Obama's hundred days vs. Trudeau's slumbered daze
trnco...@aol.com
black President,a Great Recession, bank bailouts, car companies
collapsing, North Korean missiles, Lincoln's 200th birthday, nominees
with tax problems, wackos on the move in Pakistan, obnoxious Russians,
stimulus packages, "card check", greenhouse gases, health care reform,
Darfur, druglords shooting it out with the Mexican army, earthquakes
in Italy, CIA torture, Iranians working on the bomb--all this and
more, and *pirates* to boot! But what does "Doonesbury" have to say
about all this?
1/20-24: Mark and Jimmy Thudpucker discuss ringtones.
1/25: Trff Bmzklfrpz borrows Obama's "team of rivals" idea and uses
it, unsuprisingly, to kill his.
1/26-2/6: Clyde asks Joanie for help getting a job in the Obama
administration. We learn Obama is into coopting conservatives but not
playing the race card.
2/1: Duke complains about bonuses at bailed-out companies.
2/7-2/14: Alex continues working on her movie.
2/8: A car salesman desperately tries to sell an SUV to Mike, who now
finds them irresponsible.
2/15: Rev. Sloan rails against Dubya's library.
2/16-21: In a bout of wishful thinking on Trudeau's part, Duke's
lobbying firm has layoffs.
2/22: Alex calls herself a "shovel ready" girlfriend.
2/23-28: Reruns of Rick's layoff.
3/1: Rerun of Jeff's puppy rental idea.
3/2-3/14: Roland overindulges in Twitter; Skull and Bones is sued over
Geronimo's bones.
3/8: Zonker and Mike answer reader mail...from 1981.
3/15: We here in the States seem to have forgotten that our boys are
still risking their necks in Iraq. This lapse should be
understandable, as this is only the third "Doonesbury" strip since
Toggle's explosion in December 2007 that shows them in possible harm's
way.
3/16-28: Toggle and Alex's romance.
3/22: The black dean of Walden cynically tries to borrow Obama's
strategy to get himself promoted.
3/29: Duke and Trff talk business.
3/30-4/5: Afghanistan, but mostly about Afghan dysfunction.
4/6-4/12: More Toggle and Alex.
4/13-4/18: Jeff considers returning to Afghanistan. Obama's "made a
real committment in Afghanistan". Whether he *should* have is not
discussed.
4/19: Rick turns into "Momma" with a blog.
4/20-25: Your NPR donations at work as Mark derives entertainment
value from Elmont's delusions of non-TARP-funded Tarpville grandeur.
4/26 Alex, Toggle and Twitter.
4/27-5/2: Reruns of Zipper getting all Sarah Palin up in his
professor's grille.
1/20-5/2: No appearances by Obama or any other real person, no
criticism or stirring endorsements of Obama or his administration, no
going after Obama's critics.
Of course, you young'uns out there may be wondering, "well, what do
you expect? The President is just getting started--doesn't Trudeau
need time to figure out what to think about him?" Not at all--here's
how "Doonesbury" dealt with the start of its previous six-and-a-half
Presidencies:
1/20/73: Mike watches the inauguration as commentators wonder which
clichéd theme Nixon will use in his speech.
9/2/74 (first strip that's definitely about the Ford administration):
The wall Nixon built in front of the White House is torn down and
sunshine abounds.
1/23/77: Zonker discusses with a talking begonia whether Carter will
make government nice.
1/20/81: The start of filming of "Mr. Reagan Goes to Washington" with
the White House as a movie backdrop.
1/20/89: The White House disappears because Bush Sr. has no agenda.
1/24/93: Various characters give Clinton the "it’s a shiny new world"
treatment.
1/21/01 George W. Bush (a.k.a. "The Asterisk Wearing A Cowboy Hat") is
not really a uniter.
I'm not saying the last few month's worth of material was bad, indeed
"Doonesbury" still beats most of what's on the comics page, and if
Trudeau wants it to now mostly be "Dilbert Winkerbean" I'll still read
it. But if not, it's time for him to get back to wailing on
Washington.
LNER...@juno.com
> I'm not saying the last few month's worth of material was bad, indeed
> "Doonesbury" still beats most of what's on the comics page, and if
> Trudeau wants it to now mostly be "Dilbert Winkerbean" I'll still read
> it. But if not, it's time for him to get back to wailing on
> Washington.
I seem to recall that Jeff MacNelly "retired" from his editorial
cartooning work in 1981 (Wikipedia says he was with the Richmond News
Leader at the time, but he was being picked up nationally) in part to
focus on his strip "Shoe," but also, as he said in an interview I read
at the time, he just plain supported Reagan and his policies and
couldn't find that much funny to lampoon in them. He eventually
returned around 1985 or so, probably because, yeah, even if you were a
die-hard Reagan supporter, there was stuff ripe for the sharp
editorial pen, all right.
Trudeau has nicely (perhaps too conveniently) placed himself in a
position where he has the main characters of the strip to fall back
on, and could easily make the excuse that the characters are more
important than the current events. As the above poster points out,
that would be, and is, hogwash. Maybe Trudeau could take a four-year
"sabbatical" and do something like, oh, I dunno, go to work for the
Obama administration?
Invid Fan
<99a105dd-ede7-4dc0...@v17g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
<LNER...@juno.com> wrote:
> Trudeau has nicely (perhaps too conveniently) placed himself in a
> position where he has the main characters of the strip to fall back
> on, and could easily make the excuse that the characters are more
> important than the current events. As the above poster points out,
> that would be, and is, hogwash. Maybe Trudeau could take a four-year
> "sabbatical" and do something like, oh, I dunno, go to work for the
> Obama administration?
Give him time. If nothing else this is a chance to focus on character
stuff until there's a real big screw up. Hell, The Daily Show started
mocking Obama days after his swearing in.
(out of curiosity, has anyone looked to see how Trudeau handled the
first year of Clinton?)
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
PatONeill
It's worth pointing out that Doonesbury did not begin as an overtly
political strip, rather it was and is a social commentary strip. It
has had long periods where the politics outweighed the social, it's
true, but they have been in both GOP and Democratic administrations.
As it is, I'd think the recent Berzerkistan sequences and the Alice
and Elmont sequence were fairly aimed commentary at Obama policies and
practices.
Freezer
Trudeau's already done, without resorting to Duck-level "joke"-
stretching.
--
My name is Freezer and my anti-drug is porn.
http://www.geocities.com/mysterysciencefreezer
http://freezer818.livejournal.com/
Mike Peterson
> I'd just like to know what Obama's done that would merit more than what
> Trudeau's already done, without resorting to Duck-level "joke"-
> stretching.
As I understand it, he's the first president in history to read a
prepared speech rather than just speaking extemporaneously. This, of
course, makes him unfit for the office.
So far, that seems to be the big issue.
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
LNER...@juno.com
> Trudeau's already done, without resorting to Duck-level "joke"-
> stretching.
>
Congress--result in MASSIVE deficits?
PatONeill
You mean like the previous president did for eight years running?
Carl Fink
> On May 4, 6:08=A0am, LNER4...@juno.com wrote:
>> On May 4, 12:54=A0am, Freezer <freeze...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:> I'd=
> just like to know what Obama's done that would merit more than what
>> > Trudeau's already done, without resorting to Duck-level "joke"-
>> > stretching.
>>
>> Congress--result in MASSIVE deficits?
>
> You mean like the previous president did for eight years running?
Or Reagan, for that matter? GHWB?
--
Carl Fink nitpi...@nitpicking.com
Read my blog at blog.nitpicking.com. Reviews! Observations!
Stupid mistakes you can correct!
deto...@hotmail.com
> On 2009-05-04, PatONeill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > On May 4, 6:08=A0am, LNER4...@juno.com wrote:
> >> On May 4, 12:54=A0am, Freezer <freeze...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:> I'd=
> > just like to know what Obama's done that would merit more than what
> >> > Trudeau's already done, without resorting to Duck-level "joke"-
> >> > stretching.
>
> >> Ummmmm............ =A0proposed spending that would--no, will, thanks to
> >> Congress--result in MASSIVE deficits?
>
> > You mean like the previous president did for eight years running?
>
> Or Reagan, for that matter? GHWB?
http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
Nope. Mr. Obama and his friends in Congress are doing something
without precedent.
Although throwing mud at previous Presidents regarding the debt/
deficit issue is an entirely appropriate exercise. We haven't had
fiscal restraint in the White House in decades.
Except for that brief period of time when gridlock between the GOP led
Congress and Mr. Clinton's administration kept spending under relative
control.
--
Regards,
Dann
PatONeill
> On May 4, 8:37 am, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > On 2009-05-04, PatONeill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > On May 4, 6:08=A0am, LNER4...@juno.com wrote:
> > >> On May 4, 12:54=A0am, Freezer <freeze...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:> I'd=
> > > just like to know what Obama's done that would merit more than what
> > >> > Trudeau's already done, without resorting to Duck-level "joke"-
> > >> > stretching.
>
> > >> Ummmmm............ =A0proposed spending that would--no, will, thanks to
> > >> Congress--result in MASSIVE deficits?
>
> > > You mean like the previous president did for eight years running?
>
> > Or Reagan, for that matter? GHWB?
>
>
> Nope. Mr. Obama and his friends in Congress are doing something
> without precedent.
>
> Although throwing mud at previous Presidents regarding the debt/
> deficit issue is an entirely appropriate exercise. We haven't had
> fiscal restraint in the White House in decades.
>
> Except for that brief period of time when gridlock between the GOP led
> Congress and Mr. Clinton's administration kept spending under relative
> control.
>
> --
> Regards,
> Dann
Has Mr. Obama yet turned a $2 trillion surplus into a $3 trillion
deficit? That's losing $5 trillion in eight years.
deto...@hotmail.com
> On May 4, 9:12 am, detox...@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > On May 4, 8:37 am, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>
> > > On 2009-05-04, PatONeill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
> > > > On May 4, 6:08=A0am, LNER4...@juno.com wrote:
> > > >> On May 4, 12:54=A0am, Freezer <freeze...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:> I'd=
> > > > just like to know what Obama's done that would merit more than what
> > > >> > Trudeau's already done, without resorting to Duck-level "joke"-
> > > >> > stretching.
>
> > > >> Ummmmm............ =A0proposed spending that would--no, will, thanks to
> > > >> Congress--result in MASSIVE deficits?
>
> > > > You mean like the previous president did for eight years running?
>
> > > Or Reagan, for that matter? GHWB?
>
> >http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-...
>
> > Nope. Mr. Obama and his friends in Congress are doing something
> > without precedent.
>
> > Although throwing mud at previous Presidents regarding the debt/
> > deficit issue is an entirely appropriate exercise. We haven't had
> > fiscal restraint in the White House in decades.
>
> > Except for that brief period of time when gridlock between the GOP led
> > Congress and Mr. Clinton's administration kept spending under relative
> > control.
>
>
> deficit? That's losing $5 trillion in eight years.
????
PatONeill
Did I misstate the amounts? At any rate, GWB came into office with a
surplus. He left it with a massive deficit.
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
So quadrupling Bush's deficit is OK then?
Scary graph of CBO numbers:
http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/77669/
--
------
columbiaclosings.com
What's not in Columbia anymore..
deto...@hotmail.com
Well, yes. Your numbers are off by a couple scale factor or two.
It is claimed that Mr. Clinton left office with a $268 billion
surplus. That only works if you accept the government's usual fiscal
chicanery that uses the Social Security surplus to cover the general
budget deficit.
The following link presents a reasonable discussion of the budgetary
issues that are involved:
http://www.craigsteiner.us/articles/16
I hasten to point out that this has been a problem for decades. It
has been embraced by Democrats and Republicans alike. And it got much
worse under Mr. Reagan when he and the Congress increased the FICA
taxes in a theoretic attempt to "save" current money to pay for future
Social Security obligations.
The total public debt for the US stood at $11 trillion when Mr. Bush
took office. That is $11 trillion over the first 232 years of US
history. [most of it came from the last 30 years of spending]
Mr. Bush and his inability to restrain Congressional spending is/was
most clearly part of the problem. [This isn't the first time I have
suggested such a thing...here or elsewhere.]
Mr. Obama and the Democrats in Congress have proposed doubling that
amount of debt in the next few years.
Take a good look at the links Ted and I provided. They both lead to
the same chart generated by the Washington Post.
[I would normally attribute 2009 spending to Mr. Bush, but after the
porkulus bill passed, the responsibility for the size of the public
debt now clearly rests with the current administration. The same is
true of 2001 spending given how much it was drastically increased
following 9/11.]
The ever questionable Wikipedia has a decent article on the size of
the public debt:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_public_debt
Despite what the vitriolic Ms. Garofalo has suggested, or [dragging
this back on topic for the froup] what the significantly less
vitriolic if equally erroneous Mr. Bell has suggested [http://
comics.com/rudy_park/2009-05-04/], concern over the public debt has
nothing to do with Mr. Obama being a Democrat or being black. If
fact, it has nothing to do with Mr. Obama beyond the fact that he is
our current President.
The problem has been around for a long time and it needs to be fixed.
I had hoped that Mr. Bush would have done something about that by
downsizing the federal government. I had hoped that the GOP would
stay true to their fiscal roots. I was wrong. [John Kasich's
departure from the US House didn't help.]
Even though I didn't vote for Mr. Obama, I had hoped that he would
have the character and the wisdom to rise above the partisan issues
and address the size and scale of the debt. He's proving me wrong,
too.
I'm batting 0.000 with regards to hope, deficit spending, and
politicians.
Noting that Mr. Bush spent a lot of money does not absolve Mr. Obama
for spending even more.
--
Regards,
Dann
PatONeill
It is a truism--recognized by both ends and the middle of the economic
spectrum--that cutting government spending (the only way to reduce the
deficit) in a period of recession will do nothing except deepen the
recession. What a wonderful idea--with unemployment at its highest
level in decades, let's unemploy a whole lot of government employees!
Ted Nolan <tednolan>
All right then! Let's give everybody a government job. Problem solved!
Mike Marshall
>>spectrum--that cutting government spending (the only way to reduce the
>>deficit) in a period of recession will do nothing except deepen the
>>recession. What a wonderful idea--with unemployment at its highest
>>level in decades, let's unemploy a whole lot of government employees!
It is a truism--recognized by 100% of all people--that you can't spend
yourself out of debt.
-Mike
PatONeill
True--but you can't get yourself out of a recession by refusing to
spend money, either. The first order of business is getting the
economy on a firm footing, putting people to work, getting the markets
(both retail and credit) operating, etc. Until we do that, cutting
government spending is like throwing water onto a fire you're trying
to start. Yes, eventually you want to put the fire out, but not now.
Oh--and all the polls show that the American people as a whole want
MORE government, not less. The ones who want less are just a whole lot
noisier and have a lot more money to spend on making their case.
deto...@hotmail.com
> On May 4, 2:17 pm, Mike Marshall <hub...@clemson.edu> wrote:
>
> > >>It is a truism--recognized by both ends and the middle of the economic
> > >>spectrum--that cutting government spending (the only way to reduce the
> > >>deficit) in a period of recession will do nothing except deepen the
> > >>recession. What a wonderful idea--with unemployment at its highest
> > >>level in decades, let's unemploy a whole lot of government employees!
>
>
> True--but you can't get yourself out of a recession by refusing to
> spend money, either. The first order of business is getting the
> economy on a firm footing, putting people to work, getting the markets
> (both retail and credit) operating, etc. Until we do that, cutting
> government spending is like throwing water onto a fire you're trying
> to start. Yes, eventually you want to put the fire out, but not now.
>
> Oh--and all the polls show that the American people as a whole want
> MORE government, not less. The ones who want less are just a whole lot
> noisier and have a lot more money to spend on making their case.
Sorry, Pat. I'm not buying.
Cutting government spending during a recession has not suggested the
truism you claim. Or at least, I'd appreciate a cite for it.
At some point, excess government spending becomes a drag that hinders
economic recovery. Smart spending by the government produces
benefits. Dumb spending by the government does not.
[BTW, I'd classify Mr. Obama's $8k tax credit for new home buyers and
some of the new money going towards highways and some mass transit as
being "smart". Pity the most of the spending isn't being allocated
with the same intelligence.]
Also, I'd like a cite for your claim that most Americans specifically
want more government. General approval ratings are hardly proof that
Americans want more government.
In any case, there are times when the best public policy decisions may
not meet with immediate public approval.
--
Regards,
Dann
Charlie Foxtrot
<tednolan>) wrote:
>So quadrupling Bush's deficit is OK then?
>
>Scary graph of CBO numbers:
>
> http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/77669/
Damn it, Ted! Do not attemt to confuse them with the truth! All that
Kool-Aid leaves them a bit disoriented.
Now, get on the bus and be a good citizen of the United Socialist
States of America.
Praise be Obama!
Foxtrot
If you think you hate me from what I write here, check out my blog on my MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/bennettron
If you actually think I'm an okay guy, go ahead and add me as your friend if you are active at MySpace.
deto...@hotmail.com
> Damn it, Ted! Do not attemt to confuse them with the truth! All that
> Kool-Aid leaves them a bit disoriented.
>
> Now, get on the bus and be a good citizen of the United Socialist
> States of America.
Unhelpful.
--
Regards,
Dann
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 May 2009 14:53:00 GMT, t...@loft.tnolan.com (Ted Nolan
><tednolan>) wrote:
>
>
>>So quadrupling Bush's deficit is OK then?
>>
>>Scary graph of CBO numbers:
>>
>> http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/77669/
>
>Damn it, Ted! Do not attemt to confuse them with the truth! All that
>Kool-Aid leaves them a bit disoriented.
>
Truth from a Pajamasmedia article, now that's funny . . .
>Now, get on the bus and be a good citizen of the United Socialist
>States of America.
>
>Praise be Obama!
>
If you don't know what socialism is, it might be better for you not
to talk about it.
You clearly haven't matured from that rant a few months ago, time
to grow up or shut up . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Charlie Foxtrot
<patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>Oh--and all the polls show that the American people as a whole want
>MORE government, not less. The ones who want less are just a whole lot
>noisier and have a lot more money to spend on making their case.
If that little piece of pure bullshit were true, those of us in the
minority - that being people whose brains actaully work - might as
well just off ourselves now.
I'd rather be dead than live in the world the Obama-zombies seem to be
wishing for.
I just don't get it when the US President makes it onto the cover of
magazines like Entertainment Weekly. ENTERTAINMENT, for Christ's
sake!
Even more frightening and semi-on topic... The annointed one has made
the cover of Wizard TWICE! Now explain to me why the president should
be on the cover of a magazine about comic books! Are you effing
kidding me?
The Obama hysteria and group-think is very scary to me.
I'd say "God Bless the USSA," but I fear that the self-centered,
applause seeking megolomaniac known as our president would prefer the
national motto be "Praise be Obama!"
PatONeill
A while back I recommended a book to you...you said it was on your
list...Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?". It includes a lot of
data on polling of the public on policy issues. Overwhelmingly they
come out in favor of positions that expand government, not contract
it. These include universal health care, mass transit, increased
social safety net, etc.
LNER...@juno.com
> A while back I recommended a book to you...you said it was on your
> list...Eric Alterman's "What Liberal Media?". It includes a lot of
> data on polling of the public on policy issues. Overwhelmingly they
> come out in favor of positions that expand government, not contract
> it. These include universal health care, mass transit, increased
> social safety net, etc.
Disregarding the painfully obvious caveat that it sincerely matters
exactly how the question is asked..........
People will ALWAYS be enthusiastic about spending other people's
money, or telling other people how to spend it.
And if I were to ask you "would you like a nice ribeye steak
dinner?" (or the vegetarian/poultry/whatever equivalent), you are
certainly likely to say "yes." Now, if I were to hand you a menu, on
the other hand--and thus the implication that the cost of the dinner
will come out of your wallet sometime in the next hour or so--you're
going to have a different reaction to that question.
If I were to say to someone "Mass transit in this city costs an
average of $385 per year per resident of the city whether they use it
or not; do you favor expanding it at an additional cost of $72 per
resident per year?" then I might get an entirely different answer than
"overwhelming support".
Try asking a young (under 30), motivated, money-making person who has
actually crunched the numbers on the Ponzi scheme called Social
Security and the taxes they pay and the pending SS collapse, and ask
them what THEY think of such "increased social safety net." Hint: don
a bulletproof and flameproof jumpsuit first, especially if you're old
enough to be collecting SS.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On May 4, 8:37�am, Carl Fink <ca...@panix.com> wrote:
>> On 2009-05-04, PatONeill <patdone...@verizon.net> wrote:
>>
>> > On May 4, 6:08=A0am, LNER4...@juno.com wrote:
>> >> On May 4, 12:54=A0am, Freezer <freeze...@hotSPAMTHISmail.com> wrote:> I'd=
>> > �just like to know what Obama's done that would merit more than what
>> >> > Trudeau's already done, without resorting to Duck-level "joke"-
>> >> > stretching.
>>
>> >> Ummmmm............ =A0proposed spending that would--no, will, thanks to
>> >> Congress--result in MASSIVE deficits?
>>
>> > You mean like the previous president did for eight years running?
>>
>> Or Reagan, for that matter? �GHWB?
>
>
>http://blog.heritage.org/2009/03/24/bush-deficit-vs-obama-deficit-in-pictures/
>
>Nope. Mr. Obama and his friends in Congress are doing something
>without precedent.
>
It was called The New Deal . . .
Oh, and using more *projected* (i.e. imaginary) figures against
*actual* defiicits, from the Heritage Foundantion no less, this is
just ridiculous . . .
>Although throwing mud at previous Presidents regarding the debt/
>deficit issue is an entirely appropriate exercise. We haven't had
>fiscal restraint in the White House in decades.
>
>Except for that brief period of time when gridlock between the GOP led
>Congress and Mr. Clinton's administration kept spending under relative
>control.
Which I'm sure explains why, in his first two years, with a
Democratically controlled Congress, the deficit went down 40%; to
paraphrase James Carville, "It was the taxes (and their revenue),
stupid!" . . .
--
- ReFlex76
PatONeill
>
> Try asking a young (under 30), motivated, money-making person who has
> actually crunched the numbers on the Ponzi scheme called Social
> Security and the taxes they pay and the pending SS collapse, and ask
> them what THEY think of such "increased social safety net." Hint: don
> a bulletproof and flameproof jumpsuit first, especially if you're old
> enough to be collecting SS.
I've asked my sons...aged 20 and 23...and they have no objections to
social security. They understand that it's not a retirement account,
it's an insurance system, and always has been. And, like any insurance
policy, some people make out better than others.
Charlie Foxtrot
<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>
> If you don't know what socialism is, it might be better for you not
>to talk about it.
>
> You clearly haven't matured from that rant a few months ago, time
>to grow up or shut up . . .
Or, it could be that your eyes have closed even tighter.
Funny, the left wanted everyone to listen to and hear their rallies
against Bush.
But God forbid someone not like their Messiah, Barrack Obama. Those
petty fools just need to shut up.
Charlie Foxtrot
>People will ALWAYS be enthusiastic about spending other people's
>money, or telling other people how to spend it.
>
>And if I were to ask you "would you like a nice ribeye steak
>dinner?" (or the vegetarian/poultry/whatever equivalent), you are
>certainly likely to say "yes." Now, if I were to hand you a menu, on
>the other hand--and thus the implication that the cost of the dinner
>will come out of your wallet sometime in the next hour or so--you're
>going to have a different reaction to that question.
>
>If I were to say to someone "Mass transit in this city costs an
>average of $385 per year per resident of the city whether they use it
>or not; do you favor expanding it at an additional cost of $72 per
>resident per year?" then I might get an entirely different answer than
>"overwhelming support".
That very thing happened in my back yard. People of Florida,
overwhelmingly, voted to build a high-speed rail line connecting
Tampa, Orlando and Miami a few years back.
Then they found out how much it was going to cost. That made them
vote to abolish the plan.
Now, President Obama (Praise Be Obama!) has said that we NEED that
high speed rail line between Tampa, Orlando and Miami and everyone is
excited. I'm not sure where they think the money is coming from but
it's Obama'a idea for God's sake and that makes it good!
LNER...@juno.com
> On Mon, 4 May 2009 19:31:27 -0700 (PDT), LNER4...@juno.com wrote:
> >People will ALWAYS be enthusiastic about spending other people's
> >money, or telling other people how to spend it.
>
> >And if I were to ask you "would you like a nice ribeye steak
> >dinner?" (or the vegetarian/poultry/whatever equivalent), you are
> >certainly likely to say "yes." Now, if I were to hand you a menu, on
> >the other hand--and thus the implication that the cost of the dinner
> >will come out of your wallet sometime in the next hour or so--you're
> >going to have a different reaction to that question.
>
> >If I were to say to someone "Mass transit in this city costs an
> >average of $385 per year per resident of the city whether they use it
> >or not; do you favor expanding it at an additional cost of $72 per
> >resident per year?" then I might get an entirely different answer than
> >"overwhelming support".
>
> That very thing happened in my back yard. People of Florida,
> overwhelmingly, voted to build a high-speed rail line connecting
> Tampa, Orlando and Miami a few years back.
>
Corollary to Godwin's Law:
Actual discussion on a topic has officially ceased when the subject of
high-speed rail is, once again, invoked.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 04 May 2009 17:17:18 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
><AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>
>> If you don't know what socialism is, it might be better for you not
>>to talk about it.
>>
>> You clearly haven't matured from that rant a few months ago, time
>>to grow up or shut up . . .
>
>Or, it could be that your eyes have closed even tighter.
>
Oh, my eyes are wide open, though you're doing a good job of
projecting your own narrow vision . . .
>Funny, the left wanted everyone to listen to and hear their rallies
>against Bush.
>
There was always something to be heard about Bush, from Iraq, to
Guantanamo, to Katrina. The worst you seem to have against President
Obama is . . . appearing on two Wizard Magazine covers (no,
seriously!). Find something relevant, then you *might* be heard; try
looking up what socialism actually is along the way, you might learn
something . . .
>But God forbid someone not like their Messiah, Barrack Obama. Those
>petty fools just need to shut up.
>
Seriously, grow up . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 4 May 2009 13:19:33 -0700 (PDT), PatONeill
><patdo...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>>Oh--and all the polls show that the American people as a whole want
>>MORE government, not less. The ones who want less are just a whole lot
>>noisier and have a lot more money to spend on making their case.
>
>If that little piece of pure bullshit were true, those of us in the
>minority - that being people whose brains actaully work - might as
>well just off ourselves now.
>
Don't make promises you won't keep . . .
>I'd rather be dead than live in the world the Obama-zombies seem to be
>wishing for.
>
Yeah, that whole educated, peaceful, clean world thing is a real
nightmare . . . 9_9
>I just don't get it when the US President makes it onto the cover of
>magazines like Entertainment Weekly. ENTERTAINMENT, for Christ's
>sake!
>
>Even more frightening and semi-on topic... The annointed one has made
>the cover of Wizard TWICE! Now explain to me why the president should
>be on the cover of a magazine about comic books! Are you effing
>kidding me?
>
So this is . . . jealousy?!
>The Obama hysteria and group-think is very scary to me.
>
Seems to be a bit of Cult of Personality, mixed with Wisdom of the
Masses; not surprising misanthropes and fools would have a severe
aversion to that . . .
>I'd say "God Bless the USSA," but I fear that the self-centered,
>applause seeking megolomaniac known as our president would prefer the
>national motto be "Praise be Obama!"
>
Seriously, grow up . . .
--
- ReFlex76
JC Dill
> On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:21:37 GMT, Charlie Foxtrot
>> The Obama hysteria and group-think is very scary to me.
>>
>
> Seems to be a bit of Cult of Personality, mixed with Wisdom of the
> Masses; not surprising misanthropes and fools would have a severe
> aversion to that . . .
The right-wing-conservative-the-sky-is-falling-tea-party group-think is
very scary to me.
My housemate is one of "them". He can't fathom that the Swift Boaters
lied about John Kerry and made horrible accusations about a man who
risked his own life (while injured) to pull a fellow soldier out of the
water and to safety, while under fire. If this man (Kerry) were a
conservative my housemate would offer to die trying to protect his good
name, but because the man dares to be a liberal, my housemate falls all
over himself to believe the lies and deny the truth even when the liars
were found to have contradicted themselves by their own sworn statements
in the past:
http://www.factcheck.org/republican-funded_group_attacks_kerrys_war_record.html
> Elliott had previously defended Kerry on that score when his record
> was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott
> came to Boston and said Kerry acted properly and deserved the Silver
> Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott called Kerry's Silver
> Star "well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his
> boat in the face of an ambush:
>
> Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a
> Silver Star, which is well deserved, and I have no regrets or second
> thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn
> into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three
> people there.
My housemate is beyond reasoning with. He only believes "facts" that
conform with what he wants to believe. Any evidence I offer to show
that he's being lied to is disbelieved - none of my sources are "good
enough" for him - if they disagree with what he wants to believe then
they are all immediately branded as being part of the "liberal media"
and thus not honest.
The real threat to the USA is not foreign terrorists, it's home-grown
liars who manage to pull the wool over otherwise intelligent people's
eyes. I fear that cult of Hannity/Limbaugh et. al. will end up being
much more dangerous than any foreign group.
jc
Doug Reese
> Antonio E. Gonzalez wrote:
> > On Tue, 05 May 2009 00:21:37 GMT, Charlie Foxtrot
> >> The Obama hysteria and group-think is very scary to me.
>
> > Seems to be a bit of Cult of Personality, mixed with Wisdom of the
> > Masses; not surprising misanthropes and fools would have a severe
> > aversion to that . . .
>
> The right-wing-conservative-the-sky-is-falling-tea-party group-think is
> very scary to me.
>
> My housemate is one of "them". He can't fathom that the Swift Boaters
> risked his own life (while injured) to pull a fellow soldier out of the
> water and to safety, while under fire. If this man (Kerry) were a
> conservative my housemate would offer to die trying to protect his good
> name, but because the man dares to be a liberal, my housemate falls all
> over himself to believe the lies and deny the truth even when the liars
> were found to have contradicted themselves by their own sworn statements
> in the past:
>
>
> > Elliott had previously defendedKerryon that score when his record
> > was questioned during his 1996 Senate campaign. At that time Elliott
> > came to Boston and saidKerryacted properly and deserved theSilver
> >Star. And as recently as June, 2003, Elliott calledKerry'sSilver
> >Star"well deserved" and his action "courageous" for beaching his
> > boat in the face of an ambush:
>
> > Elliott (Boston Globe, June 2003): I ended up writing it up for a
> > thoughts at all about that. . . . (It) was pretty courageous to turn
> > into an ambush even though you usually find no more than two or three
> > people there.
>
> My housemate is beyond reasoning with. He only believes "facts" that
> conform with what he wants to believe. Any evidence I offer to show
> that he's being lied to is disbelieved - none of my sources are "good
> enough" for him - if they disagree with what he wants to believe then
> they are all immediately branded as being part of the "liberal media"
> and thus not honest.
Hello jc,
For what it's worth, I'm a "source", and would be more than happy to
talk to your housemate.
And as for the Silver Star incident, there no sources there that day
who will disagee with what I have to say.
Doug Reese
Dann
news:34e0357f-611f-46fd...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com.
http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/kerry-swiftboats.htm
The Silver Star paragraph.
Hi Doug. Thanks for your service. Hope you are having a nice trip in the
far east.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Charlie Foxtrot
<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> There was always something to be heard about Bush, from Iraq, to
>Guantanamo, to Katrina. The worst you seem to have against President
>Obama is . . . appearing on two Wizard Magazine covers (no,
>seriously!). Find something relevant, then you *might* be heard; try
>looking up what socialism actually is along the way, you might learn
>something . . .
>
>
Why don't you explain "socialism" to me, then, since I, obviously
don't know jack.
My problem with Obama is that his actions and words have shown that
he'd love nothing more than to destroy what we've spent 233 years
building. He is an ego-maniac. He lives for praise, applause and
adoration. I, firmly, believe that he is a danger to the USA as we
know it.
He wants to spend the country into oblivion and remold it in his
vision.
Here's a challenge, my self-proclaimed mature genius... Tell me
anything that the Obama admistration has done so far that is
beneficial.
As for the Wizard magazine comment my disbelief is the absolute
gape-mouthed adoration of this walking sound-bite. There is no reason
for a US President to appear on the covers of entertainment-based
magazines, entertainment related television shows and, I'm sorry, but
the cover of a comics-oriented magazine appearance for a President is
even more off-topic than this discussion.
>>But God forbid someone not like their Messiah, Barrack Obama. Those
>>petty fools just need to shut up.
>>
>
> Seriously, grow up . . .
Okay, I'll grow up. Bush was the most vile son of a bitch to ever
disgrace the office of the president.
Wait... I'm sorry... DOUBLE-YOU was the most vile son of a bitch to
ever disgrace the office of the president. His war for oil and
subsequent war crimes, involving torture of innocents, will forever be
a scar on this once great nation.
Thank God! Thank God we have a brilliant man like Barrack Obama to
take his place and appologize to the world for all the horrible things
this country did the last eight years at the helm of a wanna-be
dictator.
I only hope it's not too late for President Obama to change the
world's mind about us. Maybe if we become more like the rest of the
world, everyone will finally like us instead of being insane with
jealousy - Ooops, I mean hate us for the wrong doing we did through
out the world under the leadership of Double-you.
There, Antonio, can I move up to the adult table instead of being at
the kids' table next holiday get together?
You know what's really pathetic about people like you? You'll shout
about how the people were finally heard. Thank God for the freedom of
speech and the right to vote. People finally got a president that
"speaks for them" and they'd have never been able to do it if our
country didn't allow everyone to voice their opinions on such matters.
However, now that you're candidate is in power, damn it sure would be
nice if you could just silence people like me.
But you know what, Antonio? When it seems like it's too late and the
country is devolving into a cesspool and all you Obama-zombies wake up
and say, "Whoa? That wasn't supposed to happen to ME! What the
fuck???"
You know, you'll be glad that there are a tyranical bunch of
Republicans, like myself, who will fight to their deaths, if need be,
to prevent Obama from seeing his vile vision to fruition.
We'll take the country back, just for you. And what thanks will we
get? Maybe you'll tell us to "grow up" should someone say, "Didn't we
tell you?"
Charlie Foxtrot
<AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Yeah, that whole educated, peaceful, clean world thing is a real
>nightmare . . . 9_9
>
>
It's a nice dream. It's not a goal that can be achieved in a peaceful
manner. Those of us who HAVE grown up understand this.
The only way to have an educated, peaceful, clean world is to
eliminate those who refuse to be educated or peaceful.
You see, once you grow up, you come to realize that there are segments
of the world that don't want to be peaceful - unless it's done THEIR
way. There is no "you do your thing and I'll do mine and we'll agree
to disagree."
Just like I have no real problem with your thoughts. Being an
enlightened sort, you just make me shake my head and exhibit disgust
over someone so willing to be misguided.
You, on the other hand, seem to be resentful and angry that I would
say bad things about your Messiah, Obama.
I mean, there were some shitty things said all across the web about
Bush. I never felt the need to defend him. I just pittied the fools
who could not understand the reality of the world and what we, as a
nation, were facing.
But in typical liberal fashion, when someone says something bad about
your man, you can't just write me off as a bafoon. You want to make
everyone know you think it and maybe, just maybe, someone who didn't
think it before will go along with the crowd.
My way or the highway. That's you, Antonio. You want a peaceful
world but the ball is in your court, regarding our little "world,"
here.
Much like our battles with Muslim extremists. The enlightened USA is
willing to let the Muslims do their thing and leave them alone. They,
however, won't let us do our thing and leave us alone based on the
silly premise that their big invisible man in the sky has a bigger
penis than our big invisible man in the sky.
Me, I could care less if you want to live in a country re-molded in
Obama's image. Just go do it somewhere that I'm not. Unfortunately,
you want to do it right here where I am. I won't allow it.
Those of you who want to spread the wealth and hope for change were
more than welcome to go somewhere else and make it happen. None of us
would have minded a bit.
But no. You want to do it here and you want those who disagree to
shut up, grow up and see the light.
And that's your dilema. You believe - and it's a beautiful dream -
that we can all sit and talk and compromise. Our country's enemies
will not do it. They will be more than happy to have us succumb to
their ways, though. If not, the more liberal opposers will whine
about it, the more extreme will attempt to kill us.
In high school and part of college I, too, thought we could talk out
the world's problems and make it a better place. Then I grew up and
realized that there are those who just will not budge and will not
compromise and will not agree to disagree.
>>I just don't get it when the US President makes it onto the cover of
>>magazines like Entertainment Weekly. ENTERTAINMENT, for Christ's
>>sake!
>>
>>Even more frightening and semi-on topic... The annointed one has made
>>the cover of Wizard TWICE! Now explain to me why the president should
>>be on the cover of a magazine about comic books! Are you effing
>>kidding me?
>>
>
> So this is . . . jealousy?!
>
No, it's disbelief.
>
>>The Obama hysteria and group-think is very scary to me.
>>
>
> Seems to be a bit of Cult of Personality, mixed with Wisdom of the
>Masses; not surprising misanthropes and fools would have a severe
>aversion to that . . .
>
>
Cult of Personality has a negative connotation, in case you did not
realize that. Wisdom of the Masses is an oxymoron. Here's a clue for
you... "Wisdom of the Masses" and "Mob Mentality" are synonymous.
I might be a misanthropic fool but at the end of the day, I'd venture
I'd still win in a fist fight and that, my misguided friend, is the
reality of the world.
>
>>I'd say "God Bless the USSA," but I fear that the self-centered,
>>applause seeking megolomaniac known as our president would prefer the
>>national motto be "Praise be Obama!"
>>
>
> Seriously, grow up . . .
I'll grow up when you get laid.
Looks like I'm going to be looking at a long time of Peter Pan
syndrome.
Now, I dare you to not take everything I've written seriously. Can't
do it, can you? Should you respond to any of this my only response
can be "Who needs to do the growing up?"
Charlie Foxtrot
wrote:
>My housemate is beyond reasoning with. He only believes "facts" that
>conform with what he wants to believe. Any evidence I offer to show
>that he's being lied to is disbelieved - none of my sources are "good
>enough" for him - if they disagree with what he wants to believe then
>they are all immediately branded as being part of the "liberal media"
>and thus not honest.
>
That sounds, strangely, like what we think of liberals when we show
them the truth.
Oh, and, FWIW, the tea-party idiots give those of us with firing
synapses a bad name.
>The real threat to the USA is not foreign terrorists, it's home-grown
>liars who manage to pull the wool over otherwise intelligent people's
>eyes. I fear that cult of Hannity/Limbaugh et. al. will end up being
>much more dangerous than any foreign group.
Or we could end up saving you. And like your friend who would not say
a good thing about John Kerry, I doubt you'd have a good thing to say
about those of us who want to protect you from what you've gotten us
into - when you realize you messed up.
Invid Fan
Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
> My problem with Obama is that his actions and words have shown that
> he'd love nothing more than to destroy what we've spent 233 years
> building.
He had easier ways to go about it then becoming President :)
> He is an ego-maniac. He lives for praise, applause and
> adoration.
You've described everyone elected to public office here.
> He wants to spend the country into oblivion and remold it in his
> vision.
>
> Here's a challenge, my self-proclaimed mature genius... Tell me
> anything that the Obama admistration has done so far that is
> beneficial.
>
He hasn't done anything, really, good or bad. Give him a few years to
at least leave his mark.
> You know, you'll be glad that there are a tyranical bunch of
> Republicans, like myself, who will fight to their deaths, if need be,
> to prevent Obama from seeing his vile vision to fruition.
>
I hope you do. Seriously. I don't respect those on the other side who
said similar things about Bush but did nothing, so with luck you're
actually going to rise up.
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Doug Reese
> On 06 May 2009,Doug Reesesaid the following innews:34e0357f-611f-46fd...@r31g2000prh.googlegroups.com.
Thanks Dann, althought it isn't a trip (anymore) . . I live over here.
But while I'm here, let me lift a passage from your link:
"O'Neill says Admiral Roy Hoffmann, who had commended Kerry's actions
at the time, thought Kerry had bravely beached his boat and "single-
handedly" killed a Viet Cong soldier.
He is described as having been shocked to learn that Kerry had killed
a single, wounded teenager."
Interesting thing is, that Hoffmann had read the after-action report,
which states, in detail, exactly what happened that day. (There is no
mention of the guy Kerry killed being a teenager, by the way, that's
an invention of the SBV"t"'s liar-in-chief, John O'Neill).
O'Neill is good at telling you what other people said, as opposed to
having qoutes from them. By doing that, he was able to twist and spin
what they said to suit his needs.
Doug Reese
> --
> Regards,
> Dann
>
> blogging athttp://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
>
> Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Mike Peterson
> But while I'm here, let me lift a passage from your link:
>
> "O'Neill says Admiral Roy Hoffmann, who had commended Kerry's actions
> at the time, thought Kerry had bravely beached his boat and "single-
> handedly" killed a Viet Cong soldier.
> He is described as having been shocked to learn that Kerry had killed
> a single, wounded teenager."
>
> Interesting thing is, that Hoffmann had read the after-action report,
> which states, in detail, exactly what happened that day. (There is no
> mention of the guy Kerry killed being a teenager, by the way, that's
> an invention of the SBV"t"'s liar-in-chief, John O'Neill).
>
> O'Neill is good at telling you what other people said, as opposed to
> having qoutes from them. By doing that, he was able to twist and spin
> what they said to suit his needs.
A teenager, huh?
Yeah, there were teenagers all over the place in those days. Lot of
them got shot, too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urtiyp-G6jY
So, did someone want to make a point about teenagers???
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Dann
news:8277c01d-3b8d-4e88...@b7g2000pre.googlegroups.com.
> On May 8, 2:56�am, Dann <detox...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> http://www.truthorfiction.com/rumors/k/kerry-swiftboats.htm
>>
>> The Silver Star paragraph.
>>
>> Hi Doug. �Thanks for your service. �Hope you are having a nice trip i
>> in thefar east.
>
> Thanks Dann, althought it isn't a trip (anymore) . . I live over here.
>
> But while I'm here, let me lift a passage from your link:
>
<snip>
More than anything else, I was just trying to give the my fellow
r.a.c.s.als a hint that you seem [based on a cursory bit of Googling and
other tools] to be who you say you are.
SVT were not my issue with Mr. Kerry. I am truly grateful for his
military service as well as your own.
Since I spend enough time off topic in this group, I'll just back quickly
out of this particular bit of thread drift. <grin>
--
Semper Fidelis,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Dann
4cdb-b94d-8...@z19g2000vbz.googlegroups.com.
> So, did someone want to make a point about teenagers???
Not that I could see.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
JC Dill
> And like your friend who would not say
> a good thing about John Kerry, I doubt you'd have a good thing to say
> about those of us
You are flat wrong about this. In 2 different usenet posts to other
newsgroups, I debunked the lie about how Palin supposedly tried to ban
books in the library, and the lie about McCain supposedly being
responsible for the accident and fire on the Forestal. Even though I
don't support either Palin or McCain as candidates, I'm not going to
silently stand by while people tell lies about them.
When was the last time you debunked a lie about a political candidate or
elected official you didn't support? Or do you just pass the lie on,
to try to further discredit them anyway?
jc
axlq
Charlie Foxtrot <Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>>My housemate is beyond reasoning with. He only believes "facts" that
>>conform with what he wants to believe. Any evidence I offer to show
>>that he's being lied to is disbelieved - none of my sources are "good
>>enough" for him - if they disagree with what he wants to believe then
>>they are all immediately branded as being part of the "liberal media"
>>and thus not honest.
>>
>That sounds, strangely, like what we think of liberals when we show
>them the truth.
No. That sounds, strangely, like what I think of ignorant extremists
on either side when I show them the truth.
Even stranger, the extremists that have come to my attention lately
call themselves "conservative". They aren't conservative. They're
just stupid.
-A
Doug Reese
> On May 7, 8:29 pm, Doug Reese <dre...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > But while I'm here, let me lift a passage from your link:
>
> > "O'Neill says Admiral Roy Hoffmann, who had commendedKerry'sactions
> > handedly" killed a Viet Cong soldier.
> > a single, wounded teenager."
>
> > Interesting thing is, that Hoffmann had read the after-action report,
> > which states, in detail, exactly what happened that day. (There is no
> > an invention of the SBV"t"'s liar-in-chief, John O'Neill).
>
> > O'Neill is good at telling you what other people said, as opposed to
> > having qoutes from them. By doing that, he was able to twist and spin
> > what they said to suit his needs.
>
> A teenager, huh?
No, not him. He was actually 27.
Others (on our side and their's) were teenagers that day, however.
> Yeah, there were teenagers all over the place in those days. Lot of
> them got shot, too.
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Urtiyp-G6jY
Good song/video. . . . . thanks for posting it.
Doug
> So, did someone want to make a point about teenagers???
>
> Mike Petersonhttp://nellieblogs.blogspot.com- Hide quoted text -
Rob Wynne
> On May 5, 6:14ï¿œpm, Charlie Foxtrot <Bennett6...@msn.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 4 May 2009 19:31:27 -0700 (PDT), LNER4...@juno.com wrote:
>> >People will ALWAYS be enthusiastic about spending other people's
>> >money, or telling other people how to spend it.
>>
>> >And if I were to ask you "would you like a nice ribeye steak
>> >dinner?" (or the vegetarian/poultry/whatever equivalent), you are
>> >the other hand--and thus the implication that the cost of the dinner
>> >will come out of your wallet sometime in the next hour or so--you're
>> >going to have a different reaction to that question.
>>
>> >If I were to say to someone "Mass transit in this city costs an
>> >average of $385 per year per resident of the city whether they use it
>> >or not; do you favor expanding it at an additional cost of $72 per
>> >resident per year?" then I might get an entirely different answer than
>> >"overwhelming support".
>>
>> overwhelmingly, voted to build a high-speed rail line connecting
>> Tampa, Orlando and Miami a few years back.
>>
> Even though I agree with this bloke, I wish to propose a new r.a.c.s.
> Corollary to Godwin's Law:
>
> Actual discussion on a topic has officially ceased when the subject of
> high-speed rail is, once again, invoked.
Also known as the Godwin-Pacific Law.
--
Rob Wynne / The Autographed Cat / d...@america.net
http://www.autographedcat.com/ / http://autographedcat.livejournal.com/
Gafilk 2010: Jan 8-10, 2010 - Atlanta, GA - http://www.gafilk.org/
Aphelion - Original SF&F since 1997 - http://www.aphelion-webzine.com/
Dann
> LNER4...@juno.com wrote:
> > On May 5, 6:14 pm, Charlie Foxtrot <Bennett6...@msn.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 4 May 2009 19:31:27 -0700 (PDT), LNER4...@juno.com wrote:
> >> >People will ALWAYS be enthusiastic about spending other people's
> >> >money, or telling other people how to spend it.
>
> >> >And if I were to ask you "would you like a nice ribeye steak
> >> >dinner?" (or the vegetarian/poultry/whatever equivalent), you are
> >> >the other hand--and thus the implication that the cost of the dinner
> >> >will come out of your wallet sometime in the next hour or so--you're
> >> >going to have a different reaction to that question.
>
> >> >If I were to say to someone "Mass transit in this city costs an
> >> >average of $385 per year per resident of the city whether they use it
> >> >or not; do you favor expanding it at an additional cost of $72 per
> >> >resident per year?" then I might get an entirely different answer than
> >> >"overwhelming support".
>
> >> overwhelmingly, voted to build a high-speed rail line connecting
> >> Tampa, Orlando and Miami a few years back.
>
> > Even though I agree with this bloke, I wish to propose a new r.a.c.s.
> > Corollary to Godwin's Law:
>
> > Actual discussion on a topic has officially ceased when the subject of
> > high-speed rail is, once again, invoked.
>
> Also known as the Godwin-Pacific Law.
>
Well played, sir.
--
Regards,
Dann
Invid Fan
<7d69d639-e80b-4537...@k17g2000prn.googlegroups.com>,
Dann <deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Took him a month to finish the game, though :)
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<Benne...@msn.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 05 May 2009 21:52:49 -0700, Antonio E. Gonzalez
><AntE...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>>
>> Yeah, that whole educated, peaceful, clean world thing is a real
>>nightmare . . . 9_9
>>
>>
>It's a nice dream. It's not a goal that can be achieved in a peaceful
>manner. Those of us who HAVE grown up understand this.
>
Actually, it's pretty much the backbone of said goal . . .
>The only way to have an educated, peaceful, clean world is to
>eliminate those who refuse to be educated or peaceful.
>
>You see, once you grow up, you come to realize that there are segments
>of the world that don't want to be peaceful - unless it's done THEIR
>way. There is no "you do your thing and I'll do mine and we'll agree
>to disagree."
>
As was shown with certain Somali pirates, that's never been denied.
The open hand is for everybody else . . .
>Just like I have no real problem with your thoughts. Being an
>enlightened sort, you just make me shake my head and exhibit disgust
>over someone so willing to be misguided.
>
>You, on the other hand, seem to be resentful and angry that I would
>say bad things about your Messiah, Obama.
>
Well, somebody is clearly resentful and angry . . .
>I mean, there were some shitty things said all across the web about
>Bush. I never felt the need to defend him. I just pittied the fools
>who could not understand the reality of the world and what we, as a
>nation, were facing.
>
Actually, those people understood the reality of the world all too
well, hence why they said those things . . .
>But in typical liberal fashion, when someone says something bad about
>your man, you can't just write me off as a bafoon. You want to make
>everyone know you think it and maybe, just maybe, someone who didn't
>think it before will go along with the crowd.
>
>My way or the highway. That's you, Antonio. You want a peaceful
>world but the ball is in your court, regarding our little "world,"
>here.
>
Hmmm, quite a bit of projection there . . .
>Much like our battles with Muslim extremists. The enlightened USA is
>willing to let the Muslims do their thing and leave them alone. They,
>however, won't let us do our thing and leave us alone based on the
>silly premise that their big invisible man in the sky has a bigger
>penis than our big invisible man in the sky.
>
Funny how it's techincally the same invisible man . . .
>Me, I could care less if you want to live in a country re-molded in
>Obama's image. Just go do it somewhere that I'm not. Unfortunately,
>you want to do it right here where I am. I won't allow it.
>
It's called an election . . .
>Those of you who want to spread the wealth and hope for change were
>more than welcome to go somewhere else and make it happen. None of us
>would have minded a bit.
>
>But no. You want to do it here and you want those who disagree to
>shut up, grow up and see the light.
>
See the election thing . . .
>And that's your dilema. You believe - and it's a beautiful dream -
>that we can all sit and talk and compromise. Our country's enemies
>will not do it. They will be more than happy to have us succumb to
>their ways, though. If not, the more liberal opposers will whine
>about it, the more extreme will attempt to kill us.
>
>In high school and part of college I, too, thought we could talk out
>the world's problems and make it a better place. Then I grew up and
>realized that there are those who just will not budge and will not
>compromise and will not agree to disagree.
>
"Those," of course, may eventually have to be dealt with in
"other" ways; see Somali pirate thing . . .
>
>>>I just don't get it when the US President makes it onto the cover of
>>>magazines like Entertainment Weekly. ENTERTAINMENT, for Christ's
>>>sake!
>>>
>>>Even more frightening and semi-on topic... The annointed one has made
>>>the cover of Wizard TWICE! Now explain to me why the president should
>>>be on the cover of a magazine about comic books! Are you effing
>>>kidding me?
>>>
>>
>> So this is . . . jealousy?!
>>
>No, it's disbelief.
>
Yup, jealousy . . .
>
>>>The Obama hysteria and group-think is very scary to me.
>>>
>>
>> Seems to be a bit of Cult of Personality, mixed with Wisdom of the
>>Masses; not surprising misanthropes and fools would have a severe
>>aversion to that . . .
>>
>>
>Cult of Personality has a negative connotation,
Not always; see JFK . . .
in case you did not
>realize that. Wisdom of the Masses is an oxymoron. Here's a clue for
>you... "Wisdom of the Masses" and "Mob Mentality" are synonymous.
>
It's called democracy . . . or representative republic . . . well,
voting . . .
>I might be a misanthropic fool but at the end of the day, I'd venture
>I'd still win in a fist fight and that, my misguided friend, is the
>reality of the world.
>
This line seems all too appropriate here:
"Your kind always underestimates ours. You mistake good manners for
timidity, you mistake self-control for passivity. So self-conrtolled
are we that we won't retaliate if you harm us. But if you -- any of
you -- harm our loved ones -- we will come at you like fanged,
slavering beasts from the darkest of LSD nightmares."
>>
>>>I'd say "God Bless the USSA," but I fear that the self-centered,
>>>applause seeking megolomaniac known as our president would prefer the
>>>national motto be "Praise be Obama!"
>>>
>>
>> Seriously, grow up . . .
>
>I'll grow up when you get laid.
>
Arrested development it is . . .
>Looks like I'm going to be looking at a long time of Peter Pan
>syndrome.
>
>Now, I dare you to not take everything I've written seriously. Can't
>do it, can you? Should you respond to any of this my only response
>can be "Who needs to do the growing up?"
>
Meanwhile, in the real world, following a speech by President Obama
in Cairo (which garnered about 30 standing ovations), voters in
Lebanon trounced Hezbollah politicians; funny how that open hand thing
works . . .
--
- ReFlex76