do you say "first you have to take a drug test to prove
>> you haven't smoked crack recently" before you agree to talk - about
>> anything? That is the type of precondition that is usually applied in a
>> situation like this. i.e. Iraq's UN Inspections for WMDs.
>
> Now we're splitting hairs, but seriously, yes. Unless the little
> crack-smoker is looking for a ride to rehab, I wouldn't be talking to
> him period. Once someone proves they're untrustworthy, there's no
> point to talking unless there are preconditions.
That attitude is why we have so many communication problems today -
between countries, between parents and kids, between workers and
management, etc. You can't learn what the other person is thinking,
what they are upset about, what their issues are, if you cut off avenues
of discussion.
The analogy is with a kid you haven't personally met yet. You only know
"of" the kid from others who have met with the kid, in the past. We
aren't talking about your own kid, or a kid you have worked with
previously. And, there are issues with the people who are telling you
about the kid - they aren't known for doing a particularly good job.
Plus, others in their position have met with the kid, and will meet with
the kid again. (i.e. other world leaders meet with the heads of state
that the US won't meet with, such as Castro.)
>>> Besides, this is the President, not a therapist.
>> You brought in the analogy of talking to spoiled kids, not me.
>
> Right. So I'm suggesting that love and understanding aren't the role
> of the president when dealing with people who are unbalanced.
I never said "love and understanding". I said TALK. JUST TALK.
Communicate. Learn about each others concerns. Not agree to do
anything - just talk.
jc
Veronique
> Queenie wrote:
> > Right. So I'm suggesting that love and understanding aren't the role
> > of the president when dealing with people who are unbalanced.
>
> I never said "love and understanding". I said TALK. JUST TALK.
> Communicate. Learn about each others concerns. Not agree to do
> anything - just talk.
My feeling is anything Obama might do accidentally can't be worse than
what McCain wants to do intentionally.
Here's what Rolling Stone thinks about McCain's being a maverick:
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/coverstory/make_believe_maverick_the_real_john_mccain
V.
--
Veronique Chez Sheep
Millenium Hand&Fish
>
> Here's what Rolling Stone thinks about McCain's being a maverick:
>
>
> V.
I seem to be directed to a lot of hot editorial from this group. Read
with interest, thought it overstated its case. Then near the end
something about the personality being dissected started feeling
familiar. Lets see...
--------------------------
Born of an illustrious line, with a prominent father compared with
whom he always seemed to come up short.
Personally undisciplined, pugnacious, short-tempered and exceptionally
determined.
Poor academically; usually near the bottom of his class.
Family connections got him into the armed forces. Pulled strings
shamelessly to get plum appointments, one of which nearly got him
killed.
Unpopular amongst his fellow officers, who considered him a self-
promoter and publicity hound.
Was captured and spent time as a POW. Later wrote about it.
Went into politics where he continued his self-promotion stunts.
Is a party maverick. In many ways indifferent to party, though his
core values are profoundly conservative.
Untrusted by the party power brokers, spent time in the outer
darkness. Recalled reluctantly because there was really no-one else.
A hard taskmaster. Does not suffer fools gladly; can be exceptionally
rude to those who irritate him.
------------------
Sounds like Churchill.
MH&F.
Queenie
> Sounds like Churchill.
Where is he when we need him? Damn politicians.
"Never hold discussions with the monkey when the organ grinder is in
the room."
~Sir Winston comments on preconditions?
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
This election is becoming tragic. McCain is starting to look more and
more like guess-who. Today I was actually thinking about the organ
grinder in the original 3 Penny Opera. from the 1920's. McCain's
expressive verbal mantras reminded me of it.
I believe McCain is not going to have a chance to win unless Palin
gets removed from the ticket and McCain appoints someone credible for
vice president.
The polls are rejecting Tim's Boomer Generation. Soon they will be in
the dust bin of history.
It looks like someone has been reading our newsgroup or else the world
is full of odd coincidences: http://www.salon.com/comics/tomo/2008/09/30/tomo/
Steve Thompson
Who exactly would read this newsgroup? Marginally dissaffected middle-
and upper-middle class professionals and a liberal sprinkling of loons,
that's who. I can't believe you think it isn't entirely coincidental.
dhm_at_be...@yahoo.com
Someone paid by a publisher or author to pirate ideas for syndication
after their own thinking runs dry. "Hey, look what I found! Here's
my
consulting bill."
Steve Daniels
compelled "Steve Thompson"<steve...@yahoo.ca.ca>, to say:
> Who exactly would read this newsgroup? . . . a liberal sprinkling of loons . . .
Physician, heal thyself.
--
Life is too short to play cheap guitars.