Luann Jan 5th
LNER...@juno.com
space
just
in
case
but
really.........
Okay, Delta, you are WAY &$#@!ing delusional. MEETING the
president?!?!?!? You and about 2-5 million (depending on whose
estimates you listen to) of your closest friends? Geez, even if you
were standing along Pennsylvania Avenue, I'm wagering that the person
you see will really be a highly-paid double, while the Secret Service
spirits Obama from the Capitol to the White House via some secret
tunnel or whatnot. Don't expect a walking president shaking hands
like Jimmy Carter.
My sincerest guess, from being in the next closest city and watching
the nervous breakdowns of transportation planners, is that Delta and
company will be damned lucky to even be within the city lines at the
moment of inauguration.
And, of course, would she be making these plans for McCain, even if
McCain personally invited her? I think not.
Len-L
>Spoiler
>
>space
>
>just
>
>in
>
>case
>
>but
>
>really.........
>
>
>Okay, Delta, you are WAY &$#@!ing delusional. MEETING the
>president?!?!?!? You and about 2-5 million (depending on whose
>estimates you listen to) of your closest friends?
Was the inauguration even mentioned? I got the idea this was a class
trip for later.
Len-L
czae...@gmail.com
> On Mon, 5 Jan 2009 04:16:07 -0800 (PST), LNER4...@juno.com opined:
>
>
>
> >Spoiler
>
> >space
>
> >just
>
> >in
>
> >case
>
> >but
>
> >really.........
>
> >Okay, Delta, you are WAY &$#@!ing delusional. MEETING the
> >president?!?!?!? You and about 2-5 million (depending on whose
> >estimates you listen to) of your closest friends?
>
> Was the inauguration even mentioned? I got the idea this was a class
> trip for later.
> Len-L
In any case, how does Delta get to decide for the whole class how the
funds are used?
Invid Fan
<9e56e98a-7e00-4455...@g1g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
<czae...@gmail.com> wrote:
She's the class president/PTA rep and no other kids bother to show for
meetings? I know I had no say in what our class ever did :)
--
Chris Mack *quote under construction*
'Invid Fan'
Don Del Grande
I noticed something else: Delta says the class fund is three years
old. Does this make Luann a high school senior now?
-- Don
Invid Fan
<del_gra...@earthlink.net> wrote:
If she's counting the year that's half over, she's a Junior.
trnco...@aol.com
1) There are only 100 students in the class (not bloody likely, I
figure), and they need, what,10 adults to administer sound thrashings
when necessary.
2) Let's just assume it costs nothing to use the transhyperdimensional
gateway between Luannidelphia and Youngstown, Ohio. (I have a vague
feeling Ohio's where they live, but I'm not gonna bother to research
that point).
110 x 0.00 = 0.00
3) They monopolize the Greyhound bus* that leaves Youngstown on the
19th at 8:35 PM and arrives in DC at 5:45 AM on the 20th, then the one
that leaves DC on the 21st at 1 AM and gets to Youngstown at 9:20 AM
that day; booking seven days in advance: 81.00 bucks a head.
110 x 81.00 = 8910.00
4) Ten bucks a head for food:
110 x 10.00 = 1100.00
5) Ten bucks a head to get around DC:
110 x 10.00 = 1100.00
Total that's probably nowhere near enough: 11,110.00
* Some of them are just going to have to make like railfans in India
and ride on the roof or hang onto the sides, but darnit, do they want
to witness history or not?
cryptoguy
> Well, might as well start doing the math:
>
> 1) There are only 100 students in the class (not bloody likely, I
> figure), and they need, what,10 adults to administer sound thrashings
> when necessary.
>
> 2) Let's just assume it costs nothing to use the transhyperdimensional
> gateway between Luannidelphia and Youngstown, Ohio. (I have a vague
> feeling Ohio's where they live, but I'm not gonna bother to research
> that point).
I'm not aware that it's ever been stated in the strip, but a few
years ago, iirc, they visited the San Diego Comicon without
bothering about a hotel. I think they're a lot further west.
Peter Trei
Albert Giesbrecht
<trnco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ef7b03c6-0da7-4151...@i24g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> Well, might as well start doing the math:
>
> 1) There are only 100 students in the class (not bloody likely, I
> figure)
I assumed that she meant the students in that class room, let's say 28, and
only those who have grades above C+, which could be less than half of the
students in that class.
Visaman
Joseph Nebus
Well, there we go: it's something around thirty students in
the class eligible for the hastily arranged field trip. This would've
gone smoother if the starting had come in November --- or earlier ---
but I suppose we did have the dueling calendars storyline to get to for
some reason.
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2009/1/8&name=Luann
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
trnco...@aol.com
> "Albert Giesbrecht" <albertgiesbre...@hotmail.com> writes:
> ><trncobr...@aol.com> wrote in message
If Peter Trei is right about them living near San Diego, then
according to Orbitz if they leave on the 19th and return on the 20th
(have your heart pills ready before asking about the 21st) it'll cost
at least $396.00* a head. So if we throw in an extra 20 bucks a kid,
then the bidding starts at $12,480.
*For nine (maximum searchable amount) adults, stopovers OK, any
airport within 80 miles, and whatever other I'm-easy-to-work-with
options I chose. Excludes taxes, tips, baggage charges, carbon
footprint guilt, and damage due to sweathog insurrections.
O fan
>
> If Peter Trei is right about them living near San Diego, then
> according to Orbitz if they leave on the 19th and return on the 20th
> (have your heart pills ready before asking about the 21st) it'll cost
> at least $396.00* a head. So if we throw in an extra 20 bucks a kid,
> then the bidding starts at $12,480.
Actually the airfare isn't that bad. They could go on Delta Airlines
(how appropriate) from San Diego to National (via Atlanta) and return
on the 22nd for only $420 per head. They are actually in better
shape than living in Cleveland where the same dates cost at least
514. What's the killer is the hotels (sold out) and local
transportation. The Maryland Suburban Railroads are charging $25 per
ticket, require reservation and advance purchase and are sold out on
all but the Brunswick Line. All of the Potomac River Bridges will be
closed to cars. I guess that they could walk from National
Airport.... I can't imagine what will be like. When I lived in
Arlington I used to walk home from the Mall via Key Bridge after big
events like the 4th of July fireworks as it was faster and easier than
taking the Metro. And this is going to make those events look
small....
LNER...@juno.com
> On Jan 8, 9:45 pm, trncobr...@aol.com wrote:
>
>
>
> > If Peter Trei is right about them living near San Diego, then
> > according to Orbitz if they leave on the 19th and return on the 20th
> > (have your heart pills ready before asking about the 21st) it'll cost
> > at least $396.00* a head. So if we throw in an extra 20 bucks a kid,
> > then the bidding starts at $12,480.
>
> Actually the airfare isn't that bad. They could go on Delta Airlines
> (how appropriate) from San Diego to National (via Atlanta) and return
> on the 22nd for only $420 per head. They are actually in better
> shape than living in Cleveland where the same dates cost at least
> 514. What's the killer is the hotels (sold out) and local
> transportation. The Maryland Suburban Railroads are charging $25 per
> ticket, require reservation and advance purchase and are sold out on
> all but the Brunswick Line.
It's MARC. Normal weekday fare is $14 round trip from Baltimore.
It's $25 on Jan. 20th no matter where you are--but you get that
special "keepsake" ticket.
Judging from the reality we're seeing about the inauguration prep,
UNLESS this trip had been planned for YEARS in advance with the
legwork, reservations, etc. established a year or more in advance,
then I would guess they're from San Diego, if only because the
fundamental disconnect with reality that Greg Evans shows here would
be perfectly fitting for Comic-Con. <:-)
If they fly into Reagan National, they could walk. If they fly into
Dulles, they won't make it into and out of the city in time without a
police escort. Once in Washington, they're promising THE most
Draconian security measures since 9-11-2001--maximum security level.
As a result, no one in the planning loop is releasing information
except on a "need to know" basis. The folks with whom I work with
that are supposedly involved in one specific function haven't been
told anything and can't tell what little they DO know, except that
thousands (no, tens of thousands) of regular paying passengers are
going to be majorly inconvenienced--perfect for what amounts to a
"photo op," no?
On the other hand, thousands of greedy Washingtonians are getting
their comeuppance:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR2009010803605.html
Two local brewpubs have brewed "InaugurAle"--and one is joking about
renaming it to "FUBARAle".............
O fan
>
> It's MARC. Normal weekday fare is $14 round trip from Baltimore.
> It's $25 on Jan. 20th no matter where you are--but you get that
> special "keepsake" ticket.
Yes. MARC normally does not require a reservation and the $14 is the
"top" round trip charge. Its a particular rip off for the folks that
have the monthly and need to work in DC on the day. THEY also have to
buy the $25 keepsake ticket. In any event, MARC is really a public
utility and at the standard rates they still would have a maximum
revenue day. This is an evil act. Its somewhat clear that you are
someway involved with MARC and don't agree with the decision. Good.
Glad to see that some people recognize what is going on.
>
> If they fly into Reagan National, they could walk. If they fly into
> Dulles, they won't make it into and out of the city in time without a
> police escort.
Well...... how does that differ from any flight into Dulles (okay,
it's going to be much worse...) they could take the bus down the
Dulles Access road to the Falls Church metro station and walk or
bicycle from there down the WOD trail.
> Once in Washington, they're promising THE most
> Draconian security measures since 9-11-2001--maximum security level.
Yes. I have to be in DC late next week and I have been told that
security is already heavily ratcheted up. I am not looking forward to
this at all.
> As a result, no one in the planning loop is releasing information
> except on a "need to know" basis. The folks with whom I work with
> that are supposedly involved in one specific function haven't been
> told anything and can't tell what little they DO know, except that
> thousands (no, tens of thousands) of regular paying passengers are
> going to be majorly inconvenienced--perfect for what amounts to a
> "photo op," no?
Yes. That, in part, is because a large part of the security is being
handled by the current group in charge and they actually would like to
see a meltdown. Heck, a meltdown a couple of days before could give
them an excuse to try to refuse to turn over power. (I won't relax
until I see the wheels on ex-President Bush's plane go wheels up and
it points toward Texas.... at least if he has to retire to Texas he
will get some of the punishment that he deserves... maybe we should
make him retire to Oklahoma or Mississippi))
>
> On the other hand, thousands of greedy Washingtonians are getting
> their comeuppance:http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/08/AR200...
LNER...@juno.com
>
> Yes. MARC normally does not require a reservation and the $14 is the
> "top" round trip charge. Its a particular rip off for the folks that
> have the monthly and need to work in DC on the day. THEY also have to
> buy the $25 keepsake ticket. In any event, MARC is really a public
> utility and at the standard rates they still would have a maximum
> revenue day. This is an evil act. Its somewhat clear that you are
> someway involved with MARC and don't agree with the decision. Good.
> Glad to see that some people recognize what is going on.
*I'm of two minds on this: Yes, it's a rip-off for those who are loyal
users. On the other hand, it's technically a "federal holiday" and
MARC wouldn't be providing much, if any service anyway, so the extra
money is going in part to pay extra costs to provide extra service.
(Rumor has it that they're attempting to tap other transit agencies
for additional passenger cars, but frankly there's little capacity
that actually can be added, thanks to the limitations of station
platforms, etc.)
>
>
> Well...... how does that differ from any flight into Dulles (okay,
> it's going to be much worse...) they could take the bus down the
> Dulles Access road to the Falls Church metro station and walk or
> bicycle from there down the WOD trail.
*Oh, but the bikes will only get them across the Potomac. Once there,
you will HAVE to park your bicycle at certain registered "bicycle
valet" bike-check parking lots being manned by the League of American
Wheelmen (I think). NO bicycles (or strollers, backpacks, folding
chairs, coolers, etc.) will be allowed inside the "security
perimiters" which encompass the Mall and half of downtown.
>
>
> Yes. That, in part, is because a large part of the security is being
> handled by the current group in charge and they actually would like to
> see a meltdown. Heck, a meltdown a couple of days before could give
> them an excuse to try to refuse to turn over power. (I won't relax
> until I see the wheels on ex-President Bush's plane go wheels up and
> it points toward Texas.... at least if he has to retire to Texas he
> will get some of the punishment that he deserves... maybe we should
> make him retire to Oklahoma or Mississippi))
>
*Hey, thank you, you just won me a $25 bet. You may hear from my
friend confirming you're not me acting as a sock puppet. (I said that
someone would find a way to pin this chaos on the Republicans.)
I've spent the past week observing out loud and on type that if all
these measures were being taken for Bush 43 or McCain or any
Republican, they would be roundly and loudly decried as oppressive
measures being taken by the "evil Republicans" to "stifle dissent,"
"surround him with his own little bubble," and other claims of those
affected by what the "right" tends to call "Bush Derangement
Syndrome". Wait a minute, I thought the problem was that the world
HATED Bush--oh, pardon me, I have to speak the lexicon; "Bushitler"--
and that the election of Obama was to appease us to the rest of the
world, bring everlasting peace and tranquility, and bring about an end
to all the Draconian security and "police state" mentality.
I have bridges and prime Florida real estate to sell to the folks that
think that. Some of us are already using the phrase "Obama
derangement syndrome" to describe those thus deluded.
And by the way, the Republicans aren't that involved in the planning
for this orgy of Obamamania. Read up on the Washington Post website--
it's primarily a non-partisan Inauguration Commission, with the
incoming party more in charge than we'd like to think. If anybody
gets the blame for this, it's the understandably paranoid Secret
Service, which apparently has reason to believe we haven't really gone
"post-racial" yet.
One last joke: There's a joke going around the hardened-cynical saying
that the Inauguration Commission tried to borrow the Vatican's
"Popemobile," but that was nixed on the basis of contributing too much
to the "Messiah" imagery. (What, no holy water cannons?)
LNER...@juno.com
> And by the way, the Republicans aren't that involved in the planning
> for this orgy of Obamamania. Read up on the Washington Post website--
> it's primarily a non-partisan Inauguration Commission, with the
> incoming party more in charge than we'd like to think. If anybody
> gets the blame for this, it's the understandably paranoid Secret
> Service, which apparently has reason to believe we haven't really gone
> "post-racial" yet.
>
is THOROUGHLY partisan, and being run by Obama appointees. Check it
out for yourself:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/06/AR2009010601015.html
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/11/obamas_inaugural_committee_plo.html
racs...@gmail.com
> > And by the way, the Republicans aren't that involved in the planning
> > for this orgy of Obamamania. Read up on the Washington Post website--
> > it's primarily a non-partisan Inauguration Commission, with the
> > incoming party more in charge than we'd like to think. If anybody
> > gets the blame for this, it's the understandably paranoid Secret
> > Service, which apparently has reason to believe we haven't really gone
> > "post-racial" yet.
>
> Oh, guess what? I'm wrong. The Presidential Inauguration Committee
> is THOROUGHLY partisan, and being run by Obama appointees. Check it
> out for yourself:
>
>
> http://voices.washingtonpost.com/sleuth/2008/11/obamas_inaugural_comm...
It's been awhile since the last "Yes We Can!" populist president was
inaugurated:
http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/jacksoninauguration.htm
Should be noted, however, that the most famous White House party of
his tenure occurred on his departure, no doubt with some help from
Sherwood's forebears, or at least their neighbors:
http://washminster.blogspot.com/2008/07/andrew-jacksons-cheese.html
The People!
Invited!
Will never just stay seated!
Mike Peterson
http://nellieblogs.blogspot.com
Blinky the Wonder Wombat
>
> Yes. That, in part, is because a large part of the security is being
> handled by the current group in charge and they actually would like to
> see a meltdown. Heck, a meltdown a couple of days before could give
> them an excuse to try to refuse to turn over power. (I won't relax
> until I see the wheels on ex-President Bush's plane go wheels up and
> it points toward Texas.... at least if he has to retire to Texas he
> will get some of the punishment that he deserves... maybe we should
> make him retire to Oklahoma or Mississippi))
>
Wow. Glad to know the anti-Bushies don't have any ugly preconceived
notions about the fly-over states.
LNER...@juno.com
courtesy of Richard Thompson's "Richard's Poor Almanac":
PLEASE BE ADVISED:
Metro will remove all its trains and allow only pedestrian traffic.
Fare cards will be 5% off. Please enjoy your walk. Thank you.
If you HAVE to bring your car into DC, you'll be required to push it.
Thank you. [Voice from top of head in back seat of car being pushed
by a man: "Where's Obama?" From woman in front seat: "Ask your
father."]
All buildings on the Mall will be skootched back about ten feet to
make the place look bigger. Any help would be appreciated. Thank
you.
To confuse terrorists, various D.C.buildings will be painted with Wile-
E.-Coyote-style fake tunnels. Please be careful, especially if you're
pushing your car. Thank you.
And we ask that you make any "rest room stops" BEFORE you enter the
District. Preferably in Richmond, Pittsburgh, or Boston. Thank you.
Jym Dyer
> if all these measures were being taken for Bush 43 or McCain
> or any Republican, they would be roundly and loudly decried as
> oppressive measures being taken by the "evil Republicans" to
> "stifle dissent," "surround him with his own little bubble,"
> and other claims of those affected by what the "right" tends
> to call "Bush Derangement Syndrome".
=v= Bullshit. I've personally been involved in Inaugural and
National Convention protests, and organizers absolutely do not
accept oppressive measures from either party. It is a fact
that the Republicans used a higher level of oppression at their
conventions than the Democrats (the latter invented "free speech
zones" with barbed wire at the top, whereas the latter set the
same thing up inside a bus depot and locked people up in them).
=v= Shrub's inaugural did not permit any sort of banner or
display that wasn't approved by his Party. The only protest
we could make was the turn the other cheek, and indeed we did.
=v= The unmitigated crap at the end of your paragraph is just
another attempt to sidestep all substantial consideration of
an Administration whose actions are largely and accurately seen
by critics from around the globe as truly awful. When things
are truly awful enough, people very understandably get upset.
When people get upset, the dishonest _ad_hominem_ arguments roll
out, right on schedule, to distract attention from real issues.
=v= Is Gitmo horrible? Oh, you're just a hater! Is it perhaps
wrong to start a war on fraudulent grounds? Stop bashing Our
President! Has the country been bankrupted? Oh, you just have
a "derangement syndrome."*
=v= Who is actually stupid enough to be fooled by this weak and
pathetic and transparent imitation of discourse?
<_Jym_>
________________________________________________________________
* "Bush Derangement Syndrome" doesn't exist in any peer-reviewed
psychological journal, of course, but who cares? It can take
its rightful place in the same pseudoscientific publications
that deny global warming and promote creationism.
LNER...@juno.com
Exhibit A. And exactly what did you hope to accomplish by protesting,
other than making yourself feel good?
Okay. Prove it.
Go find a bunch of protesters--you seem to hang out with folks that
fancy standing around with signs and the like, maybe throwing things
at police outside the World Bank meetings, I dunno. Make up big signs
that denounce announced Obama policies or promises--condemn
"socialized medicine," advocate school vouchers, condemn the "politics
as usual" appointments/the shenanigans in Illinois, demand our
withdrawal from Iraq and Afghanistan yesterday, demand Gitmo's
closure, protest Israel's actions in Gaza, whatever the hell you want,
but make it about Obama, not Bush 43. Make your planned banners,
stick puppets, performance art, whatever the EXACT same size you
planned for Bush 43's inaugurations.
Then scream exactly as loudly to the alt press and TV cameras about
"Censorship! Police State! Gestapo!" when your signs, etc. are
confiscated by inauguration security checkpoints, and/or you are
cordoned off to designated "protest sites" way off the beaten path.
Make issues online about how the Lincoln Town Car sped up to bypass
the protesters, or that he was kept inside the car "for his own
safety".
What's good for the Republican is good for the Democrat.
I await a report from Pennsylvania Avenue. Or more accurately, a
litany of excuses beforehand.
LNER...@juno.com
> * "Bush Derangement Syndrome" doesn't exist in any peer-reviewed
> psychological journal, of course, but who cares? It can take
> its rightful place in the same pseudoscientific publications
> that deny global warming and promote creationism.
How about Wikipedia:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bush_Derangement_Syndrome
Or Urban Dictionary:
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Bush+Derangement+Syndrome&defid=1441489
Or http://www.americanthinker.com/2004/01/the_choice_of_anger.html,
which notes the qualifications of the man credited with coining the
phrase:
"Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training and former practice,
has coined the term 'Bush Derangement Syndrome (BDS)' to be an
affliction quite common today. He defines it as 'the acute onset of
paranoia in otherwise normal people in reaction to the policies, the
presidency —— nay —— the very existence of George W. Bush.' Dr.
Krauthammer is better situated than I to diagnose paranoia as an
outcome of rage at George W. Bush. But it is consistent with the
behavior of other groups which have been animated by anger."
I strongly advise you to read the essay at the last link--written long
before the 2004 election. Now, if you and your cohorts could only
funnel your anger into USEFUL energy--like moving the Mall buildings
back to their rightful place after the inauguration. <:-)
Note particularly one of the final paragraphs, which I feel applies
equally to the likes of Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, etc. when it
comes to Obama, Billary, etc. as it does to those with Bush
Derangement Syndrome:
"Paranoia is rarely the basis for successful political action. Reading
far too much into the actions of their opponents, the paranoiacs
dissipate their resources fighting unnecessary battles. Their
readiness to assume others are against them creates enemies where
neutrals or even friendlies are present. Paranoia is quite simply
dysfunctional."
Joseph Nebus
>Actually the airfare isn't that bad. They could go on Delta Airlines
>(how appropriate) from San Diego to National (via Atlanta) and return
>on the 22nd for only $420 per head. They are actually in better
>shape than living in Cleveland where the same dates cost at least
>514. What's the killer is the hotels (sold out) and local
>transportation.
... although, today, we learn that the Washington Trip isn't
going to be particularly near the inauguration anyway, but will instead
be better-timed for Lincoln's Birthday:
http://www.chron.com/apps/comics/showComic.mpl?date=2009/1/12&name=Luann
It still seems like blindingly fast trip organization for a
high school group, but I think otherwise the most major objections to
its plausibility have been answered. (And rereading the sequence I
see that Delta never actually said anything about going there ``for the
inauguration''.) Now we're just left with how Luann asked her parents
to be chaperones.
--
Joseph Nebus
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Don Del Grande
> ... although, today, we learn that the Washington Trip isn't
>going to be particularly near the inauguration anyway, but will instead
>be better-timed for Lincoln's Birthday:
They leave February 9 - it's a Monday; that's convenient for the
strip.
(Then again, when you think about it, most real-life class trips start
on Mondays.)
-- Don
Jym Dyer
>
> Go find a bunch of protesters ... [rest of entirely concocted
> scenario that in none of its particulars bears any resemblance
> to anything I've ever written or done, deleted].
=v= I can't prove it. It's an entirely concocted scenario that
in none of its particulars bears any resemblance to anything
I've ever written or done, after all.
<_Jym_>
Jym Dyer
> "Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training and former
> practice, has coined the term 'Bush Derangement Syndrome
=v= Krauthammer has been a right-wing columnist for decades.
Psychology has advanced quite a bit since he left the field.
His coinage is rhetoric, an _ad_hominem_ distraction of
attention away from the real live substantial actual material
facts of the matter, nothing more.
=v= If you happen to find this "syndrome" in any peer-reviewed
psychological journal, I'd be happy to retract this statement.
Do note that Wikipedia and Urban Dictionary, whatever their
virtues, don't qualify as peer-reviewed psychology journals.
<_Jym_>
Harold Burton
<j...@econet.org> wrote:
> >> "Bush Derangement Syndrome" doesn't exist in any
> >> peer-reviewed psychological journal, of course ...
> > "Charles Krauthammer, a psychiatrist by training and former
> > practice, has coined the term 'Bush Derangement Syndrome
> > (BDS)' to be an affliction quite common today. ..."
>
> =v= Krauthammer has been a right-wing columnist for decades.
> Psychology has advanced quite a bit since he left the field.
> His coinage is rhetoric...
Duh, that's what columnists write. BDS wasn't intended to be a
legitimate medical term but it well describes a lot of irrational hate.
Jym Dyer
>> Psychology has advanced quite a bit since he left the field.
>> His coinage is rhetoric...
> Duh, that's what columnists write. BDS wasn't intended to
> be a legitimate medical term but it well describes a lot of
> irrational hate.
=v= Many people have no problem rattling off a list of real
live substantial actual material results of George W. Bush's
disastrous Presidency, any one of which is terrible enough to
merit a wide variety of negative reactions. Dismissing that
as "irrational hate" is dishonesty in the extreme.
=v= Now, if anyone's running around grumbling that Bush caused
their great-aunt's gout, yeah, that would be "irrational hate."
But that sort of thing only shows up in lame comic strips.
<_Jym_>
Mike Beede
Harold Burton <hal.i....@notmail.com> wrote:
> Duh, that's what columnists write. BDS wasn't intended to be a
> legitimate medical term but it well describes a lot of irrational hate.
You know, "rightard" sounds funnier than "leftard." Note
to self: check gag names for ease of polarity reversal
before use . . . .
Mike Beede
Dann
news:Jym.18Jan20...@econet.org.
>>> =v= Krauthammer has been a right-wing columnist for decades.
>>> Psychology has advanced quite a bit since he left the field.
>>> His coinage is rhetoric...
>> Duh, that's what columnists write. BDS wasn't intended to
>> be a legitimate medical term but it well describes a lot of
>> irrational hate.
>
> =v= Many people have no problem rattling off a list of real
> live substantial actual material results of George W. Bush's
> disastrous Presidency, any one of which is terrible enough to
> merit a wide variety of negative reactions. Dismissing that
> as "irrational hate" is dishonesty in the extreme.
Many people have no problem rattling off a list.
Whether or not that list contains "live substantial actual material"
anything delineates whether or not the person has a bad case of BDS.
--
Regards,
Dann
blogging at http://web.newsguy.com/dainbramage/blog.htm
Freedom works; each and every time it is tried.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 18 Jan 2009, Jym Dyer said the following in
>news:Jym.18Jan20...@econet.org.
>
>>>> =v= Krauthammer has been a right-wing columnist for decades.
>>>> Psychology has advanced quite a bit since he left the field.
>>>> His coinage is rhetoric...
>>> Duh, that's what columnists write. BDS wasn't intended to
>>> be a legitimate medical term but it well describes a lot of
>>> irrational hate.
>>
>> =v= Many people have no problem rattling off a list of real
>> live substantial actual material results of George W. Bush's
>> disastrous Presidency, any one of which is terrible enough to
>> merit a wide variety of negative reactions. Dismissing that
>> as "irrational hate" is dishonesty in the extreme.
>
>Many people have no problem rattling off a list.
>
>Whether or not that list contains "live substantial actual material"
>anything delineates whether or not the person has a bad case of BDS.
So that's about three real bad cases of BDS then . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
The whole "irrational hate" thing also reeks of projection from the
1990s; it's still fun hearing these guys try to explain why they hated
Bill Clinton so much . . .
--
- ReFlex76
LNER...@juno.com
> =v= I can't prove it. It's an entirely concocted scenario that
> in none of its particulars bears any resemblance to anything
> I've ever written or done, after all.
I quote you:
"I've personally been involved in Inaugural and
National Convention protests"
So what the hell were you protesting? The consumption of meat? The
lack of a college bowl championship system?
Whatever the hell you were protesting, you have cause to protest now.
Obama isn't planning to fulfill his campaign promises as pledged.
There are still homeless people. There are still rich people. There
are still guns! There are still gas-propelled cars and Hummers, man!
LNER...@juno.com
> >=v= Now, if anyone's running around grumbling that Bush caused
> >their great-aunt's gout, yeah, that would be "irrational hate."
> >But that sort of thing only shows up in lame comic strips.
>
> The whole "irrational hate" thing also reeks of projection from the
> 1990s; it's still fun hearing these guys try to explain why they hated
> Bill Clinton so much . . .
>
Post website that the pandas at the National Zoo were probably mating
because they were in a celebratory mood because Bush was about to be
gone............ is that irrational enough for you?
For the record, I fully agree about the "projection" thing. Far too
much visceral hatred oozed around all the complaints about Billary.
Some of them had at least an iota of substance ("He was elected; she
wasn't"); others just reeked of outright jealousy of his ability to
use his "aw shucks" charisma as Teflon (though he obviously cribbed a
lot of notes from Reagan on that).
Still, at the end of eight years apiece: Clinton--one impeachment.
Bush 43--none.
The problem is that those who believe Bush has been derelict, did
wrong, etc. have good cases and arguments now and then, but they lose
potential allies by going far off the deep end--referring to him as
"Shrub" and Bushitler," fanatical protests (Cindy Sheehan, anyone?),
demanding that he be tried for war crimes, etc. when their causes
could best be served by gentle, gradual persuasion--plus recognition
that not *everyone* is going to see the world just as they do.
And incidentally, your comrades are apparently planning to do just
what I challenged that "experienced" protester above to do:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011302983.html
And also by the way--Wikipedia ain't a psychology journal, but it's
peer-reviewed. <:-)
George W Harris
>Still, at the end of eight years apiece: Clinton--one impeachment.
>Bush 43--none.
Speaks more of the priorities of the Congresses they dealt
with. Here are some more measures.
1/93 1/01 12/08
Unemployment 7.3% 4.2% 7.2%
Dow Jones 3,255.99 10,587.59 8,281.22
Budget Sur/Def -$290.3b +$236.2b don't ask
GDP growth over 8 yrs 3.0%/yr 3.6%/yr 1.9%/yr
--
Doesn't the fact that there are *exactly* 50 states seem a little suspicious?
George W. Harris For actual email address, replace each 'u' with an 'i'
Dann
news:teoan4hff742rp2ne...@4ax.com.
> On Mon, 19 Jan 2009 18:51:52 -0800 (PST), LNER...@juno.com wrote:
>
>>Still, at the end of eight years apiece: Clinton--one impeachment.
>>Bush 43--none.
>
> Speaks more of the priorities of the Congresses they dealt
> with. Here are some more measures.
>
> 1/93 1/01 12/08
>
> Unemployment 7.3% 4.2% 7.2%
> Dow Jones 3,255.99 10,587.59 8,281.22
> Budget Sur/Def -$290.3b +$236.2b don't ask
> GDP growth over 8 yrs 3.0%/yr 3.6%/yr 1.9%/yr
I agree with the thought about changing Congressional priorities.
That budget surplus number is the result of an accounting gimmick. If
you check with the national bureau of the public debt website, you will
see that the debt increased in each year of Mr. Clinton's term in office.
That is, by definition, a deficit. The supposed surplus is the result of
a Congressional accounting gimmick.
I'd love to provide a link, but the Bureau of the Public Debt website has
been redesigned so that the annual data is now spread across a dozen
different pages....well 10 to be precise.
Dann
news:ec7an4pmn9apeth2m...@4ax.com.
> The whole "irrational hate" thing also reeks of projection from the
> 1990s; it's still fun hearing these guys try to explain why they hated
> Bill Clinton so much . . .
That is a fair comparison. Which is why I keep making it WRT Mr. Bush and
his....over enthusiastic detractors.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 19 Jan 2009, Antonio E. Gonzalez said the following in
>news:ec7an4pmn9apeth2m...@4ax.com.
>
>> The whole "irrational hate" thing also reeks of projection from the
>> 1990s; it's still fun hearing these guys try to explain why they hated
>> Bill Clinton so much . . .
>
>That is a fair comparison. Which is why I keep making it WRT Mr. Bush and
>his....over enthusiastic detractors.
Except the Clinton stuff was invalid; there's a reason the
arguments against the Bush people keep sticking . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>
>> >=v= Now, if anyone's running around grumbling that Bush caused
>> >their great-aunt's gout, yeah, that would be "irrational hate."
>> >But that sort of thing only shows up in lame comic strips.
>>
>> The whole "irrational hate" thing also reeks of projection from the
>> 1990s; it's still fun hearing these guys try to explain why they hated
>> Bill Clinton so much . . .
>>
>*Okay, not the gout, but I read an online comment at the Washington
>Post website that the pandas at the National Zoo were probably mating
>because they were in a celebratory mood because Bush was about to be
>gone............ is that irrational enough for you?
>
There's always "That One Guy" . . .
>For the record, I fully agree about the "projection" thing. Far too
>much visceral hatred oozed around all the complaints about Billary.
>Some of them had at least an iota of substance ("He was elected; she
>wasn't"); others just reeked of outright jealousy of his ability to
>use his "aw shucks" charisma as Teflon (though he obviously cribbed a
>lot of notes from Reagan on that).
>
It went beyond complaints; some of us still remember the guy firing
a machine gun into the White House, and the guy who flew a plane into
it . . .
>Still, at the end of eight years apiece: Clinton--one impeachment.
>Bush 43--none.
>
Impeachment over a blowjob, now there's the ultimate case of
Clinton Derrangement Syndrome, or Anything But Clinton, and the
ultimate evidence of how irrational the hate against him was!
>The problem is that those who believe Bush has been derelict, did
>wrong, etc. have good cases and arguments now and then, but they lose
>potential allies by going far off the deep end--referring to him as
>"Shrub" and Bushitler," fanatical protests (Cindy Sheehan, anyone?),
>demanding that he be tried for war crimes, etc. when their causes
>could best be served by gentle, gradual persuasion--plus recognition
>that not *everyone* is going to see the world just as they do.
>
>And incidentally, your comrades are apparently planning to do just
>what I challenged that "experienced" protester above to do:
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/01/13/AR2009011302983.html
>
>And also by the way--Wikipedia ain't a psychology journal, but it's
>peer-reviewed. <:-)
Well, there's a matter of who the "peers" are . . .
--
- ReFlex76
LNER...@juno.com
> Except the Clinton stuff was invalid; there's a reason the
> arguments against the Bush people keep sticking . . .
Again, I say: Clinton impeachments: 1; Bush 43 impeachments: 0.
The results don't support your argument.
I completely agree that the Clinton impeachments shouldn't have
happened as they did. As I said to my foreign friends, the difference
was that Clinton & Clinton committed "bad deeds" in Arkansas that took
three paragraphs to explain. The so-called "blow job" came down to
explaining Bill's repulsive character in one sentence instead--and
because it was simpler, that's what people remembered and glomped
onto. To heck with what Monica did; focus on Whitewater and the
cattle futures instead.
I am of the belief that IF Bush 43's opponents (and mind you, I'm NOT
a Bush 43 loyalist) could have constructed a solid, or at least
competent, argument for his impeachment, they had PLENTY of
opportunity to do so LONG before 1-20-2009. That they didn't/couldn't
bespeaks either 1) the lack of substance in their otherwise purely
emotive and hate-filled arguments, or 2) their utter incompetence in
confronting opposition. That Bush 43, bad as he was, managed to
defeat both Gore and Kerry speaks for the latter interpretation, IMO.
George W Harris
>As I said to my foreign friends, the difference
>was that Clinton & Clinton committed "bad deeds" in Arkansas that took
>three paragraphs to explain.
You never read the Starr report, did you? It
completely exonerated the Clintons of any culpability
in Whitewater.
Antonio E. Gonzalez
<gha...@mundsprung.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:31:20 -0800 (PST), LNER...@juno.com wrote:
>
>>As I said to my foreign friends, the difference
>>was that Clinton & Clinton committed "bad deeds" in Arkansas that took
>>three paragraphs to explain.
>
> You never read the Starr report, did you? It
>completely exonerated the Clintons of any culpability
>in Whitewater.
Hence why they had to go to the blowjob, it was all they had left!
--
- ReFlex76
Dann
news:2u8dn45j6nnmabpvf...@4ax.com.
> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:31:20 -0800 (PST), LNER...@juno.com wrote:
>
>>As I said to my foreign friends, the difference
>>was that Clinton & Clinton committed "bad deeds" in Arkansas that took
>>three paragraphs to explain.
>
> You never read the Starr report, did you? It
> completely exonerated the Clintons of any culpability
> in Whitewater.
If that was an exoneration, I sure hope I'm never exonerated.
To use a bad analogy, Mr. Starr's report said that he found lots of
smoke, but the law requires proof of fire. And all roads ended at
friends who would rather go to jail than testify or to our future
Secretary of State who had a catastrophic memory lapsed on the stand.
Harold Burton
<deto...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 20 Jan 2009, George W Harris said the following in
> news:2u8dn45j6nnmabpvf...@4ax.com.
>
> > On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:31:20 -0800 (PST), LNER...@juno.com wrote:
> >
> >>As I said to my foreign friends, the difference
> >>was that Clinton & Clinton committed "bad deeds" in Arkansas that took
> >>three paragraphs to explain.
> >
> > You never read the Starr report, did you? It
> > completely exonerated the Clintons of any culpability
> > in Whitewater.
>
> If that was an exoneration, I sure hope I'm never exonerated.
>
> To use a bad analogy, Mr. Starr's report said that he found lots of
> smoke, but the law requires proof of fire. And all roads ended at
> friends who would rather go to jail than testify...
With perhaps an assurance of a pardon, like Susan McDougal?
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>
>> Except the Clinton stuff was invalid; there's a reason the
>> arguments against the Bush people keep sticking . . .
>
>Again, I say: Clinton impeachments: 1; Bush 43 impeachments: 0.
>
>The results don't support your argument.
>
>I completely agree that the Clinton impeachments shouldn't have
>happened as they did. As I said to my foreign friends, the difference
>was that Clinton & Clinton committed "bad deeds" in Arkansas that took
>three paragraphs to explain. The so-called "blow job" came down to
>explaining Bill's repulsive character in one sentence instead--and
>because it was simpler, that's what people remembered and glomped
>onto. To heck with what Monica did; focus on Whitewater and the
>cattle futures instead.
>
As said elsewhere, the Whitewater thing led nowhere; a despearate
Ken Starr (nowadays working hard to make sure gays stay second-class
citizens in California) looked around, and found the Paula Jones case,
and proceded to blow that out of proportion (no pun intended) . . .
>I am of the belief that IF Bush 43's opponents (and mind you, I'm NOT
>a Bush 43 loyalist) could have constructed a solid, or at least
>competent, argument for his impeachment, they had PLENTY of
>opportunity to do so LONG before 1-20-2009. That they didn't/couldn't
>bespeaks either 1) the lack of substance in their otherwise purely
>emotive and hate-filled arguments,
No, there have been plenty of reasoned arguments, almost
exculsively presented by Dennis Kucinich; it's six years of a
Republican Congress unwilling to so much as look, followed by a
Democratic Congress desperate for reconciliation meant that justice
has remained buried . . .
or 2) their utter incompetence in
>confronting opposition. That Bush 43, bad as he was, managed to
>defeat both Gore and Kerry speaks for the latter interpretation, IMO.
Alas, I'll have to agree with this; Democrats need more Russ
Feingolds and Dennis Kucinichs, and fewer Harry Reids and John Kerrys
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>On 20 Jan 2009, George W Harris said the following in
>news:2u8dn45j6nnmabpvf...@4ax.com.
>
>> On Tue, 20 Jan 2009 17:31:20 -0800 (PST), LNER...@juno.com wrote:
>>
>>>As I said to my foreign friends, the difference
>>>was that Clinton & Clinton committed "bad deeds" in Arkansas that took
>>>three paragraphs to explain.
>>
>> You never read the Starr report, did you? It
>> completely exonerated the Clintons of any culpability
>> in Whitewater.
>
>If that was an exoneration, I sure hope I'm never exonerated.
>
>To use a bad analogy, Mr. Starr's report said that he found lots of
>smoke, but the law requires proof of fire. And all roads ended at
>friends who would rather go to jail than testify or to our future
>Secretary of State who had a catastrophic memory lapsed on the stand.
Sometimes smoke is just smoke . . .
--
- ReFlex76
Jym Dyer
>> found lots of smoke, but the law requires proof of fire.
=v= Yep, that's a bad analogy.
> Sometimes smoke is just smoke . . .
=v= This sounds better if you deliver it with an exaggerated
Sigmund Freud accent.
<_Jym_>
LNER...@juno.com
>
> Sometimes smoke is just smoke . . .
>
Sherwood Harrington
>>
>> ? ?Sometimes smoke is just smoke . . .
>>
> It's still indicative of a problem, unless you're running a BBQ joint.
You could have left the "BBQ" out of that.
--
Sherwood Harrington
Boulder Creek, California
Antonio E. Gonzalez
>Spoiler
>
>space
>
>just
>
>in
>
>case
>
>but
>
>really.........
>
>
>Okay, Delta, you are WAY &$#@!ing delusional. MEETING the
>president?!?!?!? You and about 2-5 million (depending on whose
>estimates you listen to) of your closest friends? Geez, even if you
>were standing along Pennsylvania Avenue, I'm wagering that the person
>you see will really be a highly-paid double, while the Secret Service
>spirits Obama from the Capitol to the White House via some secret
>tunnel or whatnot. Don't expect a walking president shaking hands
>like Jimmy Carter.
>
<snip>
Besides the trip being planned for three years, well
post-inauguration, I just had to post this, especially with that last
sentence . . .:
<http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhAq_6bv7vY>
BTW, you *did* get one thing right, but on something else: though
they tried to whitewash it, the latest LA Times report puts more clear
blame for the Metrolink Chatsworth crash on engineer Robert Sanchez,
showing that he missed three other signals well before the final red
light. Considering he was the first person killed in the accident,
it's not so much a matter of placing blame (what, they're gonna dig up
his corpse and put it on trial?) so much as closure, and learning
enough to keep this from happening again . . .
An aspect which has been largely ignored, to what I see as huge
detriment, is a tragedy that hit Sanchez a few months before. It
seems he walked into his home to find his lover hanging from the roof.
That said lover was another man is irrelevant (though still a fact),
more important is that he lost his significant other in a very
traumatic way, leaving him in such a state of shock it took him
several hours to finally call the police. Emotional/mental state
rarely gets as much attention as it should, certainly since a broken
leg is easier to diagnose than a broken psyche. Sanchez's employers
(IIRC, not Metrolink, but a subcontractor) should have taken note, and
provided for time off to recover, counseling, psychological treatment,
or all of the above, certainly considering the nature of his work.
Maybe they did, sorry if I'm not aware of that. The man had done his
job without incident for years before, I doubt it's coincidence his
big accident happened so relatively soon after such a troubling
personal event . . .
Far from excusing Sanchez's actions, I'm making a point about how
mental trauma/illness just doesn't get the same attention that
physical trauma/illness gets. Maybe it leads to a lonely man texting
teenagers in a desperate bid for human contact, maybe it leads to
using a gun to blow your brains out, the impact can be far-reaching
either way.
--
- ReFlex76