Root talks about Root

[Tattoo Vampire]

This guy manages to distance himself quite adroitly from some of the Obama
tall tales while at the same time stating in a roundabout manner that he
believes a great deal of them.

I am a patriot. I love my country with all my heart. I am not a fan of
President Obama. I have legitimate concerns about his agenda, as all
Americans should. I also have legitimate questions about his past, because
studying where he came from might shed light on where he嚙踝蕭ll be taking
America in the future. We all have a right嚙皺even an obligation嚙皺to question,
debate and investigate the man who has his finger on the nuclear button,
who controls the U.S. economy, and in many cases the fate of the free world
in his hands. When Pastor Manning called to make a personal plea for me to
testify at a mock 嚙踝蕭Obama Trial嚙踝蕭 to find the truth about President Obama,
after much thought (3 months worth) I agreed to testify if it would help to
shed some light on President Obama嚙踝蕭s past (and therefore the decisions he
might make in the future). I felt that simply telling the truth about what
I know could be helpful to this country.

But I explained to Pastor Manning the circumstances of any testimony I would
provide: I am NOT a 嚙踝蕭birther.嚙踝蕭 I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. I
actually think that wild conspiracy theories detract and discredit any
serious attempt to ask legitimate questions about the background of our
President. I explained that I do NOT believe there is any cover-up by
Columbia University administration. I explained that I am a supporter of my
alma mater and proud to be a graduate of one of the great Ivy League
education institutions in America. All I can testify to is that I was a
member of the Class of 嚙踝蕭83- just like Obama. And that I was Pre Law and a
political science major- just like Obama. It was a small class- about 700
students. Political science majors would be an even smaller group.
Therefore it struck me嚙皺and many others嚙皺as strange that I never met Obama at
college, never saw him, never even heard of him in my time at Columbia. And
that more importantly, I don嚙踝蕭t know any classmate to this day who ever met
or heard of a classmate named Barack Obama or Barry Obama or Barry Sotero.
Even stranger still, the Wall Street Journal reported in its editorial
pages back in 2008 that Fox News called 400 of my classmates and they could
not find one student who had ever met Obama at Columbia. Adding to the
mystery is the fact that President Obama has sealed all of his college
records at Occidental and Columbia. All of this should be troubling to
every American, no matter what your political beliefs.

I told Pastor Manning however that none of this is factual proof that Obama
did not attend Columbia. Nor do I believe my university would ever
participate in a cover-up. I have simply been asked by many in the media
for several years now if I knew my famous classmate and I嚙踝蕭ve always
answered honestly. I嚙踝蕭ve always stated publicly that my assumption is that
he went to Columbia, but probably rarely (or never) attended classes.
Perhaps he was too busy pursuing a radical political agenda. Perhaps he was
too busy hanging out with his radical friends plotting the destruction of
capitalism or the overthrow of America. I assume he spent most of his time
at Columbia off campus and took what is often called at Ivy League colleges
a 嚙踝蕭Gentleman嚙踝蕭s C嚙踝蕭 for simply showing up for final exams. I thought perhaps
that my testimony would help to fill in the blanks and create a clearer
picture of the man sitting in the White House.

Unfortunately I had a chance today for the first time to read about the
highlights of the first day of the 嚙踝蕭Obama trial.嚙踝蕭 I found myself
uncomfortable being involved or associated in any way with the wild
charges, claims and conspiracy theories that have been publicly aired by
this mock trial. I believe these wild charges and claims actually damage
any future legitimate opportunity to question President Obama嚙踝蕭s background.
This forum has an agenda and I have come to the conclusion it is not my
agenda. I called Pastor Manning personally this morning to explain why I嚙踝蕭ve
decided not to participate. He understood completely. We wished each other
well.

I believe any association with this trial would discredit the opportunity to
have a fair, open and balanced discussion or debate in the future. I want
to be part of any such future opportunity. I have much to say about
President Obama, and many questions about his past and present actions, but
I嚙踝蕭m more comfortable airing them in a mainstream media forum. More
importantly, I嚙踝蕭d rather spend my time discussing, debating and questioning
Mr. Obama嚙踝蕭s current policies that I believe are toxic to America, the U.S.
economy and capitalism, than spending my time debating his past. I嚙踝蕭d rather
spend my valuable time in the media on educating voters about the dramatic
expansion of government under Obama; the nonstop violations of the
Constitution; the deadly expansion of deficit and national debt; the
political payoffs disguised as stimulus and bailouts; the lack of
transparency of this administration; Obama嚙踝蕭s pro union agenda at all costs-
no matter what damage is done to the economy. All of these are far more
important to America嚙踝蕭s future than Obama嚙踝蕭s past. We cannot change the past,
but we can change the future direction of this country away from Obama嚙踝蕭s
dangerous agenda- if we are not distracted by wild claims and conspiracy
theories.

I intend to be Obama嚙踝蕭s biggest critic on a national stage for years to come.
Being associated with the extreme agenda and wild charges of a mock 嚙踝蕭Obama
trial嚙踝蕭 can only detract from my goals. I do want however to make it clear
that all of us have a right, duty and obligation to question our President,
as well as all politicians on their past. The moment a politician decides
to run for office they have given up a right to 嚙踝蕭seal records.嚙踝蕭 They are
now a public figure, and the voting public has every right to question and
investigate anything and everything that shines light on who will be
representing the American people.

Wayne Allyn Root


--
Perhaps this situation requires a more Klingon response.

[tv]

[FVH]

This clown is trying to make a name for himself, nothing more. He
clearly has nothing, so he's willing to make shit up to keep his name
in the papers. Thankfully he'll be a fart in the wind very soon.

Hi, Killer! Hope you enjoyed reading this post!
FVH
Good ole RMAK. Where the majority swears off "scab KISS" then
wrights a review of the new album the week it comes out. LOL!-
Professor AJ
Yes I know that and I know they gained that power under Obama's
watch.-Professor AJ on China's nukes.
This was passed in 2008 under Obama.- AJ, political guru
Wait and see. Paul is not going to name the new KISS album what Gene
was
going to call his solo boxset.-AJ, KISS "expert"
Laughter is an emotion-Professor AJ Johnson, channeling his feminine
feelings.
You wrongfully misinterpreting another post noted.-AJ, English major
I love how people like you consternate so much time and effort-
Professor AJ Johnson.
10 years ago your posts were better written and your grammar was
better than what they are now.-AJ.
Pssst. Obama has been president for 7 years and you suck at math.-AJ,
2009
LOL! I doubt imergration is reading your posts.-Speeling bea
chaump, AJ.
McCain wins 2008 Election.This is what will be printed on every
newspaper next week. Wait and see.-AJ, proving that he's an idiot.
our new commander and chief.- AJ, talking politics.
Stadiums have no walls!- AJ
*Geeks with key boards aren't intimidating.-AJ
You made a boneheaded 'observation' about Ace, and you're a fool.
That's pretty much it.- Hidell, making a brilliant point about AJ.
Twinkle Toes Stanley hadn't quite picked up that Lick It Up/
Heaven's On Fire half a ballerina dance that he does.- db
How many times can the Greed Twins milk a cow? As many times as the
sheep will let them.-db

On Aug 9, 5:15 pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> This guy manages to distance himself quite adroitly from some of the Obama
> tall tales while at the same time stating in a roundabout manner that he
> believes a great deal of them.
>
> I am a patriot. I love my country with all my heart. I am not a fan of
> President Obama. I have legitimate concerns about his agenda, as all
> Americans should. I also have legitimate questions about his past, because

> studying where he came from might shed light on where he’ll be taking
> America in the future. We all have a right…even an obligation…to question,

> debate and investigate the man who has his finger on the nuclear button,
> who controls the U.S. economy, and in many cases the fate of the free world
> in his hands. When Pastor Manning called to make a personal plea for me to

> testify at a mock “Obama Trial” to find the truth about President Obama,

> after much thought (3 months worth) I agreed to testify if it would help to

> shed some light on President Obama’s past (and therefore the decisions he

> might make in the future). I felt that simply telling the truth about what
> I know could be helpful to this country.
>
> But I explained to Pastor Manning the circumstances of any testimony I would

> provide: I am NOT a “birther.” I am not a fan of conspiracy theories. I

> actually think that wild conspiracy theories detract and discredit any
> serious attempt to ask legitimate questions about the background of our
> President. I explained that I do NOT believe there is any cover-up by
> Columbia University administration. I explained that I am a supporter of my
> alma mater and proud to be a graduate of one of the great Ivy League
> education institutions in America. All I can testify to is that I was a

> member of the Class of ’83- just like Obama. And that I was Pre Law and a

> political science major- just like Obama. It was a small class- about 700
> students. Political science majors would be an even smaller group.

> Therefore it struck me…and many others…as strange that I never met Obama at

> college, never saw him, never even heard of him in my time at Columbia. And

> that more importantly, I don’t know any classmate to this day who ever met

> or heard of a classmate named Barack Obama or Barry Obama or Barry Sotero.
> Even stranger still, the Wall Street Journal reported in its editorial
> pages back in 2008 that Fox News called 400 of my classmates and they could
> not find one student who had ever met Obama at Columbia. Adding to the
> mystery is the fact that President Obama has sealed all of his college
> records at Occidental and Columbia. All of this should be troubling to
> every American, no matter what your political beliefs.
>
> I told Pastor Manning however that none of this is factual proof that Obama
> did not attend Columbia. Nor do I believe my university would ever
> participate in a cover-up. I have simply been asked by many in the media

> for several years now if I knew my famous classmate and I’ve always
> answered honestly. I’ve always stated publicly that my assumption is that

> he went to Columbia, but probably rarely (or never) attended classes.
> Perhaps he was too busy pursuing a radical political agenda. Perhaps he was
> too busy hanging out with his radical friends plotting the destruction of
> capitalism or the overthrow of America. I assume he spent most of his time
> at Columbia off campus and took what is often called at Ivy League colleges

> a “Gentleman’s C” for simply showing up for final exams. I thought perhaps

> that my testimony would help to fill in the blanks and create a clearer
> picture of the man sitting in the White House.
>
> Unfortunately I had a chance today for the first time to read about the

> highlights of the first day of the “Obama trial.” I found myself

> uncomfortable being involved or associated in any way with the wild
> charges, claims and conspiracy theories that have been publicly aired by
> this mock trial. I believe these wild charges and claims actually damage

> any future legitimate opportunity to question President Obama’s background.

> This forum has an agenda and I have come to the conclusion it is not my

> agenda. I called Pastor Manning personally this morning to explain why I’ve

> decided not to participate. He understood completely. We wished each other
> well.
>
> I believe any association with this trial would discredit the opportunity to
> have a fair, open and balanced discussion or debate in the future. I want
> to be part of any such future opportunity. I have much to say about
> President Obama, and many questions about his past and present actions, but

> I’m more comfortable airing them in a mainstream media forum. More
> importantly, I’d rather spend my time discussing, debating and questioning
> Mr. Obama’s current policies that I believe are toxic to America, the U.S.
> economy and capitalism, than spending my time debating his past. I’d rather

> spend my valuable time in the media on educating voters about the dramatic
> expansion of government under Obama; the nonstop violations of the
> Constitution; the deadly expansion of deficit and national debt; the
> political payoffs disguised as stimulus and bailouts; the lack of

> transparency of this administration; Obama’s pro union agenda at all costs-

> no matter what damage is done to the economy. All of these are far more

> important to America’s future than Obama’s past. We cannot change the past,
> but we can change the future direction of this country away from Obama’s

> dangerous agenda- if we are not distracted by wild claims and conspiracy
> theories.
>

> I intend to be Obama’s biggest critic on a national stage for years to come.
> Being associated with the extreme agenda and wild charges of a mock “Obama
> trial” can only detract from my goals. I do want however to make it clear

> that all of us have a right, duty and obligation to question our President,
> as well as all politicians on their past. The moment a politician decides

> to run for office they have given up a right to “seal records.” They are

[83LowRider]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> This guy manages to distance himself quite adroitly from some of the
> Obama tall tales while at the same time stating in a roundabout
> manner that he believes a great deal of them.

You've still not elaborated or been specific with anything
to do with this man.

> I am a patriot. I love my country with all my heart. I am not a fan of
> President Obama. I have legitimate concerns about his agenda, as all
> Americans should. I also have legitimate questions about his past,

> because studying where he came from might shed light on where he��ll

> be taking America in the future. We all have a right even an

> obligation to question, debate and investigate the man who has his

> finger on the nuclear button,
> who controls the U.S. economy, and in many cases the fate of the free
> world in his hands.

Do you have a problem with what he says above?

Is it "radical" or different than the scrutiny ANY
president goes thru?

> When Pastor Manning called to make a personal

> plea for me to testify at a mock ��Obama Trial�� to find the truth

> about President Obama, after much thought (3 months worth) I agreed

> to testify if it would help to shed some light on President Obama��s

> past (and therefore the decisions he might make in the future). I
> felt that simply telling the truth about what
> I know could be helpful to this country.

And I have to presume that they wanted him to repeat
what he said --> that Obama was an unknown to anyone
taking law classes during this period. Disagree?

> But I explained to Pastor Manning the circumstances of any testimony

> I would provide: I am NOT a "birther.� I am not a fan of conspiracy

> theories. I actually think that wild conspiracy theories detract and
> discredit any serious attempt to ask legitimate questions about the
> background of our President. I explained that I do NOT believe there
> is any cover-up by Columbia University administration.

I'll guess the above is okay with you? Plainly stated and
no kookiness yet.

> I explained
> that I am a supporter of my alma mater and proud to be a graduate of
> one of the great Ivy League education institutions in America. All I

> can testify to is that I was a member of the Class of 83- just like

> Obama. And that I was Pre Law and a political science major- just
> like Obama. It was a small class- about 700 students. Political
> science majors would be an even smaller group.

> Therefore it struck me and many others as strange that I never met

> Obama at college, never saw him, never even heard of him in my time

> at Columbia. And that more importantly, I don't know any classmate

> to this day who ever met or heard of a classmate named Barack Obama
> or Barry Obama or Barry Sotero.

A repeat of his original statement.

> Even stranger still, the Wall Street
> Journal reported in its editorial
> pages back in 2008 that Fox News called 400 of my classmates and they
> could not find one student who had ever met Obama at Columbia. Adding
> to the mystery is the fact that President Obama has sealed all of his
> college records at Occidental and Columbia. All of this should be
> troubling to
> every American, no matter what your political beliefs.

mmkay... this is still the same thing he's always said.
I've heard the claim that Fox called 400 classmates
tho I've never looked it up or verified it. I should say
that I've never googled Root before your post.

> I told Pastor Manning however that none of this is factual proof that
> Obama did not attend Columbia. Nor do I believe my university would
> ever participate in a cover-up. I have simply been asked by many in
> the media

> for several years now if I knew my famous classmate and I've always

> answered honestly. I've always stated publicly that my assumption is

> that he went to Columbia, but probably rarely (or never) attended
> classes.

Solid as a rock still and I still see no kOOkery.

> Perhaps he was too busy pursuing a radical political agenda.
> Perhaps he was too busy hanging out with his radical friends plotting
> the destruction of capitalism or the overthrow of America.

I'll take this as sarcasm.

> I assume
> he spent most of his time at Columbia off campus and took what is

> often called at Ivy League colleges a Gentleman's C for simply

> showing up for final exams. I thought perhaps that my testimony would
> help to fill in the blanks and create a clearer picture of the man
> sitting in the White House.

Are we into kOOk territory yet? From the ten or so links I
followed he appears to be a very smart and accomplished
man. He gave his opinion/theory.

> Unfortunately I had a chance today for the first time to read about

> the highlights of the first day of the Obama trial.� I found myself

> uncomfortable being involved or associated in any way with the wild
> charges, claims and conspiracy theories that have been publicly aired
> by this mock trial. I believe these wild charges and claims actually
> damage

> any future legitimate opportunity to question President Obama��s

> background. This forum has an agenda and I have come to the
> conclusion it is not my agenda. I called Pastor Manning personally

> this morning to explain why I've decided not to participate. He

> understood completely. We wished each other well.

So far so good. He actually is sounding like a standup guy.

> I believe any association with this trial would discredit the
> opportunity to have a fair, open and balanced discussion or debate in
> the future. I want
> to be part of any such future opportunity. I have much to say about
> President Obama, and many questions about his past and present

> actions, but I'm more comfortable airing them in a mainstream media
> forum. More importantly, I'd rather spend my time discussing,
> debating and questioning Mr. Obama's current policies that I believe

> are toxic to America, the U.S. economy and capitalism, than spending
> my time debating his past.

A feeling shared by millions.

> I'd rather spend my valuable time in the

> media on educating voters about the dramatic expansion of government
> under Obama; the nonstop violations of the Constitution; the deadly
> expansion of deficit and national debt; the political payoffs
> disguised as stimulus and bailouts; the lack of transparency of this

> administration; Obama's pro union agenda at all costs- no matter

> what damage is done to the economy. All of these are far more

> important to America's future than Obama's past. We cannot change

> the past, but we can change the future direction of this country away

> from Obama's dangerous agenda - if we are not distracted by wild
> claims and conspiracy theories.
>
> I intend to be Obama's biggest critic on a national stage for years

> to come. Being associated with the extreme agenda and wild charges of

> a mock Obama trial� can only detract from my goals. I do want

> however to make it clear that all of us have a right, duty and
> obligation to question our President, as well as all politicians on
> their past. The moment a politician decides

> to run for office they have given up a right to seal records.

> They are now a public figure, and the voting public has every right
> to question and investigate anything and everything that shines light
> on who will be representing the American people.

I'm sure you'll probably blow this off as you do
most of my posts, but I fail to see this man as
"seeking fame'' for what he said. I don't see him
trying to profit from it and it certainly would appear
money isn't an issue... he ain't some poor fucker trying
to sell an alien story to the Enquirer. He has far deeper
life experiences <including politics> than Obama, he's
obviously a man of great intelligence judging his gambling
books and sports records, his high school and college life...

You're taking out your frustrations on the innocent
and the helpless. Just let it out dude. Admit your voting
sins and repent. SAVE the children.

You'll feel better for having done'it.

[AJ]

Again, another thread to try to discredit anyone that challenges Obama
instead of proving his challenge wrong.

[FVH]

The "challenge" was proven wrong long ago, dummy. The only people that
give this obvious nutjob credence are bitter racists like you. Are you
too dumb to see that? Idiot.

[Tattoo Vampire]

AJ wrote:

> Again, another thread to try to discredit anyone that challenges Obama
> instead of proving his challenge wrong.

The burden of proof is on the challenger. There's abundant evidence Obama
attended Columbia.

[AJ]

On Aug 10, 4:09 pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> AJ wrote:
> > Again, another thread to try to discredit anyone that challenges Obama
> > instead of proving his challenge wrong.
>
> The burden of proof is on the challenger. There's abundant evidence Obama
> attended Columbia.

As a foreign exchange student, who made bad grades, hardly attended
class, and no one really remembers. There's also abundant evidence
Obama was born in Kenya and forged his BC.

[steveh99]

In article <1512664e-6eb5-48a8-b713-db8181d01f87
@y1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...

but but but Congress has yet to file articals of impeachment on
him for lying, falsifying documents.. How can that be so?

[AJ]

On Aug 10, 4:30 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <1512664e-6eb5-48a8-b713-db8181d01f87

> @y1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com says...

>
>
>
> > On Aug 10, 4:09 pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > > AJ wrote:
> > > > Again, another thread to try to discredit anyone that challenges Obama
> > > > instead of proving his challenge wrong.
>
> > > The burden of proof is on the challenger. There's abundant evidence Obama
> > > attended Columbia.
>
> > As a foreign exchange student, who made bad grades, hardly attended
> > class, and no one really remembers. There's also abundant evidence
> > Obama was born in Kenya and forged his BC.
>
> but but but          Congress has yet to file articals of impeachment on
> him for lying, falsifying documents.. How can that be so?

Look it up or the proof I posted before that you ignore. Obama's
legal team, got it out of the Supreme Court. AND, it was a Dem in
Philly that was trying to take it to the Supreme court. Again, who
pays for his legal team and wouldn't it be cheaper for him to just
prove it? Your idol is a fraud.

[FVH]

LOL!!! Talk about being scared of reality.

[FVH]

You've become SO desperate that you've become a BIGGER joke than
before, Detective.

[steveh99]

In article <049178fd-a7f6-4029-8eaa-3f4024ed7998
@i7g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...

>
> On Aug 10, 4:30ï¿œpm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> > In article <1512664e-6eb5-48a8-b713-db8181d01f87
> > @y1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, misfitskiss...@aol.com says...
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Aug 10, 4:09 pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> > > > AJ wrote:
> > > > > Again, another thread to try to discredit anyone that challenges Obama
> > > > > instead of proving his challenge wrong.
> >
> > > > The burden of proof is on the challenger. There's abundant evidence Obama
> > > > attended Columbia.
> >
> > > As a foreign exchange student, who made bad grades, hardly attended
> > > class, and no one really remembers. There's also abundant evidence
> > > Obama was born in Kenya and forged his BC.
> >

> > but but but ￜ ￜ ￜ ￜ ￜCongress has yet to file articals of impeachment on

> > him for lying, falsifying documents.. How can that be so?
>
> Look it up or the proof I posted before that you ignore. Obama's
> legal team, got it out of the Supreme Court. AND, it was a Dem in
> Philly that was trying to take it to the Supreme court. Again, who
> pays for his legal team and wouldn't it be cheaper for him to just
> prove it? Your idol is a fraud.

The supreme court has nothing to do with congressional hearings and
articles of impeachmen

[Tattoo Vampire]

AJ wrote:

> As a foreign exchange student, who made bad grades, hardly attended
> class, and no one really remembers. There's also abundant evidence
> Obama was born in Kenya and forged his BC.

Show me something not gleaned from right wing nut job websites.

[steveh99]

In article <1v8drbfb...@sitting.at.this.computer>,
sit...@this.computer says...

>
> AJ wrote:
>
> > As a foreign exchange student, who made bad grades, hardly attended
> > class, and no one really remembers. There's also abundant evidence
> > Obama was born in Kenya and forged his BC.
>
> Show me something not gleaned from right wing nut job websites.

I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that

[AJ]

On Aug 10, 4:57 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> The supreme court has nothing to do with congressional hearings and

> articles of impeachmen- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And YOU are the only one to bring up congressional hearings. For some
reason you think that's the only way the truth can come out.

[AJ]

On Aug 10, 10:31 pm, steveh99 <steve...@roadrunner.com> wrote:
> In article <1v8drbfbjd11b....@sitting.at.this.computer>,
> sitt...@this.computer says...

>
>
>
> > AJ wrote:
>
> > > As a foreign exchange student, who made bad grades, hardly attended
> > > class, and no one really remembers. There's also abundant evidence
> > > Obama was born in Kenya and forged his BC.
>
> > Show me something not gleaned from right wing nut job websites.
>
> I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for that

Former classmates aren't affiliated with any political party.

[steveh99]

In article <89552703-4d42-4a2e-9f2f-
cfde54...@w2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com
says...

No they are the only ones who can bring articles of impeachment against
a sitting president of the United States

[FVH]

Former classmates that have stated they remember Obama, dummy.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 9, 5:15 pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:
> I am NOT a birther. I am not a fan of conspiracy theories.

> Adding to the
> mystery is the fact that President Obama has sealed all of his college
> records at Occidental and Columbia.

....annnnd the proclamation that he doesn't believe in conspiracy
theories is dismantled...by his own words.

Obama's records are NOT sealed. And when this tard, and others like
him, show as much concern about other politicians not releasing their
college records...THEN, maybe -- just maybe -- they might come off a
bit more reasonable.

Until then, this is little more than yet another variation of "Obama's
not one of us"...

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 10, 4:31 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> I'm sure you'll probably blow this off as you do
> most of my posts, but I fail to see this man as
> "seeking fame'' for what he said. I don't see him
> trying to profit from it and it certainly would appear
> money isn't an issue... he ain't some poor fucker trying
> to sell an alien story to the Enquirer. He has far deeper
> life experiences <including politics> than Obama, he's
> obviously a man of great intelligence judging his gambling
> books and sports records, his high school and college life...

Do we include being part of a pyramid scheme as a "life experience"
worthy of note? Are we now trusting "gut instinct" to inform us of
facts? Are we now deeming people to be legitimate based on potential
memories from people they may or may not have "known" 20+ years ago?
And "deeper" life experiences...LOL. Being a Vegas oddsmaker is deep
to you?

Here we have another right-wing radio host turned political wannabe
who knows exactly what he's doing -- using the fear and ignorance of
Birthers/Bithers Lite to make a name for himself. His opinion piece
ran on Glenn Beck's "news" outlet. That alone should tell you all you
need to know.

Also interesting is that 2 years ago, Root had an opinion piece run in
the Vegas Review Journal in which he stated not once, but twice, that
he knew Obama as a college student. Huh. So he knew him then, but
doesn't now. This guy is full of more shit than AJ's outhouse after he
hits the buffet.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 10, 10:00 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> Again, another thread to try to discredit anyone that challenges Obama
> instead of proving his challenge wrong.

The burden of proof is on the accuser, and all this dope has is "gut
instinct".

Nuff said.

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

> Do we include being part of a pyramid scheme as a "life experience"
> worthy of note? Are we now trusting "gut instinct" to inform us of
> facts?

TV tried to play this guy off as a total loon. I looked at
MANY various stories on him and saw nothing that even
remotely put him in the kOOk category. If you have
something that you feel says otherwise -> post it.

> Are we now deeming people to be legitimate based on potential
> memories from people they may or may not have "known" 20+ years ago?

He said that he, nor anyone he knew or has spoken with, remembers
Obama. That isn't even the same as asking if he 'knew him'.
I see many of my friends on FB that have familiar names on
their lists... and I remember many of those names <from1975
and backwards> tho I don't remember who they were. I also
see high school friends on FB who post some old pics - and
I remember many of those faces tho I don't know their names.
The point is --> I remember many names... I remember many
faces of people from over 35 years ago that I wasn't personally
friendly with. YMMV

> And "deeper" life experiences...LOL. Being a Vegas oddsmaker is deep
> to you?

You picked a single accomplishment from a fairly lengthy list.

He is deeply involved in politics. A candidate, a columnist, a
tv show, and a long history with the libertarian party.

He has an impressive school record from impressive schools.

As a sports commentator he is in over 100 markets.

Youngest anchormen and national TV hosts in America
Financial News Network (FNN), now known as CNBC.

Several books as an author. And none of those biographies btw.

As to your oddsmaker remark -- do you not think a guy that
is an oddsmaker, has written many books on gambling, doesn't
have a pretty deep perspective? doesn't have a very analytical
mind? doesn't understand mathematics?

> Here we have another right-wing radio host turned political wannabe
> who knows exactly what he's doing -- using the fear and ignorance of
> Birthers/Bithers Lite to make a name for himself. His opinion piece
> ran on Glenn Beck's "news" outlet. That alone should tell you all you
> need to know.

His 'opinion pieces' have ran on hundreds of shows. You're
cherry picking. Is Jon Stewart any less liberal because he
appears on O'Reilly?

> Also interesting is that 2 years ago, Root had an opinion piece run in
> the Vegas Review Journal in which he stated not once, but twice, that
> he knew Obama as a college student. Huh. So he knew him then, but
> doesn't now. This guy is full of more shit than AJ's outhouse after he
> hits the buffet.

Well fuck me... I looked <and fairly hard> for anything saying he
had backtracked on that statement. You want to put up a link
or something? I have never seen anything but hate from you
on ANYONE that said anything bad about Obama. If they don't
like Obama they're automatically fucking loons or idiots or not
worthy of their opinion. It never fails.

[El Jefe]

On Aug 18, 12:30 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> TV tried to play this guy off as a total loon. I looked at
> MANY various stories on him and saw nothing that even
> remotely put him in the kOOk category. If you have
> something that you feel says otherwise -> post it.

There are two possibilities here. 1) He really believes his birther-
related theories or 2) He's playing to the Beck audience in order to
elevate himself.

At this point, in either case, I place him in the kook category. If I
tell you that my "gut instinct" informs me of this, will it make a
difference?

> He said that he, nor anyone he knew or has spoken with, remembers
> Obama. That isn't even the same as asking if he 'knew him'.

What Root has stated is "no one ever came forward from Obama's past
saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc.".
This is simply not true. And if Root doesn't remember Obama, how can
he claim him as a classmate? "I never saw him, but I know he was
there?"

Sounds like a kid talking about Santa Claus.

> I see many of my friends on FB that have familiar names on
> their lists... and I remember many of those names <from1975
> and backwards> tho I don't remember who they were. I also
> see high school friends on FB who post some old pics - and
> I remember many of those faces tho I don't know their names.
> The point is --> I remember many names... I remember many
> faces of people from over 35 years ago that I wasn't personally
> friendly with. YMMV

Personal anecdote. Root did this as well: "I don't know a single
person at Columbia that knows him.."

Proves nothing.

> You picked a single accomplishment from a fairly lengthy list.
>
> He is deeply involved in politics. A candidate, a columnist, a
> tv show, and a long history with the libertarian party.
>
> He has an impressive school record from impressive schools.
>
> As a sports commentator he is in over 100 markets.
>
> Youngest anchormen and national TV hosts in America
> Financial News Network (FNN), now known as CNBC.
>
> Several books as an author. And none of those biographies btw.
>
> As to your oddsmaker remark -- do you not think a guy that
> is an oddsmaker, has written many books on gambling, doesn't
> have a pretty deep perspective? doesn't have a very analytical
> mind? doesn't understand mathematics?

Explain to me how any of the above lends credence to his crackpot
theories, por favor.

I am endlessly amused by your constant comparisons of Obama's life
experiences against the latest faux-experts enjoying their 15 minutes.
You're propping this guy up because he's endorsing views that you
*want* to believe are true. He's all over that foreign exchange
student thing, just like you are.

An April Fool's Day joke. It never gets old pointing that out.

> His 'opinion pieces' have ran on hundreds of shows. You're
> cherry picking. Is Jon Stewart any less liberal because he
> appears on O'Reilly?

He has a longer affiliation with Beck than just this particular piece.
They drink from the same trough and have done so for years.

> Well fuck me... I looked <and fairly hard> for anything saying he
> had backtracked on that statement. You want to put up a link
> or something?

It's not difficult to type in "Root Vegas Review Journal" and find the
piece in question...

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/obama-s-agenda--overwhelm-the-system-95716764.html

Mention of Obama being his college classmate not once but twice?
Again, how can you be sure that he was there while claiming that no
one knew him, remembers him, etc.? Something stinks in Denmark,
alright.

And the rest of the piece is a riot as well. He fellates Beck and
endorses all of his theories. Want to tell me that I'm cherry picking
again?

> I have never seen anything but hate

Overreaction. I have never expressed "hate". I have expressed,
perhaps, bewilderment, exhaustion and plain old disgust at times.

Also, amusing that you suggest hate on my part given your comments
about Pelosi. Pot, meet kettle?

> from you on ANYONE that said anything bad about Obama.

There's a big difference between valid criticism and crackpot theories
that have been debunked over and over and over again. Do you really
feel I should view chain emails as a worthy source of info? Biased
YouTube links? I am not obligated to be nice and treat every random
thought about Obama, nor those who entertain them, with respect.

And that's the problem. The right has gone full loon. Chased/drowned
out their more reasonable elements. Now we should listen to Wayne
Allen Root? Why?

I will listen to a guy like David Frum criticize Obama, because he's
*reasonable*, even if I don't agree with him on a particular issue.
And yet Frum-like guys have been ostracized from what passes for
conservatism today. Ever ask yourself why that is?

> If they don't like Obama they're automatically fucking loons or idiots or not
> worthy of their opinion. It never fails.

Except it's never as simple as just "not liking" Obama, is it? Taking
that position would have the distinction of being honest, if utterly
devoid of a basis for debate, really. But no, he has to be portrayed
as some outside entity who hates America and wants to destroy it.
Kenyan/Marxist/Gonna Take Yer Guns Away/Socialist/Muslim/Baby Killer.
He's "not one of us".

Here's some honesty from Root:

"I say the whole problem with America is we are racist against people
because of the color of their skin. We're helping people because
they're black. We're helping people because they're minority. We're
helping people because they're poor.

....

And so my answer is, has America really been unfair to minorities? No
it hasn't. It was unfair to me. A white butcher's kid, whose father
had no money, but nobody gave me a break. And do I have a chip on my
shoulder? You're damn right I do. And I represent millions and
millions of poor people in this country who weren't lucky enough to be
poor and black, they were unlucky enough to be poor and white, and
they can't get into Harvard. So maybe that country Barack's fighting
for, he's got the wrong country here. He's been just fine in this
country. The rest of us need someone to defend them...."

Now you can go ahead and whine that I'm playing the race card again.
But if you can't see the obvious in those words...you're beyond hope.

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

El Jefe wrote:

>> TV tried to play this guy off as a total loon. I looked at
>> MANY various stories on him and saw nothing that even
>> remotely put him in the kOOk category. If you have
>> something that you feel says otherwise -> post it.
>
> There are two possibilities here. 1) He really believes his birther-
> related theories or 2) He's playing to the Beck audience in order to
> elevate himself.
>
> At this point, in either case, I place him in the kook category. If I
> tell you that my "gut instinct" informs me of this, will it make a
> difference?

His 'feeling' that Obama is hiding something makes him a loon?
Really? That's all it takes?

>> He said that he, nor anyone he knew or has spoken with, remembers
>> Obama. That isn't even the same as asking if he 'knew him'.
>
> What Root has stated is "no one ever came forward from Obama's past
> saying they knew him, attended school with him, was his friend, etc.".
> This is simply not true. And if Root doesn't remember Obama, how can
> he claim him as a classmate? "I never saw him, but I know he was
> there?"
>
> Sounds like a kid talking about Santa Claus.

What I read <without going back> seemed to imply he was
talking about those in law classes at that time. It would be
insane to insinuate that no one ever "knew" Obama during
those years. There are certainly enough existing records to
know Obama was enrolled and received a degree. He could
not have gone forward had he not.

>> I see many of my friends on FB that have familiar names on
>> their lists... and I remember many of those names <from1975
>> and backwards> tho I don't remember who they were. I also
>> see high school friends on FB who post some old pics - and
>> I remember many of those faces tho I don't know their names.
>> The point is --> I remember many names... I remember many
>> faces of people from over 35 years ago that I wasn't personally
>> friendly with. YMMV
>
> Personal anecdote. Root did this as well: "I don't know a single
> person at Columbia that knows him.."
>
> Proves nothing.

There's nothing to be proven. You can't prove an unknown.
The man gave his opinion. When someone does that we
take what we know about the said opinion giver and we
give it merit or we blow it off. The guy seems anything
other than a 'loon'. His credentials are valid on their own.
He ain't claiming he snorted coke with, and gave Barrack
blowjobs. If having the opinion BHO is hiding something
on his records makes Root a loon --> what the fuck must
you think when comparing that to a Kennedy killing
his mistress? One is an opinion and the other an action.
How you must hate hundreds of politicians for their
simple views. You or TV have neither one had shit to
say about this guy other than he thinks Obama likely
registered as a foreign student. Would you hold your
girlfriend, wife, brother, friends to such a standard?
No... you wouldn't.

>> You picked a single accomplishment from a fairly lengthy list.
>>
>> He is deeply involved in politics. A candidate, a columnist, a
>> tv show, and a long history with the libertarian party.
>>
>> He has an impressive school record from impressive schools.
>>
>> As a sports commentator he is in over 100 markets.
>>
>> Youngest anchormen and national TV hosts in America
>> Financial News Network (FNN), now known as CNBC.
>>
>> Several books as an author. And none of those biographies btw.
>>
>> As to your oddsmaker remark -- do you not think a guy that
>> is an oddsmaker, has written many books on gambling, doesn't
>> have a pretty deep perspective? doesn't have a very analytical
>> mind? doesn't understand mathematics?
>
> Explain to me how any of the above lends credence to his crackpot
> theories, por favor.

Explain why this guy is suddenly Satan incarnate for his
view BHO mighta lied on his college entry? Explain why
his entire life and career is to be put aside and discounted
over that 'thought'. Explain any other 'whackiness' in his
life or career. Tell me why he isn't entitled to express his
view if that is what he honestly thinks.

> I am endlessly amused by your constant comparisons of Obama's life
> experiences against the latest faux-experts enjoying their 15 minutes.
> You're propping this guy up because he's endorsing views that you
> *want* to believe are true. He's all over that foreign exchange
> student thing, just like you are.
>
> An April Fool's Day joke. It never gets old pointing that out.

I ain't propping up shit. If you and I had been talking on
the phone two weeks ago and you said "Wayne Root"... I'da
said "who?".

>> His 'opinion pieces' have ran on hundreds of shows. You're
>> cherry picking. Is Jon Stewart any less liberal because he
>> appears on O'Reilly?
>
> He has a longer affiliation with Beck than just this particular piece.
> They drink from the same trough and have done so for years.

I'll defer to your advanced knowlege of Mr. Root.
And why WOULDN'T a Beck or a Limbaugh want
him to come on and say it over and over? It's what
they do. Olbermann is free to start a new network
with his mega-millions and bring on Mahr all he wants.
I don't and won't watch either one.

>> Well fuck me... I looked <and fairly hard> for anything saying he
>> had backtracked on that statement. You want to put up a link
>> or something?
>
> It's not difficult to type in "Root Vegas Review Journal" and find the
> piece in question...
>
> http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/obama-s-agenda--overwhelm-the-system-95716764.html
>
> Mention of Obama being his college classmate not once but twice?
> Again, how can you be sure that he was there while claiming that no
> one knew him, remembers him, etc.? Something stinks in Denmark,
> alright.

WHAAAAAT? Are you being serious? He says Obama was a
classmate. Isn't that a given in here by now? He never said
he 'knew' Obama nor did he contradict anything he originally
claimed. I don't know of ONE SINGLE PERSON OR ENTITY
that says Obama didn't get his degree from Columbia.

My brother <and his wife> attended Evans High the
same years as Darryl Dawkins. They were classmates.
They didn't have to know each other to make that a
true statement. My wife attended university the
same years as Kenny Chesney... they were classmates.

> And the rest of the piece is a riot as well. He fellates Beck and
> endorses all of his theories. Want to tell me that I'm cherry picking
> again?
>
>> I have never seen anything but hate
>
> Overreaction. I have never expressed "hate". I have expressed,
> perhaps, bewilderment, exhaustion and plain old disgust at times.

You not only blast as hard or harder than I do, it's ingrained
moreso IMO. Your use of "teabaggers" and such tend to
relay a true anger. Your hard 'offense' of people that don't
matter - Root being a good example. You put more 'anger'
into a Wayne Root than I do in a Mahr or Chris Matthews.

> Also, amusing that you suggest hate on my part given your comments
> about Pelosi. Pot, meet kettle?

Certain people actually matter and must be held to
a higher 'standard'. I understand you giving Bush hell.
Reid and Pelosi are at the top of the political food chain.
And you can't seriously tell me you'd support either one.
At least I don't think so.

>> from you on ANYONE that said anything bad about Obama.
>
> There's a big difference between valid criticism and crackpot theories
> that have been debunked over and over and over again. Do you really
> feel I should view chain emails as a worthy source of info? Biased
> YouTube links? I am not obligated to be nice and treat every random
> thought about Obama, nor those who entertain them, with respect.
>
> And that's the problem. The right has gone full loon. Chased/drowned
> out their more reasonable elements. Now we should listen to Wayne
> Allen Root? Why?

As far as I'm aware there's no one listening to him. He'd still be
an unknown name to me if we hadn't veered into it.

And nothing has been 'debunked' regarding college records.
It's an unknown. Like Romneys previous tax records.
You must surely be able to say that Reid is also scum of
the earth for his pure speculation that Romney has
paid no taxes. Root is just an old classmate after all, while
Romney is being attacked by the most powerful man in
the senate... many would say one of the top five most
powerful/influential men in the world. Where is your
post about how aghast you are over these totally
unsubstantiated claims?

> I will listen to a guy like David Frum criticize Obama, because he's
> *reasonable*, even if I don't agree with him on a particular issue.
> And yet Frum-like guys have been ostracized from what passes for
> conservatism today. Ever ask yourself why that is?

I'm more likely to ask why I'm not burning DC and why
you aren't holding the match.

>> If they don't like Obama they're automatically fucking loons or
>> idiots or not worthy of their opinion. It never fails.
>
> Except it's never as simple as just "not liking" Obama, is it? Taking
> that position would have the distinction of being honest, if utterly
> devoid of a basis for debate, really. But no, he has to be portrayed
> as some outside entity who hates America and wants to destroy it.
> Kenyan/Marxist/Gonna Take Yer Guns Away/Socialist/Muslim/Baby Killer.
> He's "not one of us".

I do not judge Obama on most of his personal traits.
Pretty sure I've stated he's probably a good father,
husband, provider. We can certainly keep those two
issues seperate. And he doesn't hate America... he is
simply taking it in the wrong direction.

> Here's some honesty from Root:
>
> "I say the whole problem with America is we are racist against people
> because of the color of their skin. We're helping people because
> they're black. We're helping people because they're minority. We're
> helping people because they're poor.

This is happening every day. It is "A" problem... not "THE"
problem. But it's a HUGE problem. Financially speaking.

> And so my answer is, has America really been unfair to minorities? No
> it hasn't. It was unfair to me. A white butcher's kid, whose father
> had no money, but nobody gave me a break. And do I have a chip on my
> shoulder? You're damn right I do. And I represent millions and
> millions of poor people in this country who weren't lucky enough to be
> poor and black, they were unlucky enough to be poor and white, and
> they can't get into Harvard.

An honest answer -- do you think it's true that millions
of poor white youth never got a 'break' from state or
national programs?

Is it true that less qualified blacks get 'preferred' status
in gov't programs?

This ain't shit to start a race debate -- I'm not here to
attack or defend affirmative action... just asking if
the two above statements are true or not.

> So maybe that country Barack's fighting
> for, he's got the wrong country here. He's been just fine in this
> country. The rest of us need someone to defend them...."

> Now you can go ahead and whine that I'm playing the race card again.
> But if you can't see the obvious in those words...you're beyond hope.

I see him saying something against BHO - he obviously doesn't
like the dem party <based on his being an active part in both
the GOP and libertarian party>. Are you saying flat out that he
is a racist and doesn't like Obama due to his skin color?

[Tattoo Vampire]

83LowRider wrote:

> You or TV have neither one had shit to
> say about this guy other than he thinks Obama likely
> registered as a foreign student.

I also said I think he's a fucking lunatic, the kind the right clutches to its
bosom these days. And if you can't see why I think that, you're a hopeless
case.

--
[tv]

If you can't dazzle them with brilliance...
baffle them with bullshit!

[AJ]

IMO, he's not "looney" enough. He has been too civil.

[Tattoo Vampire]

AJ wrote:

> IMO, he's not "looney" enough. He has been too civil.

Then show him how it's done, AJ, being the knowledgeable conservative pundit
that you are.

[Tattoo Vampire]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

> The burden of proof is on the accuser, and all this dope has is "gut
> instinct".
>
> Nuff said.

Being a columnist and an oddsmaker makes him a genius, I guess. At least the
right seems to think so.

[83LowRider]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:

>> You or TV have neither one had shit to
>> say about this guy other than he thinks Obama likely
>> registered as a foreign student.
>
> I also said I think he's a fucking lunatic, the kind the right
> clutches to its bosom these days. And if you can't see why I think
> that, you're a hopeless case.

Yet you've given no substance to back it up. WHY is
he a loon? Simply over his opinion of Obama and
his college records? I'm sure your wife and kid(s)
hold opinions that are contrary to your own. Are
they deviants and liars and loons because of that?

[FVH]

If the world ran off "gut instinct", Killer and his ever expanding gut
would be KING OF THE WORLD!

[AJ]

Where's an Oswald when you need one?

[AJ]

Worse. They're West Virginians. Just kidding TV.

[AJ]

If an anti Obama supporter said the sky is blue, you Dems would spend
weeks trying to discredit him. It's what you do, are known for, and
have done since this whole Root thing was mentioned.

[FVH]

Why don't you show us "liberals" what "real lunacy" is, Internet Tough
Guy? Show us how tough you are and start that civil war you so desire.
Show the NG how tough you are and how you should be feared by killing
your #1 "enemy"? Hell, just step foot in the state where your #1
"enemy" lives. Come on, show us how tough the Killer is!

[Tattoo Vampire]

AJ wrote:

> Worse. They're West Virginians. Just kidding TV.

Could be worse, we could live in Richlands or Cedar Bluff...

[Tattoo Vampire]

AJ wrote:

> Where's an Oswald when you need one?

Oswald was the patsy, remember? :-D

[Tattoo Vampire]

AJ wrote:

> If an anti Obama supporter said the sky is blue, you Dems would spend
> weeks trying to discredit him. It's what you do, are known for, and
> have done since this whole Root thing was mentioned.

For the 40th time, I'm not a Democrat. Anyhow:

[83LowRider]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:

> Being a columnist and an oddsmaker makes him a genius, I guess.

His general background says that he is a success. I don't know that
the term 'genius' was ever used or implied.

His schooling and accomplishments drawfs everyone in this
froup - and that's all of us put together. He attended the
same scholastic program as Obama... you wanna bust on
his schooling or him being a hs valedictorian?

It just fucking blows my mind that a bartender and
a realtor can cut this guy to bits over absolutely
nothing more than an opinion he has. His business
success speaks for itself, be it his being an author
or columnist or tv host.

> At least the right seems to think so.

You certainly don't speak for the 'right'. And the
'right' doesn't give a damn about Wayne Root or
what he thinks/says. If that was the case I'da known
his name and story. I read for hours... every single
day ---> there is no "story" other than a blurb here
and there. Unlike Romney and his taxes, which are
posted on webpages every single day. It amazes me
that y'all can be so critical over a nobody and then
overlook the trainwreck that is Obama and Co. daily.
If you held the left to the same standards your heads
would explode.

[Tattoo Vampire]

83LowRider wrote:

> It just fucking blows my mind that a bartender and
> a realtor can cut this guy to bits over absolutely
> nothing more than an opinion he has.

I'm not a REALTOR, either. (it's always in all caps, btw)

[83LowRider]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:

>> It just fucking blows my mind that a bartender and
>> a realtor can cut this guy to bits over absolutely
>> nothing more than an opinion he has.
>
> I'm not a REALTOR, either. (it's always in all caps, btw)

Fine... as far as I am <or was> aware, you're in the real
estate business.

And you've yet again avoided what you think makes
Root a 'loon' other than his opinion on the president.

[Tattoo Vampire]

83LowRider wrote:

> And you've yet again avoided what you think makes
> Root a 'loon' other than his opinion on the president.

Ok. Because I think his opinions are loony. Good enough for you?

[83LowRider]

Tattoo Vampire wrote:

>> And you've yet again avoided what you think makes
>> Root a 'loon' other than his opinion on the president.
>
> Ok. Because I think his opinions are loony. Good enough for you?

Nope, but it's apparently good enough for you.

I suppose it's all in what or how we define a 'loon'.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 18, 6:05 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> His 'feeling' that Obama is hiding something makes him a loon?
> Really? That's all it takes?

Being affiliated with birthers is all it takes. And a glance at this
guy's history of supporting Beck theories? Yes, I feel quite safe
stating that this guy is a loon.

> There's nothing to be proven. You can't prove an unknown.
> The man gave his opinion. When someone does that we
> take what we know about the said opinion giver and we
> give it merit or we blow it off.

And that's exactly what I've done. You seem to be offended by the
dismissal TV and I have given this guy, and are now on some kind of
"hate" meme. Deeming someone a loon now = hate? Really? Where are you
when others in here post misogynistic stuff about lefty women, or
homophobic stuff about gays? Is that not hate in your eyes, or are you
just cherry-picking stuff because it's me?

> The guy seems anything
> other than a 'loon'. His credentials are valid on their own.

Having "credentials" does not shield one from being a loon. Michelle
Bachmann is a prime example of this.

> He ain't claiming he snorted coke with, and gave Barrack
> blowjobs. If having the opinion BHO is hiding something
> on his records makes Root a loon --> what the fuck must
> you think when comparing that to a Kennedy killing
> his mistress? One is an opinion and the other an action.
> How you must hate hundreds of politicians for their
> simple views. You or TV have neither one had shit to
> say about this guy other than he thinks Obama likely
> registered as a foreign student.

You're cherry-picking one recent "thought" this guy has had. Again,
look at his history. He is not new to the scene. Anyone who, 4 years
later, is still buying into these birther theories qualifies as a loon
in my judgement. They were loons much earlier than that, really, but 4
years on?

> > Explain to me how any of the above lends credence to his crackpot
> > theories, por favor.

So you're going to dance around this question? Very well.

> Explain why this guy is suddenly Satan incarnate for his
> view BHO mighta lied on his college entry?

Honestly, you're being a bit of a drama queen about this. Satan
incarnate? Whoever said such a thing?

> Explain why
> his entire life and career is to be put aside and discounted
> over that 'thought'.

I fail to see how is background lends any credence to his theories.
You refuse to elaborate on why you think they do. You dismiss Jon
Stewart as a source of information, yet are convinced an oddsmaker is
right in deeming Obama a Marxist looking to destroy capitalism? Makes
no sense.

> Explain any other 'whackiness' in his life or career.

I already have. Again, he's not new to the birther scene. And wile he
may not claim to be a part of the specific birth certificate insanity,
he still embraces other birther-related theories.

> Tell me why he isn't entitled to express his
> view if that is what he honestly thinks.

Oh, for fuck's sake. Who said he isn't entitled to express his
opinions? Well, as long as we're creating straw men: tell me why his
opinions shouldn't be mocked when all he has to offer up as evidence/
proof is "gut instinct"?

> I ain't propping up shit. If you and I had been talking on
> the phone two weeks ago and you said "Wayne Root"... I'da
> said "who?".

And yet here you are, claiming that I "hate" him because I think he's
a dope and a loon, making up arguments that I think he shouldn't be
allowed to express his opinion...are you just inclined to defend
anyone I mock now?

> I'll defer to your advanced knowlege of Mr. Root.

Funny, coming from someone who's been making a spirited defense of a
guy he didn't know about two weeks ago.

> And why WOULDN'T a Beck or a Limbaugh want
> him to come on and say it over and over?It's what
> they do.

I didn't say they wouldn't. But it's telling that they do. Lie down
with dogs, get up with fleas.

> Olbermann is free to start a new network
> with his mega-millions and bring on Mahr all he wants.
> I don't and won't watch either one.

Like Olbermann or not, he does not peddle the same disinformation/
lunacy that a Beck or a Limbaugh does. False equivalence.

> WHAAAAAT? Are you being serious? He says Obama was a
> classmate. Isn't that a given in here by now? He never said
> he 'knew' Obama nor did he contradict anything he originally
> claimed. I don't know of ONE SINGLE PERSON OR ENTITY
> that says Obama didn't get his degree from Columbia.
>
> My brother <and his wife> attended Evans High the
> same years as Darryl Dawkins. They were classmates.
> They didn't have to know each other to make that a
> true statement. My wife attended university the
> same years as Kenny Chesney... they were classmates.

Root is peddling this idea that because HE didn't remember Obama/see/
know/whatever Obama, it's ample evidence to support birther theories.

Let me know when your brother and/or your wife decide to cast doubt on
Dawkins and Chesney and their time at school. It appears they have
just as much "evidence" as Root does.

> You not only blast as hard or harder than I do, it's ingrained
> moreso IMO. Your use of "teabaggers" and such tend to
> relay a true anger.

No. I think you're just offended that I use the term Teabaggers, and
it doesn't matter if I mean it in a humorous way or not. You did post
a rant in here about how I was "demeaning" them, after all. That
struck me as you having some kind of investment in them, and thus
bothered that I dared to make fun. To this day, you refuse to
acknowledge the racist/xenophobic/hypocritical elements that exist
within the whole of that group.

I do not think you have a clear enough perspective on the Teabaggers
to be passing judgement on me and my opinions of them.

> Your hard 'offense' of people that don't
> matter - Root being a good example. You put more 'anger'
> into a Wayne Root than I do in a Mahr or Chris Matthews.

Well, that's your take on it. It's not my problem that you easily take
offense to my mockery. And Maher is a comedian first and foremost, so
I don't know why anyone would be "angry" over anything he says. The
only comedian I can think of that is worthy of "anger" would be Dane
Cook...and that's only because he simply not funny. I mean, seriously.
There are no jokes.

I've seen many of the replies you make towards Steve. Are you going to
tell me that, using your criteria, one shouldn't see "anger" in your
attitude towards him? How about FVH? Hidell? If one were to check out
posts you make in other groups, would you come off as the model of
civility, never succumbing to name calling and such?

> Certain people actually matter and must be held to
> a higher 'standard'. I understand you giving Bush hell.
> Reid and Pelosi are at the top of the political food chain.

So "hatred" is fine as long as it's aimed at the big dogs? Whatever
works for you, but I'll continue to mock whoever and whatever I see
fit. A guy like Root may be a minor player in the bigger picture, but
is no less worthy of derision if he takes a ridiculous position.

> And you can't seriously tell me you'd support either one.
> At least I don't think so.

I've never been a Reid fan, and while I respect some of the things
Pelosi has accomplished, I've never been a personal fan of hers
either. There aren't many politicians I *would* call myself a fan of.

Were I to hate anyone, it would be the Wall Street/banker crooks who
truly fucked the country. I don't understand how anyone wouldn't feel
the same way. Root is someone who should be mocked, dismissed, and
promptly forgotten about. The WS/banker fucks? Bring on the
guillotines.

> As far as I'm aware there's no one listening to him. He'd still be
> an unknown name to me if we hadn't veered into it.

Well, Professor Johnson appears to be listening. Given how many
dummies like him exist, I have little doubt the audience is larger
than you think. Beck may not be a Faux regular anymore, but he, sadly,
still commands an army of morons. No doubt that Root has that army's
attention.

> And nothing has been 'debunked' regarding college records.

*sigh* The "sealed" meme most certainly has.

> You must surely be able to say that Reid is also scum of
> the earth for his pure speculation that Romney has
> paid no taxes. Root is just an old classmate after all, while
> Romney is being attacked by the most powerful man in
> the senate... many would say one of the top five most
> powerful/influential men in the world.

"Tell me why he isn't entitled to express his view if that is what he
honestly thinks."

> Where is your
> post about how aghast you are over these totally
> unsubstantiated claims?

One key difference: the tax records are relevant. There is a
precedence for their release. Not true re: Obama's grades and such.

That aside, I have routinely expressed my dislike and disdain of Reid
for years. Do I need to be redundant and post the same stance over and
over? If Reid has proof of his allegations, he should toss it out
there. I don't know what else to say. If someone had made a thread
about it, that's about all I would have said. I pay no attention to
the man. White noise.

On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Root has never been brought up in
here until now. So, cool, a new target for me to "hate".

> I'm more likely to ask why I'm not burning DC and why
> you aren't holding the match.

Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a position I favor.

> I do not judge Obama on most of his personal traits.
> Pretty sure I've stated he's probably a good father,
> husband, provider. We can certainly keep those two
> issues seperate. And he doesn't hate America... he is
> simply taking it in the wrong direction.

And do you think that the "they" mentioned before have as benevolent a
view?

> This is happening every day. It is "A" problem... not "THE"
> problem. But it's a HUGE problem. Financially speaking.

So...you would agree that we're racist for helping the poor?

> > And so my answer is, has America really been unfair to minorities? No
> > it hasn't. It was unfair to me. A white butcher's kid, whose father
> > had no money, but nobody gave me a break. And do I have a chip on my
> > shoulder? You're damn right I do. And I represent millions and
> > millions of poor people in this country who weren't lucky enough to be
> > poor and black, they were unlucky enough to be poor and white, and
> > they can't get into Harvard.
>
> An honest answer -- do you think it's true that millions
> of poor white youth never got a 'break' from state or
> national programs?
>
> Is it true that less qualified blacks get 'preferred' status
> in gov't programs?
>
> This ain't shit to start a race debate -- I'm not here to
> attack or defend affirmative action... just asking if
> the two above statements are true or not.

Asking the questions without diving deeper into them is a cowardly
approach. Did blacks get help in their status in addition to being
seen as equals? Have whites not had advantages over the years that
minorities haven't?

It's a perversion to suggest that programs designed to help level the
playing field are somehow "racist" against those that already had the
advantages. Root has apparently done OK for himself despite not
getting "preferred" status. Why carry a chip on his shoulder? Why is
he not angry about Bush getting into Yale -- was that not affirmative
action?

> I see him saying something against BHO - he obviously doesn't
> like the dem party <based on his being an active part in both
> the GOP and libertarian party>. Are you saying flat out that he
> is a racist and doesn't like Obama due to his skin color?

I think his words speak for themselves. Chip on the shoulder? Bitching
about how minorities get all the breaks while conveniently overlooking
the George W. Bush's of the country? Are you suggesting there's no
racism in there at all?

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 18, 12:49 pm, Tattoo Vampire <sitt...@this.computer> wrote:

> Being critical of Obama for the most ridiculous of reasons makes him a genius, I guess. At least the

> right seems to think so.

Fixed!

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 18, 3:39 pm, FVH <jarjo...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If the world ran off "gut instinct", Killer and his ever expanding gut
> would be KING OF THE WORLD!

Given how fat he is, I'm pretty sure all he *does* is run on gut
instinct.

Well, not run. Waddle.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 18, 4:42 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> It just fucking blows my mind that a bartender and
> a realtor can cut this guy to bits over absolutely
> nothing more than an opinion he has.

But it's perfectly fine for a guy who cuts grass to rip on others who,
by his own standards, have achieved more in their lives than he ever
will?

Your borderline obsession with what others do for a living, and your
subsequent attempts to equate wisdom and intelligence which those
choices, is hilarious. You didn't know who this guy was two weeks ago,
yet here you are fellating him and suggesting that we should revere
his opinion on Obama because...he went to Harvard? He writes columns?

Absolutely hilarious.

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

>> It just fucking blows my mind that a bartender and
>> a realtor can cut this guy to bits over absolutely
>> nothing more than an opinion he has.
>
> But it's perfectly fine for a guy who cuts grass to rip on others who,
> by his own standards, have achieved more in their lives than he ever
> will?

It was plainly stated that Root had accomplished more than all
of us together. That certainly included myself. I am not a braggart
by any means.

> Your borderline obsession with what others do for a living, and your
> subsequent attempts to equate wisdom and intelligence which those
> choices, is hilarious.

Everything brought up seems to bring the same response from
you -- 'borderline obsession'. Yet I don't start any of these threads.

> You didn't know who this guy was two weeks ago,

True. When I say he is 'accomplished' it is strictly from
reading his bio(s). That isn't to say he has common sense,
knows how to fix a leaky faucet or that he is a good man
to his wife and kids.

> yet here you are fellating him

Really? Because I said he has the right to his opinion?
Reach much?

> and suggesting that we should revere
> his opinion on Obama because...he went to
> Harvard? He writes columns?
>
> Absolutely hilarious.

I wouldn't dare put my education or success up
against his. You want to compare yours?

I'll tell ya what. When you get a show on tv, when you
get a publisher to say you're good enough to put out
4 or 5 books, when you show your Columbia and
Harvard degrees, when you make a run for president -
I'll give you the same kudos.

[FVH]

Typical Internet Tough Guy--talks a big game, but when it comes time
to do the dirty work he wants others to do it. If you're such a
badass, why don't YOU show us "liberals" how tough you are? Fucking
pussy.

[FVH]

When a HOOD RAT's irrational rants are SHOT DOWN, he resorts to the
"liberals" card. You're clearly mad because your ranting falls on deaf
ears. You want so badly to be taken serious, but you don't have the
smarts or facts for it. It bothers you that your "enemies" are able to
present solid proof discrediting your whack job beliefs. Fat face it--
we're smarter than you'll ever be.

[FVH]

LOL! Killer is doing exactly what I was hoping he would do--get
nervous and frustrated that Obama is going to get a 2nd term, so he's
runs to his fantasy bubble. So much fear in that fat kid's body.

[FVH]

It all boils down to these HOOD RATS hating themselves and what
they've become, so they lash out on those that are happy with life.
They have to compete with their "enemies" to make their lives seem
worthy.

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

> Being affiliated with birthers is all it takes. And a glance at this
> guy's history of supporting Beck theories? Yes, I feel quite safe
> stating that this guy is a loon.

Has Root ever stated that Obama wasn't born here?
That is a pretty relevant fact if you're gonna label
him a birther.

> And that's exactly what I've done. You seem to be offended by the
> dismissal TV and I have given this guy, and are now on some kind of
> "hate" meme. Deeming someone a loon now = hate? Really? Where are you
> when others in here post misogynistic stuff about lefty women, or
> homophobic stuff about gays? Is that not hate in your eyes, or are you
> just cherry-picking stuff because it's me?

I'm just carrying on the conversation and not
offended at all. I'm simply trying to find some
rationale behind it. Root is about as insignificant
as you can get in the politial world.

> Having "credentials" does not shield one from being a loon. Michelle
> Bachmann is a prime example of this.

You're correct - there are plenty of loons that got an
education along the way. Colleges around the country
turn out idiots every year. In the case of MB tho - I bet
you could churn out a full list of stuff that annoys you.
The one single thing I've seen you and/or TV post is that
Root is a loon because he thinks Obama fudged his
school application.

And the word 'credentials' is tricky. Bachmann may <or not, I
don't know> have been an excellent accountant or lawyer
or whatever. It IS possible to be great at your job and
be labeled a loon for your views.

> You're cherry-picking one recent "thought" this guy has had. Again,
> look at his history. He is not new to the scene. Anyone who, 4 years
> later, is still buying into these birther theories qualifies as a loon
> in my judgement. They were loons much earlier than that, really, but 4
> years on?

I'm not cherry picking a damn thing. I didn't start the
college records thread nor the Root thread we're in now.
You want to lump him with birthers when <as far as I
know> he's never said Obama wasn't a citizen.

>>> Explain to me how any of the above lends credence to his crackpot
>>> theories, por favor.
>
> So you're going to dance around this question? Very well.

What was your *unanswered* question?

>> Explain why this guy is suddenly Satan incarnate for his
>> view BHO mighta lied on his college entry?
>
> Honestly, you're being a bit of a drama queen about this. Satan
> incarnate? Whoever said such a thing?

To read thru the shitload of posts created you'd
think he had raped babies and is a raving lunatic.
Or maybe your time away just put yer fingers into
a fury? I never asked for anything more than details
of why the guy is so disliked over a single opinion.
If he has/had made some specific rant I'da liked to
have seen it.

>> Explain why
>> his entire life and career is to be put aside and discounted
>> over that 'thought'.
>
> I fail to see how is background lends any credence to his theories.

-----------

All right... we'll try again. Anyone involved in professional
gambling tends to be a person of great perspective, weighing
the odds, reading people, playing hunches, etc.

Anyone getting numerous book deals is seen <by the publishers
anyway> as one with talent or logic or value. And I'm not talking
about Twilight or any other fictional bullshit, but rather
being a selling author of tutorials on strategy. Garry Kasparov
writes a tutorial --> it has merit.

Anyone graduating valedictorian, anyone attending Columbia
or Harvard is considered an educated man. I've heard it here
many times --> how 'smart' Obama is to have been a law student
in the Ivy Leagues.

He has a lifelong history involving politics.

Every single thing we do <of any importance> in life
reflects on what and who we are. You put Barrack
fucking Obama on a pedestal for his time in the Ivy
League and work as a community organizer and
blow this guy off because he holds an opinion. You've
blown off Rev. Wright, Ayers, Alinsky, Rezko, ACORN
and the entire Chicago ring of crooks associated with
Obama -- but Root is a loon because he sat with Beck.
Unreal.

> You refuse to elaborate on why you think they do. You dismiss Jon
> Stewart as a source of information, yet are convinced an oddsmaker is
> right in deeming Obama a Marxist looking to destroy capitalism? Makes
> no sense.

Stewart has nothing to do with this as far as I can recall.
Stewart has information and he has comedy. I do not
discredit his facts. Likewise, I take the opinion of Root
as just that - an opinion.

>> Explain any other 'whackiness' in his life or career.
>
> I already have. Again, he's not new to the birther scene. And wile he
> may not claim to be a part of the specific birth certificate insanity,
> he still embraces other birther-related theories.

Fudged college records aside -
What has the man said other than he thinks Obama is taking us
in the wrong direction? Millions think the same.

> Oh, for fuck's sake. Who said he isn't entitled to express his
> opinions? Well, as long as we're creating straw men: tell me why his
> opinions shouldn't be mocked when all he has to offer up as evidence/
> proof is "gut instinct"?

He's entitled to his as you are to yours. The thing is tho -
that when we evaluate the opinion of others we can
only do so based on what we know about the subjects.

I looked at his bio and didn't see a man seeking notoriety,
saw no financial fortune to be gained in his making
this simple statement. The fact he is and always has
been an active libertarian/former GOP'er means there
is no surpise that he dislikes the Obama policies or
would show up on Beck. Guess it doesn't take much to
earn the kOOk label nowadays.

> And yet here you are, claiming that I "hate" him because I think he's
> a dope and a loon, making up arguments that I think he shouldn't be
> allowed to express his opinion...are you just inclined to defend
> anyone I mock now?

We've spoken of the word 'hate' in here before I believe.
I don't think you literally hate the man. Let's just say
I'm trying to understand the "exteme harshness" of it.

>> I'll defer to your advanced knowlege of Mr. Root.
>
> Funny, coming from someone who's been making a spirited defense of a
> guy he didn't know about two weeks ago.

If he was captured by 5 jihadis tomorrow and beheaded
I wouldn't lose a wink. I don't care about Root, I'm here
to argue 'points' with you or TV or anyone else caring to
join in.

>> And why WOULDN'T a Beck or a Limbaugh want
>> him to come on and say it over and over?It's what
>> they do.
>
> I didn't say they wouldn't. But it's telling that they do. Lie down
> with dogs, get up with fleas.

Ayers, Alinksky, Wright, Rezko --

and Romney is a villain because of his
successful business and rich daddy...
nuff said.

>> Olbermann is free to start a new network
>> with his mega-millions and bring on Mahr all he wants.
>> I don't and won't watch either one.
>
> Like Olbermann or not, he does not peddle the same disinformation/
> lunacy that a Beck or a Limbaugh does. False equivalence.

Doesn't matter... don't watch any of them and therefore don't
look to any of them for opinion or guidance.

> Root is peddling this idea that because HE didn't remember Obama/see/
> know/whatever Obama, it's ample evidence to support birther theories.

That is not the case. That would have far less credence.

The fact is -->

"And I thought I knew most everyone at Columbia.
I certainly thought I�d heard of all of my fellow
Political Science majors. But not Obama (or as he
was known then- Barry Soetoro). I never met him.
Never saw him. Never even heard of him. And none
of the classmates that I knew at Columbia have
ever met him, saw him, or heard of him.

But don�t take my word for it. The Wall Street
Journal reported in 2008 that Fox News randomly
called 400 of our Columbia classmates and never
found one who had ever met Obama."

Unless he is flat out lying in the above statement
(about both his querying his classmates and the
Fox poll) it is entirely different than one mans claim.

> Let me know when your brother and/or your wife decide to cast doubt on
> Dawkins and Chesney and their time at school. It appears they have
> just as much "evidence" as Root does.

Did Root say he had any evidence of anything or did he give
an opinion? My wife and brother are certainly free to give
an opinion on Dawkins or Chesney. Regardless of whether
they knew them at the time or not.

>> You not only blast as hard or harder than I do, it's ingrained
>> moreso IMO. Your use of "teabaggers" and such tend to
>> relay a true anger.
>
> No. I think you're just offended that I use the term Teabaggers, and
> it doesn't matter if I mean it in a humorous way or not. You did post
> a rant in here about how I was "demeaning" them, after all. That
> struck me as you having some kind of investment in them, and thus
> bothered that I dared to make fun. To this day, you refuse to
> acknowledge the racist/xenophobic/hypocritical elements that exist
> within the whole of that group.

I do not follow the TP nor any of their 'reps' in any way, shape
or form. I pick up on things... always have. I look at everything
I see whether in person or reading a wiki article. Musta been all
those Sherlock Holmes books I suppose. Do you not size people
up on what you notice about them? You do here...

When someone <not just you> posts on usenet and constantly
uses "teabaggers'' and the myriad of other derogatory terms, it
tells ME something. If I came here using "nigger" and "spic" it
would likewise do the same. You're basically calling those on
the right "niggers''.

> I do not think you have a clear enough perspective on the Teabaggers
> to be passing judgement on me and my opinions of them.

No passing judgement on you here. You <and TV> are
probably nice enough guys. Giving an opinion is not
necessarily passing judgement. FVH is a dumbass and
steve is an idiot. Now -- THAT'S judgement.

>> Your hard 'offense' of people that don't
>> matter - Root being a good example. You put more 'anger'
>> into a Wayne Root than I do in a Mahr or Chris Matthews.
>
> Well, that's your take on it. It's not my problem that you easily take
> offense to my mockery.

No offense taken. My replies are simply to counter your
views/arguements. I've always remained civil with you
or TV because you've not stepped over the line. Same
with sliced until about every other post when he just
loses it.

> And Maher is a comedian first and foremost,

Just as Stewart is. And very little difference than an
O'Reilly or a Hannity. They commentate.. they're not
journalists. Stewart and Mahr do the same, just
with a twit of comedy. And like O'R or Hannity, both
Stewart and Mahr want to be taken seriously... comedic
background or not.

> so I don't know why anyone would be "angry"
> over anything he says.

Because idiocy annoys me. "Angry" doesn't apply.
And in the case of Mahr, he's rarely funny.

> The only comedian I can think of that is worthy of
> "anger" would be Dane Cook...and that's only because he simply
> not funny. I mean, seriously. There are no jokes.

Agreed.

> I've seen many of the replies you make towards Steve. Are you going to
> tell me that, using your criteria, one shouldn't see "anger" in your
> attitude towards him? How about FVH? Hidell? If one were to check out
> posts you make in other groups, would you come off as the model of
> civility, never succumbing to name calling and such?

I don't see FVH because I simply got tired of wading thru
his endless stupid posts. Nothing of content. Little stevie?
he's no more than sport - dumb as a rock. Sliced gets a
civil reply from me every time he gives one. That is rare.

> So "hatred" is fine as long as it's aimed at the big dogs? Whatever
> works for you, but I'll continue to mock whoever and whatever I see
> fit. A guy like Root may be a minor player in the bigger picture, but
> is no less worthy of derision if he takes a ridiculous position.

Again with 'hatred'. No hate here -- but a total dislike. As
much dislike as you can get probably. But hate? no. I
don't actually hate Reid or Pelosi. Can I say I despise them?

>> And you can't seriously tell me you'd support either one.
>> At least I don't think so.
>
> I've never been a Reid fan, and while I respect some of the things
> Pelosi has accomplished, I've never been a personal fan of hers
> either. There aren't many politicians I *would* call myself a fan of.

So even someone who leans very liberal agrees that both of
them are lousy people? Baby steps... maybe you'll come around.

> Were I to hate anyone, it would be the Wall Street/banker crooks who
> truly fucked the country. I don't understand how anyone wouldn't feel
> the same way. Root is someone who should be mocked, dismissed, and
> promptly forgotten about. The WS/banker fucks? Bring on the
> guillotines.

In all these years I've still never seen or talked with one person
that sympathizes with WS. WS is bailed out because that's where
the money is. They will be bailed out by the left and the right.

>> And nothing has been 'debunked' regarding college records.
>
> *sigh* The "sealed" meme most certainly has.

It's like the 'voluntarily surrendered' debate -- it's wording.
If I ever <and I don't think I have> used the word "sealed",
then let me change that to "unreleased''.

>> You must surely be able to say that Reid is also scum of
>> the earth for his pure speculation that Romney has
>> paid no taxes. Root is just an old classmate after all, while
>> Romney is being attacked by the most powerful man in
>> the senate... many would say one of the top five most
>> powerful/influential men in the world.
>
> "Tell me why he isn't entitled to express his view if that is what he
> honestly thinks."

Very different circumstances. Root <a citizen> gave an
opinion of his own. Reid <biggest man in the senate> didn't
give an opinion, he stated that he was 'told'. VERY different.
Reid made a direct accusation for the singular reason that
the media would pick it up. It was strategy, planned. He
took to the tv stage and looked in the camera and accused
Romney. VERY different.

>> Where is your
>> post about how aghast you are over these totally
>> unsubstantiated claims?
>
> One key difference: the tax records are relevant.

No they most certainly are not. No more or less than
the college records. No law, no attorney, no enforcement
agency of any type is saying there are improprieties or
anything 'shady' about the records of either man.
Barrack has broken many 'traditions' since being in
the WH... Romney likewise - has no obligation
whatsoever to turn over more years than he desires.

> There is a
> precedence for their release. Not true re: Obama's grades and such.

Again, a voluntary action and Romney turned over two years
worth. It is not up to you or I or Reid to say what is 'good enough'.

> That aside, I have routinely expressed my dislike and disdain of Reid
> for years. Do I need to be redundant and post the same stance over and
> over? If Reid has proof of his allegations, he should toss it out
> there. I don't know what else to say.

There isn't anything else to say. I brought it up AGAIN
<knowing yer not a HR fan> because it shows the irony.
You've been 'back' a day or three and we've been back and
forth. It takes 'two' to do that. As much as you've gone on
about an unknown Root, I like to point out the irony of
the head of the senate doing even worse. Reid is either
lying or he should have been ready to prove it. Reid is
a 'somebody'.... Root is a nobody. That's why the tax records
are still hot in the headlines.

> If someone had made a thread about it, that's about all I would
> have said. I pay no attention to the man. White noise.

> On the other hand, I'm pretty sure Root has never been brought up in
> here until now. So, cool, a new target for me to "hate".

I presume at this point you're at least using an MS Word
document to help keep track.

<smiley>

>> I'm more likely to ask why I'm not burning DC and why
>> you aren't holding the match.
>
> Throwing the baby out with the bathwater is not a position I favor.

My position is that neither party is going to 'fix'
our problems before we implode. And if the
shit actually hits the fan, we'll wished we HAD
done something. Too late by then tho.

>> I do not judge Obama on most of his personal traits.
>> Pretty sure I've stated he's probably a good father,
>> husband, provider. We can certainly keep those two
>> issues seperate. And he doesn't hate America... he is
>> simply taking it in the wrong direction.
>
> And do you think that the "they" mentioned before have as benevolent a
> view?

As much press as politics gets -- the public doesn't
really care about shit as long as they are fairly content
on a personal level. The general view of Obama
started at record highs. The US (about 70% I think)
gave him a very favorable rating. As more people
lose a house or a job it only makes sense that he would
come under harsher attack. The great Change and Hope
didn't materialize as people expected. As a result the
tempers tend to flare. A natural reaction. Same as with
any other prez -- Bush got re-elected then went thru
his various quagmires and became more and more
reviled by many.

>> This is happening every day. It is "A" problem... not "THE"
>> problem. But it's a HUGE problem. Financially speaking.
>
> So...you would agree that we're racist for helping the poor?

Not sure what you're asking.

>> An honest answer -- do you think it's true that millions
>> of poor white youth never got a 'break' from state or
>> national programs?
>>
>> Is it true that less qualified blacks get 'preferred' status
>> in gov't programs?
>>
>> This ain't shit to start a race debate -- I'm not here to
>> attack or defend affirmative action... just asking if
>> the two above statements are true or not.
>
> Asking the questions without diving deeper into them is a cowardly
> approach.

Not at all. It's straight up questions. Of course there will
be variables or what-ifs. You don't answer but we both
know why, or rather what the answers will be. Blacks
(as he stated) DO get preferred treatment in many programs
from promotions to scholastics. In actual numbers
comparisons there are far more poor whites that are NOT
eligible for those same programs. That's fact.

> Did blacks get help in their status in addition to being
> seen as equals? Have whites not had advantages over the years that
> minorities haven't?

Absolutely whites had advantages. But not that you've
ever seen in your lifetime (based on me guess-timating
your age). Does discrimination against blacks still exist?
Absolutely again. Does giving a less qualified black man
or a woman a promotion at work or a scholorship at
school make up for any of that? We cannot undo history.

> It's a perversion to suggest that programs designed to help level the
> playing field are somehow "racist" against those that already had the
> advantages.

Gov't has no business in picking and choosing who should
get special consideration. Nothing but merit should apply.
You cannot expect that a gov't that cannot successfully
deliver your mail can somehow make right all the wrongs
of slavery and oppression. If that was the case the north
should be making reparations for retarding the growth of
the south for decades.

If you don't earn it from your efforts today, you
don't deserve it due to past circumstances.

> Root has apparently done OK for himself despite not
> getting "preferred" status. Why carry a chip on his shoulder? Why is
> he not angry about Bush getting into Yale -- was that not affirmative
> action?

Money and power buying influence is just as wrong.

> I think his words speak for themselves. Chip on the shoulder? Bitching
> about how minorities get all the breaks while conveniently overlooking
> the George W. Bush's of the country? Are you suggesting there's no
> racism in there at all?

You didn't answer my question. Do you think the man
is a racist given his statement?

SHOULD he have a chip on his shoulder? No... it comes
off as bragging more than anything. "Look at how well
I've done on my own." But how do we know he wasn't
asked a question and gave an answer? What I'm asking
is ---> is he making that statement as an agenda and
repeating it? or was it a one-and-done thing? If this was
a one time statement it can be easily written off as a
flippant reply. If it's his 'agenda' then it does make him
look petty.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 18, 8:43 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> It was plainly stated that Root had accomplished more than all
> of us together. That certainly included myself. I am not a braggart
> by any means.

> Everything brought up seems to bring the same response from
> you -- 'borderline obsession'. Yet I don't start any of these threads.

I don't recall harping on "borderline obsessions". I can't remember
the last time I typed those words in here, if I ever even have at all.
Care to enlighten me?

In so many of your responses, you continually point out a person's job
or education as reasons why their opinion should be revered. I don't
agree with this view at all.

> Really? Because I said he has the right to his opinion?
> Reach much?

No. Because you're intent on claiming this guy is not a loon based
purely upon the college he attended and how he makes a buck.

I guess this is one huge difference between you and I. You appear to
think that where one has gone to school, the grades they got, jobs
they've had, etc. gives weight to even the most ridiculous of
opinions. I choose to look at what is actually said/what position is
taken and make my determination from there.

And again, no one said he doesn't have a right to his opinion. But
when you throw your opinion out there, you better be prepared to have
it ripped to shreds if it's an ignorant one.

> I wouldn't dare put my education or success up
> against his. You want to compare yours?

I believe you once agreed with me that college education is often
overrated. Perhaps you've since changed your mind. I haven't. A degree
from a Harvard, a Yale, etc. may look impressive on the surface, but
if the holder embraces stupid positions and thoughts, I'm not going to
give them a pass just because they went to an Ivy League school.

And who or what determines success, exactly? Are you unhappy with your
life right now? If not, I'd say you're successful.

> I'll tell ya what. When you get a show on tv, when you
> get a publisher to say you're good enough to put out
> 4 or 5 books, when you show your Columbia and
> Harvard degrees, when you make a run for president -
> I'll give you the same kudos.

How does any of that give weight to birther-related positions or other
similar nonsense? Bristol Palin has a book out and is on TV. Wow,
she's "accomplished" more than I have. Glenn Beck is on the radio.
Wow, he's "accomplished" more than I have. George W. Bush went to Yale
and Harvard. Wow, he's "accomplished" more than I have. Merlin Miller
as made a run for the presidency. Wow, he's "accomplished" more than I
have. Bill Kristol is a part of think tanks. Wow, he's "accomplished"
more than I have.

At least, by your standards.

Yet when you take a closer look at each of those people, the surface
"credentials" don't add up to much at all. Where you see
accomplishment, I see a teen who's done nothing more than get knocked
up and now thrives off of her mother's 15 minutes, an alcoholic shock
jock pandering to the frightened/paranoid/xenophobic elements of the
country, a privileged blue blood who was a failure until Daddy got him
into politics, after which he fucked the country over, a racist
filmmaker with no political acumen whatsoever, and a guy who, despite
graduating magna cum laude from Harvard, offers incredibly inaccurate
predictions, horrible advice, and is wrong about nearly everything he
says.

Lots of dumbasses graduate from the best schools in the country. Lots
of dumbasses have books out. Lots of dumbasses are on TV and radio.
Lots of dumbasses get into politics.

Sorry, this plain old bartender is not impressed.

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

> I don't recall harping on "borderline obsessions". I can't remember
> the last time I typed those words in here, if I ever even have at all.
> Care to enlighten me?

Two kinda rare/odd words... it seems you've put them
together before in our conversations. Not worth going
thru hundreds of posts to find out.

> In so many of your responses, you continually point out a person's job
> or education as reasons why their opinion should be revered. I don't
> agree with this view at all.

Not 'revered'. I've stated that a persons background can
be used as a basis of assumption/insight. The two hardest
exams to pass are a bar exam and a CPA exam. I presume
if a person has either that they're a couple things - they've
applied themselves, studied hard, determined etc. If a person
digs ditches or is a farmer I can discern that they are almost
certainly a hard working person. If a person is a bartender
they likwise usually have good social skills and <should be>
a good listener. Do you not believe that if a person spends
any amount of years in a profession that there are 'clues'
to their character or hints as to their way of thinking?
Every cop I've ever known is pretty conservative. They've
dealt with the lowest grade of animals out there. My
opinions on people milking the system largely stems
from my having worked around these people for the
30 years I've been landscaping and mowing.

>> Really? Because I said he has the right to his opinion?
>> Reach much?
>
> No. Because you're intent on claiming this guy is not a loon based
> purely upon the college he attended and how he makes a buck.

Most certainly not! The only thing I've looked for in our
Root conversation is to why YOU think he IS a loon.
He could damn well be the looniest fucker out there.
I've no way of knowing without actually knowing the
man. I can make observations on people in RMAK
because we have written 'records' and one-on-one
coversations over a long period of time. I've never heard
Root speak and the only thing we've got to go on is
a statement <BHO & his college record> and his bio.
His bio is pretty solid and his theory on what may be
'hidden' in BHO college records is a sound possibility.

You made the statement in this post that when
someone makes a radical claim that they should be
prepared to stand up to it.

I've asked for other specifics and gotten nothing more
than 'he appeared on Beck'. I figured you or TV
would be quoting a bunch of crazy shit he'd said.
Surely there's a record of some of his speaking, but
he's not interesting enough for me to go digging
thru it.

> I guess this is one huge difference between you and I. You appear to
> think that where one has gone to school, the grades they got, jobs
> they've had, etc. gives weight to even the most ridiculous of
> opinions. I choose to look at what is actually said/what position is
> taken and make my determination from there.

Maybe this has been said, but regardless -- I meet someone
and within 5 seconds have a preliminary opinion on them.
A woman - I tend to look at her hair, teeth, shoes, handbag.
These are things that tell a tale - how much pride she has in
her appearance, how much she wastes on non-necessities
(expensive shoes or purse). After her first few words you
can usually judge her education and where/how she
was brought up. Rod Stewart said it best - every picture
tells a story.

> And again, no one said he doesn't have a right to his opinion. But
> when you throw your opinion out there, you better be prepared to have
> it ripped to shreds if it's an ignorant one.

I haven't found any 'ignorant opinion' put forth by Root.
Specualtion is only speculation.

>> I wouldn't dare put my education or success up
>> against his. You want to compare yours?
>
> I believe you once agreed with me that college education is often
> overrated. Perhaps you've since changed your mind. I haven't.

It is VERY often overrated. We likely both know people that
have a degree that are dumb as dirt. A degree (in many studies)
is simply an act of determination. Little stevie could muster
enough brain power over a long enough period to get a degree
is the social sciences or art or some similar shit. That is not
usually true of a degree in electronics or engineering or
becoming a doctor or lawyer. And as always, there are
exceptions to every rule. My oldest customer is a doctor -
and the man hasn't got a lick of common sense.

> A degree
> from a Harvard, a Yale, etc. may look impressive on the surface, but
> if the holder embraces stupid positions and thoughts, I'm not going to
> give them a pass just because they went to an Ivy League school.

Again, exceptions to every rule but you can probably
figure that Harvard doesn't turn out many 'true' idiots.

> And who or what determines success, exactly? Are you
> unhappy with your life right now? If not, I'd say you're
> successful.

The words 'success' and 'happiness' are not the same.
I'm certainly happy with my wife and my life. We
have a certain amount of success as well, success
being the generic term of what the population considers
doing 'okay' or better. IOW, the bills are gettin' paid and
we're saving a lil sumpin' sumpin' for our old age.

OTOH, it's been mentioned my wife does/done taxes for
some mega-rich people. They were VERY successful in
the generic term. Happiness, more often than not, seemed
to allude them. All the toys, numerous wives, and always
bitching or grumpy.

>> I'll tell ya what. When you get a show on tv, when you
>> get a publisher to say you're good enough to put out
>> 4 or 5 books, when you show your Columbia and
>> Harvard degrees, when you make a run for president -
>> I'll give you the same kudos.
>
> How does any of that give weight to birther-related positions or other
> similar nonsense?

Sorry, don't really consider his speculation of enrolling
as a foreign student as any kind of 'birther' theory. His
only claim is that neither he, nor anyone he knew,
actually knew or remembered Obama. His speculation
as to why Obama hasn't released college records has
nothing whatsoever to do with where Obama was born.

> Bristol Palin has a book out and is on TV. Wow,
> she's "accomplished" more than I have.

Bristol should be punched in the mouth by Mike
Tyson.

There is no accounting for the drivel that Hollywood
puts on tv. With the ignorant masses we have - it
certainly doesn't surprise me there is an audience for it.

> Glenn Beck is on the radio.
> Wow, he's "accomplished" more than I have.

Don't watch or listen to him or Rush. Also, they
are not the same category as a Bristol Palin.

They are certainly as 'accomplished' (a long career,
massive wealth etc) as an Olbermann or Mahr or
a Dennis Miller. Let's go ahead and call the lot of
them 'accomplished'. 'Cept Bristol of course. Leave
her and the Kardashians to Mike.

> George W. Bush went to Yale
> and Harvard. Wow, he's "accomplished" more than I have. Merlin Miller
> as made a run for the presidency. Wow, he's "accomplished" more than I
> have. Bill Kristol is a part of think tanks. Wow, he's "accomplished"
> more than I have.

Yeah... more than the sum lot of us in 'here'. So?

> At least, by your standards.

And you'd disagree?

> Yet when you take a closer look at each of those people, the surface
> "credentials" don't add up to much at all. Where you see
> accomplishment, I see a teen who's done nothing more than get knocked
> up and now thrives off of her mother's 15 minutes, an alcoholic shock
> jock pandering to the frightened/paranoid/xenophobic elements of the
> country, a privileged blue blood who was a failure until Daddy got him
> into politics, after which he fucked the country over, a racist
> filmmaker with no political acumen whatsoever, and a guy who, despite
> graduating magna cum laude from Harvard, offers incredibly inaccurate
> predictions, horrible advice, and is wrong about nearly everything he
> says.

A man who becomes president - BHO included - can certainly
be considered an accomplished man. By virtually ANY
standard. To say otherwise would be foolish. That said, they
all have their faults, just as each of us do... and you know what
else?

-- the most important point i'll ever try to make to you --

You don't like GB because his opinions differed from
yours. His political "direction" was different. You don't like
his "thoughts''. You can SAY "no, it was his getting us into
two wars"... okay fine -- if that is the case --> you should be
giving Obama EVERY BIT OF THAT SAME "RAGE". We are
STILL involved in two or three wars.. we STILL have Gitmo.
Any fucking thing Bush ever did regarding the two wars,
homeland security, censorship, military spending, etc etc
fucking etc.... Obama continues EVERY FUCKING ONE of
those policies. You wanna state your dislike of GB and
his prescription plan? then give Obama a pass on something
a thousand times more complicated/costly? GB raised our
debt a few trillion in 8 years? Obama beat that easily in 3.
GB had Dick Cheney? Obama has Immelt. Tell me something
else you didn't like about GB and we can probably find BHO
adhering to the same shit.

along with the fact -
Olbermann IS the Beck of the left.
Garafalo IS the Palin of the left.
< this list could go on forever >

The point is - you don't like their opinions.
But for every idiot on the right is one on the left.
They are every bit as "serious" or dedicated to
their beliefs as their counterpart. If they are
taken serious by their followers, if they have
staying power <and if they're not from Jersey
Shore> we have to consider them a success.

Even if you disagree with their views.

> Lots of dumbasses graduate from the best schools in the country. Lots
> of dumbasses have books out. Lots of dumbasses are on TV and radio.
> Lots of dumbasses get into politics.
>
> Sorry, this plain old bartender is not impressed.

Ain't a damn thing wrong with being plain. My
decision to choose a happy laid back life took
place long ago. I've never put my education to
use at all. After wearing a tie and selling some
advertising <early 20's> for about a year it
came to a choice between chasing a buck or
a life that made me happy. I'm still a hippy from
the early 70's in my heart and never once regretted
the choices made. I hope by your mid 50's you're
just as happy with your choices. No matter your
opinions. If when you're old, and happy, AND if you
gotta little cash to spend! THEN you're a success.

[AJ]

On Aug 20, 6:10 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> In so many of your responses, you continually point out a person's job
> or education as reasons why their opinion should be revered. I don't
> agree with this view at all.

It's because you can't grasp that in reality, you're not qualified.
Example: You don't own your own business. Therefore you're not
qualified to say anything about businesses having to pay higher
taxes. You don't hire or employee people. Therefore you're not
qualified to understand if it's fair to pay for employees' birth
control. You don't rely on customers to have jobs to keep your
business alive. You don't own your own home or land. You don't have
kids in the school system. These are things you are truly uneducated
on and have no experience with. Therefore you're opinions are
unqualified.

[FVH]

On Aug 21, 11:34 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> It's because you can't grasp that in reality, you're not qualified.

Ironic, isn't it?

> Example:  You don't own your own business.

Neither do you, register jockey.

> Therefore you're not qualified to say anything about businesses having to pay higher taxes.

And you are? You've shown in here that you don't understand basic tax
law, much less how business taxes work. Shit, you can't grasp the
reality that your "pure profit" theory is a huge pile of bullshit. You
think it makes sense. LOL!

> You don't hire or employee people.

Neither do you. Hell, you're lucky John hasn't fired your fat ass. The
only reason you still have a job is because John doesn't want waste
him time manning a register all day and no one with an education or
motivation wants to do that for a living.

> Therefore you're not qualified to understand if it's fair to pay for employees' birth control.

What the fuck are you babbling about, Killer? Your schizo has you
confused--yet again.

> You don't rely on customers to have jobs to keep your business alive.

You rely on customers to keep your low paying register jockey job, yet
you IGNORE them and spend your "working" hours trolling RMAK and
googling "Jarid Jones".

> You don't own your own home or land.

Neither do you. You live with your mother.

> You don't have kids in the school system.

Having kids in "the school system" doesn't make you more "qualified"
than someone who doesn't, Professor. Again, no one is jealous that you
have kids.

> These are things you are truly uneducated on and have no experience with.

Nice grammar, Pop n Fresh. What do you know about education and
experience? You didn't finish school (and you struggled while in
school), you work as a register jockey---something a 16 year old kid
does for his/her first job, and you've never stepped foot outside your
fat fantasy bubble. When you're man enough to step out of that fat
bubble and into reality you can talk. Until then, go re-stock CDs and
go back to the kids table.

> Therefore you're opinions are unqualified.

Therefore WHAT, Professor? You can't form your own opinion, so what
you say is moot. Psst, no one cares what you think or feel. You're not
a productive part of society and never will be. Fat leech.

[83LowRider]

AJ wrote:

> It's because you can't grasp that in reality, you're not qualified.
> Example: You don't own your own business. Therefore you're not
> qualified to say anything about businesses having to pay higher
> taxes. You don't hire or employee people. Therefore you're not
> qualified to understand if it's fair to pay for employees' birth
> control. You don't rely on customers to have jobs to keep your
> business alive. You don't own your own home or land. You don't have
> kids in the school system. These are things you are truly uneducated
> on and have no experience with. Therefore you're opinions are
> unqualified.

These are indeed valid points. Again, it's all about
perspective and background - it's hard to relate
to kid issues, home issues, tax issues, if you don't have
a 'foot in the water'. It's no accident that Romney
leads (by about 20%) with small business owners.

Likewise, it's no accident that those that live on welfare
are more likely to support a more liberal candidate. We
tend to see things from the road we choose. A personal
experience to the Grand Canyon leaves a much stronger
impact than lookin' at someone elses pictures.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 21, 5:44 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> Not 'revered'. I've stated that a persons background can
> be used as a basis of assumption/insight.

Only to an extent.

> Do you not believe that if a person spends
> any amount of years in a profession that there are 'clues'
> to their character or hints as to their way of thinking?

As related to their chosen profession, perhaps. If Root were talking
about oddsmaking, I'd be more inclined to take him seriously. NOTHING
in his background gives weight to his stances on birther-related
theories. James Inholfe has no background that gives weight to his
opinions on global warming, Todd Akin has no background that backs up
his "women have a secret defense that prevents impregnation via rape"
theory (no such background exists, because that theory is utter
bullshit), AJ "works" in a music store, yet has routinely displayed
remarkable ignorance about music itself, he claims to have multiple
degrees and brags about being so educated, but is actually dumber than
a sack of hair. I could go on and on...

> Most certainly not! The only thing I've looked for in our
> Root conversation is to why YOU think he IS a loon.
> He could damn well be the looniest fucker out there.
> I've no way of knowing without actually knowing the
> man. I can make observations on people in RMAK
> because we have written 'records' and one-on-one
> coversations over a long period of time. I've never heard
> Root speak and the only thing we've got to go on is
> a statement <BHO & his college record> and his bio.
> His bio is pretty solid and his theory on what may be
> 'hidden' in BHO college records is a sound possibility.
>
> You made the statement in this post that when
> someone makes a radical claim that they should be
> prepared to stand up to it.
>
> I've asked for other specifics and gotten nothing more
> than 'he appeared on Beck'.

Then you haven't been reading very closely, I guess. I've been over
this multiple times.

> I figured you or TV
> would be quoting a bunch of crazy shit he'd said.
> Surely there's a record of some of his speaking, but
> he's not interesting enough for me to go digging
> thru it.

I linked to one of his articles in which he expounded upon the birther
theories he buys into. He has been a part of the birther movement --
yes, he claims not to buy into the specific birth certificate meme,
but embraces everything else they buy into -- for years now.

And if this guy's background does indeed lend weight to his thoughts
-- why is his only evidence "gut instinct"? Why should that be enough
for anyone? And sorry, but given the chip on his shoulder re:
minorities, I don't think it's "gut instinct" that's informing his
opinions.

The insanity permeating politics is just overwhelming. People
denouncing science, going on "gut instinct"...I have no patience for
it anymore. Must we really take a Michele Bachmann seriously when she
says "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one
study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful
gas." simply because of her background?

> Maybe this has been said, but regardless -- I meet someone
> and within 5 seconds have a preliminary opinion on them.

This is a trait of most people, I believe.

In my experience, however, it's sketchy to rely on that initial
impression. I've met people before and first thought "We have nothing
in common, we won't get along", only to forge great friendships with
them. The opposite has also happened; people I thought I would get
along with ended up turning me off.

But in this case, we have no first hand/in the flesh impression to go
off of. All we have is his proclamations re: Obama. Nothing in his
background gives weight to these proclamations.

Here's another quote from Root:

"(W)hen I went to Columbia, the black kids were all at like tables
going "Black Power!" We used to walk by and go, "What the hell are
they talking about." And they didn't associate with us and we didn't
associate with them. So if you track down a couple of black students,
they'll probably know him. But nobody white's ever heard of this guy.
It's quite amazing. Nobody remembers him. They don't remember him
sitting in class."

So he points out that his opinion is bullshit in his own statement,
albeit in a slightly racist way. And "nobody white's ever heard of
this guy"? That's already been debunked. Yet here we are, 4 years on,
and he's still propagating the bullshit.

I say it again: the guy is a loon. Or perhaps he's just a racist
trying to use the birther shit to disguise is racism. Likely, it's
both.

> I haven't found any 'ignorant opinion' put forth by Root.
> Specualtion is only speculation.

Speculation seems to be the magic word for people who like to toss
nonsense around without being able to back it up. AJ did this re: the
new Kiss album being called Monster. I guess Akin was also just
"speculating" when he informed us that women have a secret power which
magically prevents impregnation via rape.

I've already produced, ad nauseum, the ignorant opinions put forth by
Root. If you don't see them as ignorant, you're a lost cause, brutha.

> Again, exceptions to every rule but you can probably
> figure that Harvard doesn't turn out many 'true' idiots.

But it still happens. This is why you have to consider the words/
positions taken first and foremost. Michelle Bachmann has a law
degree. Nuff said.

> Sorry, don't really consider his speculation of enrolling
> as a foreign student as any kind of 'birther' theory. His
> only claim is that neither he, nor anyone he knew,
> actually knew or remembered Obama.

No, he's claimed that "no one/no one white" remembers Obama. This is
complete bullshit.

> His speculation
> as to why Obama hasn't released college records has
> nothing whatsoever to do with where Obama was born.

All of these things are variations on the birther stance. For awhile,
it was the birth certificate. Now it's college records, was he/wasn't
he there? Sure enough, I'll bet that it'll next be the law license
thing. Obama the Muslim. Obama the Marxist. It all falls under the
same, loon-covering umbrella.

> Bristol should be punched in the mouth by Mike
> Tyson.

We can thank Kristol and McCain for her presence.

> There is no accounting for the drivel that Hollywood
> puts on tv. With the ignorant masses we have - it
> certainly doesn't surprise me there is an audience for it.

It doesn't appear there's much of an audience after all. Perhaps
there's some hope after all...

> > Glenn Beck is on the radio.
> > Wow, he's "accomplished" more than I have.
>
> Don't watch or listen to him or Rush. Also, they
> are not the same category as a Bristol Palin.
>
> They are certainly as 'accomplished' (a long career,
> massive wealth etc) as an Olbermann or Mahr or
> a Dennis Miller. Let's go ahead and call the lot of
> them 'accomplished'. 'Cept Bristol of course. Leave
> her and the Kardashians to Mike.

Well, Bristol has a book and is on TV. You cited those as examples of
things I should aspire to before I can gain your kudos. Now I think
you see the absurdity of that stance, no?

> > George W. Bush went to Yale
> > and Harvard. Wow, he's "accomplished" more than I have. Merlin Miller
> > as made a run for the presidency. Wow, he's "accomplished" more than I
> > have. Bill Kristol is a part of think tanks. Wow, he's "accomplished"
> > more than I have.
>
> Yeah... more than the sum lot of us in 'here'. So?
>
> > At least, by your standards.
>
> And you'd disagree?
>
> > Yet when you take a closer look at each of those people, the surface
> > "credentials" don't add up to much at all. Where you see
> > accomplishment, I see a teen who's done nothing more than get knocked
> > up and now thrives off of her mother's 15 minutes, an alcoholic shock
> > jock pandering to the frightened/paranoid/xenophobic elements of the
> > country, a privileged blue blood who was a failure until Daddy got him
> > into politics, after which he fucked the country over, a racist
> > filmmaker with no political acumen whatsoever, and a guy who, despite
> > graduating magna cum laude from Harvard, offers incredibly inaccurate
> > predictions, horrible advice, and is wrong about nearly everything he
> > says.
>
> A man who becomes president - BHO included - can certainly
> be considered an accomplished man. By virtually ANY
> standard. To say otherwise would be foolish. That said, they
> all have their faults, just as each of us do... and you know what
> else?

The point is that in each of those cases, accomplishments/background/
education ≠ an overall positive result, and in some cases there was
nothing positive to be found. This is why I'm not as impressed by
accomplishments/background/education as you are. This is why I laugh
at what Root "thinks" re: Obama, and consider him a loon.

>      -- the most important point i'll ever try to make to you --
>
> You don't like GB because his opinions differed from
> yours. His political "direction" was different. You don't like
> his "thoughts''.

Wrong. I can't think of one politician with whom I haven't disagreed
on things. Some more than others, obviously.

What I didn't like was most of what his presidency gave us.
*Especially* since he had the chance to be a truly great president. He
could have turned 9/11 into a very positive thing. Didn't happen.

> You can SAY "no, it was his getting us into
> two wars"... okay fine -- if that is the case --> you should be
> giving Obama EVERY BIT OF THAT SAME "RAGE".

Wrong. This is a false equivalence. When I voted for Obama, I knew he
was campaigning on ramping up things in Afg. I didn't like it, but I
knew about it. Why then would you expect me to have "rage" about it?
Makes no sense. I also expected that he would NOT get us involved
militarily with Iran, which would have been yet another debacle. I had
no such faith in McCain. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...

On the other hand, Bush campaigned on not being a nation builder. We
became exactly that re: Iraq. Completely different scenarios. And as
we've been over before, we all know that once the Empire gets into a
country, we never really leave. This is one reason why I was against
the Iraq thing to begin with. That aside, what we're doing now is not
quite the same as it was in 2003, is it?

> We are
> STILL involved in two or three wars.. we STILL have Gitmo.
> Any fucking thing Bush ever did regarding the two wars,
> homeland security, censorship, military spending, etc etc
> fucking etc.... Obama continues EVERY FUCKING ONE of
> those policies.

I've pointed out many times before that Obama has continued a number
of Bush-era policies. It's one of the reasons why I find the "rage"
you have over him so amusing. T'was fine when Bush did it, BUT
Obama...

I have my disappointments in the Obama admin. But as I've said before,
I get more of what I agree with from his admin than I did from Bush,
or would have from McCain. And that's really what it comes down to
these days, no?

> You wanna state your dislike of GB and
> his prescription plan? then give Obama a pass on something
> a thousand times more complicated/costly? GB raised our
> debt a few trillion in 8 years? Obama beat that easily in 3.
> GB had Dick Cheney? Obama has Immelt. Tell me something
> else you didn't like about GB and we can probably find BHO
> adhering to the same shit.

Did I ever say I didn't like the prescrip plan?

All I did was point out the hypocrisy of people who bitch and moan
about Obamacare wile completely ignoring Bushcare. Where were all of
the screeching harpy Teabaggers when Bush implemented socialized
medicine that wasn't paid for? Not a peep. Your attempt to argue about
associated costs complete misses this point.

Again, I marvel at the convenience of rage over debt, deficits and
spending. Only AFTER 1/20/2009. "Reagan proved deficits don't
matter"...not a sound. Bush spends like a madman...not a chirp. Obama
takes office...OMGDEFICITSPENDING! Never mind that recession, of
course...

> along with the fact -
> Olbermann IS the Beck of the left.
> Garafalo IS the Palin of the left.
> < this list could go on forever >

I'm sorry, but those comparisons are just not valid. Olbermann is an
egotistical bastard for sure. But he did not peddle bullshit the way
Beck does. You may not have liked his opinions or the way he presented
them, but it's not even close.

And Garafalo would eat Palin alive in a battle of wits. That's the
only comparison I can make, seeing as she's a comedian and Palin
is...was, a politician.

This is not to say that I agree with anything and everything Olbermann/
Garafalo say and think. You bring these two up far more than I ever
do, if I ever have at all, sans responding to some of the misogynistic
comments made in here re: Garafalo. But these comparisons are
just...not even close.

> The point is - you don't like their opinions.
> But for every idiot on the right is one on the left.

I disagree. The right has a monopoly on the idiocy these days. And
never mind the Nugents/Williams Jrs/Mustaines. I'm talking about
actual elected officials here. Climate change is a hoax? Check. Teach
kids that the Loch Ness monster is real, is a dinosaur, and proves
that evolution is bogus? Check. Child labor laws are unconstitutional?
Check. The Civil Rights Act should be repealed? Check. Women have an
internal defense against impregnation via rape? Check. Letting
everyone in Ohio vote early 'waters down the voting privileges of our
military men and women'? Check. Bragging about how "voter ID laws" --
thinly disguised words for suppressing those likely to vote for dems
-- will help Romneybot win Penn.? Check. Zygotes should be granted the
same constitutional rights as a fully birthed citizen, thus making any
woman who gets an abortion guilty of murder, along with any doctor who
performs the procedure? Check. Invite a domestic terrorist to the
Speaker of the House's office to "discuss" abortion over coffee?
Check. Dent the country's credit rating, simply to try and make Obama
look bad? Check.

Two-thirds of Republicans believe that President Obama was not born in
the United States...must I go on?

Please, find me the equivalent idiocy on the left.

> They are every bit as "serious" or dedicated to
> their beliefs as their counterpart. If they are
> taken serious by their followers, if they have
> staying power <and if they're not from Jersey
> Shore> we have to consider them a success.
>
> Even if you disagree with their views.

Is Kristol really a success given his horrible track record? To me,
there's more to being a success than just somehow being able to remain
inexplicably relevant. I guess YMMV.

> > Lots of dumbasses graduate from the best schools in the country. Lots
> > of dumbasses have books out. Lots of dumbasses are on TV and radio.
> > Lots of dumbasses get into politics.
>
> > Sorry, this plain old bartender is not impressed.
>
> Ain't a damn thing wrong with being plain. My
> decision to choose a happy laid back life took
> place long ago. I've never put my education to
> use at all. After wearing a tie and selling some
> advertising <early 20's> for about a year it
> came to a choice between chasing a buck or
> a life that made me happy. I'm still a hippy from
> the early 70's in my heart and never once regretted
> the choices made. I hope by your mid 50's you're
> just as happy with your choices. No matter your
> opinions. If when you're old, and happy, AND if you
> gotta little cash to spend! THEN you're a success.

I'm not sure where I'll be or what I'll be doing by that time. That's
the way I like it. Moving some place tropical seems more and more
likely, though.

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 21, 3:14 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
> AJ wrote:
> > It's because you can't grasp that in reality, you're not qualified.
> > Example:  You don't own your own business.  Therefore you're not
> > qualified to say anything about businesses having to pay higher
> > taxes.  You don't hire or employee people.  Therefore you're not
> > qualified to understand if it's fair to pay for employees' birth
> > control.

How have you been affected of late, re: taxes? Are you paying more?
Are you currently being forced to pay for employees' birth control?
Tell me all about your *personal* experiences with these matters.

> >You don't rely on customers to have jobs to keep your
> > business alive.

My profession requires me to keep people happy, satisfied, and coming
back for more. I'm also expected to upsell, etc. That directly relates
to keeping a business alive -- and me as well, seeing as I'll be outta
work if I don't achieve the above.

And seeing as you're just as reliant on others to keep your business
going, I laugh at your disdain for those that work for others.

> > You don't own your own home or land.

Did in the past. I know all about what comes with it. Your fantasy
image of me is simply off base.

> > You don't have kids in the school system.  These are things you are truly uneducated
> > on and have no experience with.  Therefore you're opinions are
> > unqualified.

You're not a woman (biologically, anyway). Therefore, your opinions
are unqualified re: abortion. You've never lived in Las Vegas.
Therefore your opinions about it are unqualified. I can go on and
on...

> These are indeed valid points. Again, it's all about
> perspective and background - it's hard to relate
> to kid issues, home issues, tax issues, if you don't have
> a 'foot in the water'. It's no accident that Romney
> leads (by about 20%) with small business owners.

If we're going to go this route, I guess that most of what's discussed
in here no longer can be. Ever directed a movie, 83? No? Then your
opinions on film are unqualified. Ever play in a band, make an album,
AJ? No? Then your opinions on music are unqualified (which was already
known, but still). Either of you ever hold office? No? Then your
opinions on politics are unqualified.

> Likewise, it's no accident that those that live on welfare
> are more likely to support a more liberal candidate.

Like corporations?

El Jefe

[FVH]

I love Killer's desperate attempts to dismiss what he doesn't
understand. I also love how you frustrate the fat ass to the point
where he hates you as much as he hates me. Now THAT'S power!

On Aug 21, 6:50 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 21, 3:14 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
>
> > AJ wrote:
> > > It's because you can't grasp that in reality, you're not qualified.
> > > Example:  You don't own your own business.  Therefore you're not
> > > qualified to say anything about businesses having to pay higher
> > > taxes.  You don't hire or employee people.  Therefore you're not
> > > qualified to understand if it's fair to pay for employees' birth
> > > control.
>
> How have you been affected of late, re: taxes? Are you paying more?

> Are you currently being forced to pay for employees' birth control?i LO

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

>> These are indeed valid points. Again, it's all about
>> perspective and background - it's hard to relate
>> to kid issues, home issues, tax issues, if you don't have
>> a 'foot in the water'. It's no accident that Romney
>> leads (by about 20%) with small business owners.
>
> If we're going to go this route, I guess that most of what's discussed
> in here no longer can be. Ever directed a movie, 83? No? Then your
> opinions on film are unqualified. Ever play in a band, make an album,
> AJ? No? Then your opinions on music are unqualified (which was already
> known, but still). Either of you ever hold office? No? Then your
> opinions on politics are unqualified.

Not the same at all, or as you like to say - false equivalence.

All the things I mentioned have a direct corelation with
politics. I don't give parental advice because I have not
had those experiences. I can give opinions on what I've
seen in others, what I've read or watched... but firsthand
experience is a ho' nuva lebel. Same with music... not being
a musician -- I don't have the same insight. I can only
say what I like or dislike.

>> Likewise, it's no accident that those that live on welfare
>> are more likely to support a more liberal candidate.
>
> Like corporations?

The GOP gets more support from business because
business tends to view the GOP as more business friendly.
The poorer of our population tends to support Dems
because they view the Dem party as more 'poverty' friendly.
Is this new news? Is this incorrect?

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

>> Not 'revered'. I've stated that a persons background can
>> be used as a basis of assumption/insight.
>
> Only to an extent.

>> Do you not believe that if a person spends
>> any amount of years in a profession that there are 'clues'
>> to their character or hints as to their way of thinking?
>
> As related to their chosen profession, perhaps. If Root were talking
> about oddsmaking, I'd be more inclined to take him seriously. NOTHING
> in his background gives weight to his stances on birther-related
> theories.

This is all real simple really. If he hadn't appeared on
Beck and had an opinion on Obama that you don't like,
his bio would certainly make him out to be a smart
and successful person. He was on Beck as a result of
his opinion, thus his opinion is what you have a problem
with.

> I linked to one of his articles in which he expounded upon the birther
> theories he buys into. He has been a part of the birther movement --
> yes, he claims not to buy into the specific birth certificate meme,
> but embraces everything else they buy into -- for years now.

Call it what you wish. The birthers specifically believe
Obama was born elsewhere. Nothing seen <by me>
supports that.

> And if this guy's background does indeed lend weight to his thoughts
> -- why is his only evidence "gut instinct"? Why should that be enough
> for anyone? And sorry, but given the chip on his shoulder re:
> minorities, I don't think it's "gut instinct" that's informing his
> opinions.

What else can he possibly say about unreleased records?

> The insanity permeating politics is just overwhelming. People
> denouncing science, going on "gut instinct"...

'Nother subject. You wanna bring global warming
into this? What else?

> I have no patience for
> it anymore. Must we really take a Michele Bachmann seriously when she
> says "Carbon dioxide is portrayed as harmful. But there isn't even one
> study that can be produced that shows that carbon dioxide is a harmful
> gas." simply because of her background?

'Nother subject again, but no... if she isn't speaking about
tax law or similar -- feel free to blow off her opinions.

>> Maybe this has been said, but regardless -- I meet someone
>> and within 5 seconds have a preliminary opinion on them.
>
> This is a trait of most people, I believe.
>
> In my experience, however, it's sketchy to rely on that initial
> impression. I've met people before and first thought "We have nothing
> in common, we won't get along", only to forge great friendships with
> them. The opposite has also happened; people I thought I would get
> along with ended up turning me off.

My initial impressions far more often to be true.
And if you spend an hour or more with someone
you have 90% of what you need to know about them.

> But in this case, we have no first hand/in the flesh impression to go
> off of. All we have is his proclamations re: Obama. Nothing in his
> background gives weight to these proclamations.

Again, I don't know how the statment came up. If a
reporter asked him "Why do you think Obama has
refused to release his college records"... do you not
think he has the right to speculate?

> Here's another quote from Root:
>
> "(W)hen I went to Columbia, the black kids were all at like tables
> going "Black Power!" We used to walk by and go, "What the hell are
> they talking about." And they didn't associate with us and we didn't
> associate with them. So if you track down a couple of black students,
> they'll probably know him. But nobody white's ever heard of this guy.
> It's quite amazing. Nobody remembers him. They don't remember him
> sitting in class."
>
> So he points out that his opinion is bullshit in his own statement,
> albeit in a slightly racist way. And "nobody white's ever heard of
> this guy"? That's already been debunked. Yet here we are, 4 years on,
> and he's still propagating the bullshit.
>
> I say it again: the guy is a loon. Or perhaps he's just a racist
> trying to use the birther shit to disguise is racism. Likely, it's
> both.

We don't know how many blacks were in those four years
of law classes. Agreed? Would you guess-timate that
there were no more than 10 to 20 percent? There are
quite a few pictures of Obama from that period. Do you
not find it likely that SOMEONE from those four years of
classes would see those pictures today and say "oh yeah,
I remember that dude!"

>> I haven't found any 'ignorant opinion' put forth by Root.
>> Specualtion is only speculation.
>
> Speculation seems to be the magic word for people who like to toss
> nonsense around without being able to back it up. AJ did this re: the
> new Kiss album being called Monster. I guess Akin was also just
> "speculating" when he informed us that women have a secret power which
> magically prevents impregnation via rape.
>
> I've already produced, ad nauseum, the ignorant opinions put forth by
> Root. If you don't see them as ignorant, you're a lost cause, brutha.

Sorry, I can't label him a loon for his speculative views on
why he nor any of his law school classmates don't remember
Obama.

If you choose to carry on about whether he's racist or
not feel free.

>> Again, exceptions to every rule but you can probably
>> figure that Harvard doesn't turn out many 'true' idiots.
>
> But it still happens. This is why you have to consider the words/
> positions taken first and foremost. Michelle Bachmann has a law
> degree. Nuff said.

Her law degree doesn't have a damn thing to do with her
personal opinions. No more than taking bartender lessons
have an impact on your political or personal beliefs.
MANY extemists over the years have been well educated.
This includes thousands of middle eastern students that
have studied in this country.

> No, he's claimed that "no one/no one white" remembers Obama. This is
> complete bullshit.

And likewise, not one black has stepped forward either.
Root obviously had nothing in common <in his mind>
with any blacks. And I seriously doubt there were that many
in his law classes.

> All of these things are variations on the birther stance. For awhile,
> it was the birth certificate. Now it's college records, was he/wasn't
> he there? Sure enough, I'll bet that it'll next be the law license
> thing. Obama the Muslim. Obama the Marxist. It all falls under the
> same, loon-covering umbrella.

Seperate subjects all.

>> Bristol should be punched in the mouth by Mike
>> Tyson.
>
> We can thank Kristol and McCain for her presence.

She, like Paris Hilton or the Kardashians, have always
had a presence, just not such a large stage.

> Well, Bristol has a book and is on TV. You cited those as examples of
> things I should aspire to before I can gain your kudos. Now I think
> you see the absurdity of that stance, no?

I put a specific disclaimer on celebrity versus actual
accomplishment. Being famous for being famous is
not the same as being accomplished for your actions
or your mind/critical thinking.

> The point is that in each of those cases, accomplishments/background/

> education 鈮 an overall positive result, and in some cases there was

> nothing positive to be found. This is why I'm not as impressed by
> accomplishments/background/education as you are. This is why I laugh
> at what Root "thinks" re: Obama, and consider him a loon.

It's obvious that not every rich guy with hot chicks and
a Ferrari is 'worthy'. You cannot deny tho that in their
respective fields - that most people we speak of are
indeed respected. Be it Limbaugh or Olbermann.

> Wrong. I can't think of one politician with whom I haven't disagreed
> on things. Some more than others, obviously.
>
> What I didn't like was most of what his presidency gave us.
> *Especially* since he had the chance to be a truly great president. He
> could have turned 9/11 into a very positive thing. Didn't happen.

Don't know how that woulda been possible. What would
you have had him do? No one had a clue as to what
had happened, what to expect.

>> You can SAY "no, it was his getting us into
>> two wars"... okay fine -- if that is the case --> you should be
>> giving Obama EVERY BIT OF THAT SAME "RAGE".
>
> Wrong. This is a false equivalence. When I voted for Obama, I knew he
> was campaigning on ramping up things in Afg. I didn't like it, but I
> knew about it. Why then would you expect me to have "rage" about it?
> Makes no sense. I also expected that he would NOT get us involved
> militarily with Iran, which would have been yet another debacle. I had
> no such faith in McCain. Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran...

My point remains - they are the same creature.

> On the other hand, Bush campaigned on not being a nation builder. We
> became exactly that re: Iraq. Completely different scenarios. And as
> we've been over before, we all know that once the Empire gets into a
> country, we never really leave. This is one reason why I was against
> the Iraq thing to begin with. That aside, what we're doing now is not
> quite the same as it was in 2003, is it?

I see it as being the same as it ever was. On virtually everything
except for social policy.

> I've pointed out many times before that Obama has continued a number
> of Bush-era policies. It's one of the reasons why I find the "rage"
> you have over him so amusing. T'was fine when Bush did it, BUT
> Obama...

I agree with Gitmo. We have spent far too many years in
AfG.

> I have my disappointments in the Obama admin. But as I've said before,
> I get more of what I agree with from his admin than I did from Bush,
> or would have from McCain. And that's really what it comes down to
> these days, no?

I suppose. I'm ready for radical change. Not radicals,
radical changes.

> Did I ever say I didn't like the prescrip plan?

I honestly don't know. You've brought it up in a
negative way numerous times.

> All I did was point out the hypocrisy of people who bitch and moan
> about Obamacare wile completely ignoring Bushcare. Where were all of
> the screeching harpy Teabaggers when Bush implemented socialized
> medicine that wasn't paid for? Not a peep. Your attempt to argue about
> associated costs complete misses this point.

There's always a peep. And costs matter.

> Again, I marvel at the convenience of rage over debt, deficits and
> spending. Only AFTER 1/20/2009. "Reagan proved deficits don't
> matter"...not a sound. Bush spends like a madman...not a chirp. Obama
> takes office...OMGDEFICITSPENDING! Never mind that recession, of
> course...

I look at nothing but the numbers. If given a choice I'd
leave gov't out of EVERYTHING except military and roads.
Very little else. I don't think gov't should redistrube money
while eating up huge percentages of it on gov't workers, huge
pensions and million dollar parties.

>> along with the fact -
>> Olbermann IS the Beck of the left.
>> Garafalo IS the Palin of the left.
>> < this list could go on forever >
>
> I'm sorry, but those comparisons are just not valid. Olbermann is an
> egotistical bastard for sure. But he did not peddle bullshit the way
> Beck does. You may not have liked his opinions or the way he presented
> them, but it's not even close.
>
> And Garafalo would eat Palin alive in a battle of wits. That's the
> only comparison I can make, seeing as she's a comedian and Palin
> is...was, a politician.

Generic comparisons and a valid point, regardless of
how you attempt to pair up my examples.

> This is not to say that I agree with anything and everything
> Olbermann/ Garafalo say and think. You bring these two up far more
> than I ever do, if I ever have at all, sans responding to some of the
> misogynistic comments made in here re: Garafalo. But these
> comparisons are just...not even close.

Okay, I coulda compared Limbaugh to Olbermann,
Palin to Wasserman-Shultz (or whatever the fuck
her name is) etc. There is an equal balance to any
extremist, every dumbass.

> I disagree. The right has a monopoly on the idiocy these days.

No they don't, they've simply gotten a bigger stage.
NPR doesn't get big ratings, Air America failed and
Al Gore spent millions to create a liberal viewpoint.

> And
> never mind the Nugents/Williams Jrs/Mustaines. I'm talking about
> actual elected officials here. Climate change is a hoax? Check. Teach
> kids that the Loch Ness monster is real, is a dinosaur, and proves
> that evolution is bogus? Check. Child labor laws are unconstitutional?
> Check. The Civil Rights Act should be repealed? Check. Women have an
> internal defense against impregnation via rape? Check. Letting
> everyone in Ohio vote early 'waters down the voting privileges of our
> military men and women'? Check. Bragging about how "voter ID laws" --
> thinly disguised words for suppressing those likely to vote for dems
> -- will help Romneybot win Penn.? Check. Zygotes should be granted the
> same constitutional rights as a fully birthed citizen, thus making any
> woman who gets an abortion guilty of murder, along with any doctor who
> performs the procedure? Check. Invite a domestic terrorist to the
> Speaker of the House's office to "discuss" abortion over coffee?
> Check. Dent the country's credit rating, simply to try and make Obama
> look bad? Check.

There are those who would advocate for NAMBLA as well
as those asking for abortion to be completely outlawed.
Neither one is going to happen.

>
> Two-thirds of Republicans believe that President Obama was not born in
> the United States...must I go on?

I googled "how many republicans believe obama born in kenya".
Top link is dailykos.... and it matches your comment ( 2/3rds )

Wiki says 23% of republicans -
LA Times says 45%.

> Please, find me the equivalent idiocy on the left.

Easy peezy - about 50% of the country thinks Obama
deserves to be re-elected. Almost 100% of dems!

There ya go.

>> They are every bit as "serious" or dedicated to
>> their beliefs as their counterpart. If they are
>> taken serious by their followers, if they have
>> staying power <and if they're not from Jersey
>> Shore> we have to consider them a success.
>>
>> Even if you disagree with their views.
>
> Is Kristol really a success given his horrible track record? To me,
> there's more to being a success than just somehow being able to remain
> inexplicably relevant. I guess YMMV.

Jim Gray makes my skin crawl. There's always gonna be
a few in the mix.

> I'm not sure where I'll be or what I'll be doing by that time. That's
> the way I like it. Moving some place tropical seems more and more
> likely, though.

We still want to tour Belize - but then again -
http://finance.ninemsn.com.au/newsbusiness/8519998/belize-in-selective-default-on-debt-s-p

[AJ]

No, no you can't.

>
> > These are indeed valid points. Again, it's all about
> > perspective and background - it's hard to relate
> > to kid issues, home issues, tax issues, if you don't have
> > a 'foot in the water'. It's no accident that Romney
> > leads (by about 20%) with small business owners.
>
> If we're going to go this route, I guess that most of what's discussed
> in here no longer can be. Ever directed a movie, 83? No? Then your
> opinions on film are unqualified. Ever play in a band, make an album,
> AJ? No? Then your opinions on music are unqualified (which was already
> known, but still). Either of you ever hold office? No? Then your
> opinions on politics are unqualified.
>
> > Likewise, it's no accident that those that live on welfare
> > are more likely to support a more liberal candidate.
>
> Like corporations?
>
> El Jefe

Thanks for proving my point about how uneducated you are. Even the
questions you asked shows how ignorant you are and how much you don't
know about business. Nice rant though. By your own choice, you're
just some punk kid hiding behind a screen. If you would like to
actually prove that you tribute anything to society, then get back to
me. Until then, you're unqualified.

[AJ]

On Aug 22, 4:56 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:
> Busboy Jefe wrote:
> >> These are indeed valid points. Again, it's all about
> >> perspective and background - it's hard to relate
> >> to kid issues, home issues, tax issues, if you don't have
> >> a 'foot in the water'. It's no accident that Romney
> >> leads (by about 20%) with small business owners.
>
> > If we're going to go this route, I guess that most of what's discussed
> > in here no longer can be. Ever directed a movie, 83? No? Then your
> > opinions on film are unqualified. Ever play in a band, make an album,
> > AJ? No? Then your opinions on music are unqualified (which was already
> > known, but still). Either of you ever hold office? No? Then your
> > opinions on politics are unqualified.
>
> Not the same at all, or as you like to say - false equivalence.

I know that, you know that, but the real world issues that we were
actually talking about before this weak typical attempt to move the
goal posts again just flew right over his head.

> The GOP gets more support from business because
> business tends to view the GOP as more business friendly.

And these are the people Dems like him attack. Again, this is a
perfect example of biting the hand that feeds you.

> The poorer of our population tends to support Dems
> because they view the Dem party as more 'poverty' friendly.
> Is this new news? Is this incorrect?

No. It's spot on. BUT keep in mind that many, if not most Dems/libs
have a sense of entitlement for things they didn't work for or earn.

[AJ]

On Aug 21, 6:50 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> My profession requires me to keep people happy, satisfied, and coming
> back for more.

"Out on the streets for a living.....pictures only begun"

>I'm also expected to upsell, etc. That directly relates
> to keeping a business alive -- and me as well, seeing as I'll be outta
> work if I don't achieve the above.

That shouldn't be hard since everyone likes strawberries.

[FVH]

On Aug 22, 11:03 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> Thanks for proving my point about how uneducated you are.

Ironic, isn't it?

> Even the questions you asked shows how ignorant you are and how much you don't know about business.

Not all of us adhere to the "pure profit" scheme, Detective.

> Nice rant though.

LOL! You're getting frustrated, Killer.

> By your own choice, you're just some punk kid hiding behind a screen.

Says the Internet Tough Guy who waddled away from his own empty death
threats. FVH is still ALIVE and well, Killer. LOL!!!

> If you would like to actually prove that you tribute anything to society, then get back to me.   Until then, you're unqualified.

Nice grammar, fat stuff. Tell me, when you're ranting do your bottom
teeth protrude out as you creepily scowl at your screen? That's how I
imagine you while you're playing Internet Tough Guy. LOL!

[FVH]

On Aug 22, 11:17 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> I know that, you know that, but the real world issues that we were
> actually talking about before this weak typical attempt to move the
> goal posts again just flew right over his head.

Killer has his fat pom poms out, folks!

> And these are the people Dems like him attack.  Again, this is a perfect example of biting the hand that feeds you.

Uh oh, looks like Killer got hungry while typing.

> No.  It's spot on.  BUT keep in mind that many, if not most Dems/libs have a sense of entitlement for things they didn't work for or earn.

And there's the fat, high leg kick! You're a good guard dog, Internet
Tough Guy--all bark and NO bite.

[FVH]

On Aug 22, 11:29 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Out on the streets for a living.....pictures only begun"

I love it when your schizo shows up in your posts.

> That shouldn't be hard since everyone likes strawberries.

You should eat more strawberries, fat ass.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 22, 11:03 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> > How have you been affected of late, re: taxes? Are you paying more?
> > Are you currently being forced to pay for employees' birth control?
> > Tell me all about your *personal* experiences with these matters.

So you can't/won't detail any of this, huh? Not surprised.

> No, no you can't.

Can and did.

> Thanks for proving my point about how uneducated you are.  Even the
> questions you asked shows how ignorant you are and how much you don't
> know about business.

Then why are you too afraid to answer them? Come on, Professor Pure
Profit. Stop being a coward and tell us about the higher taxes you're
paying and all of the birth control you're forced to dispense.

> Nice rant though.  By your own choice, you're
> just some punk kid hiding behind a screen.

Just another part of the fantasy image you've built up abut me. And
ironic, coming from an easily offended stalker.

> If you would like to
> actually prove that you tribute anything to society, then get back to
> me.

That I WHAT, Professor?

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 22, 4:56 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> Not the same at all, or as you like to say - false equivalence.
>
> All the things I mentioned have a direct corelation with
> politics.

You have never held a political office, correct? No "foot in the
water"? Then by the definition your acolyte offered and which you
appear to support, your opinions about politics are "unqualified".

And Entrepreneur Johnson is the one who created the Pure Profit™
business model. So, you know, having a business doesn't always make
you savvy about business overall.

> I can give opinions

So, you're OK with giving opinions on things that you're don't have
direct experience with. That's funny, because The Professor seems to
think this is wrong. No shortage of irony there, seeing as he's guilty
of doing that very thing all too often.

> The GOP gets more support from business because
> business tends to view the GOP as more business friendly.

Translation: welfare. At least, for the big dogs.

Is the GOP truly more *small* business friendly? Romneybot can chirp
about "creating" Staples jobs, but is that really a good thing for
small businesses overall? Is the mom n pop hardware store happy to see
yet another Home Depot open its doors? Walmart decimated the grocery
and general merchandise business, which used to be a bastion for
family businesses. I see nothing from the GOP that suggests they would
like to reverse this consolidation/concentration of power. They're
certainly a friend to BIG businesses. Not so sure about the small
potatoes like you and Moneybags, though..

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

>> Not the same at all, or as you like to say - false equivalence.
>>
>> All the things I mentioned have a direct corelation with
>> politics.
>
> You have never held a political office, correct? No "foot in the
> water"? Then by the definition your acolyte offered and which you
> appear to support, your opinions about politics are "unqualified".

Rex Reed or Roger Ebert likely never directed nor acted
in a movie. You can bet yer ass they've seen and analyzed
thousands of them tho. I've watched politicians my entire
adult life.

> And Entrepreneur Johnson is the one who created the Pure Profit�
> business model. So, you know, having a business doesn't always make
> you savvy about business overall.
>
>> I can give opinions
>
> So, you're OK with giving opinions on things that you're don't have
> direct experience with. That's funny, because The Professor seems to
> think this is wrong. No shortage of irony there, seeing as he's guilty
> of doing that very thing all too often.

I'm guessing that with Root, he was asked about Obama
because he shared a very similar experience (same
courses over the same four years). Our opinions come
from our life experiences. If you're young, never owned
a home or had to pay high taxes it certainly reflects as
to how you may 'see' things. There's no right or wrong
in such circumstances - it's that they just don't relate the
same.

>> The GOP gets more support from business because
>> business tends to view the GOP as more business friendly.
>
> Translation: welfare. At least, for the big dogs.

There's millions of small business that have come and
gone. Literally. Very few make it to the huge corporate
status. Small business owners heavily prefer Romney/GOP
because they know far too well that dems tend to tax and
spend, over-regulate etc. Very few of those ever receive any
kind of gov't kickback. I don't know a single small business
owner that got money/kickback/breaks from gov't. Not me
(2 businesses in last 30 years, one a LLC), not my buddy
that owns a gas station, not my buddy that owns a nightclub.
There are others, you get the point.

> Is the GOP truly more *small* business friendly? Romneybot can chirp
> about "creating" Staples jobs, but is that really a good thing for
> small businesses overall? Is the mom n pop hardware store happy to see
> yet another Home Depot open its doors? Walmart decimated the grocery
> and general merchandise business, which used to be a bastion for
> family businesses. I see nothing from the GOP that suggests they would
> like to reverse this consolidation/concentration of power. They're
> certainly a friend to BIG businesses. Not so sure about the small
> potatoes like you and Moneybags, though..

No BODY, no THING, is going to bring back the many
mom n pop stores. Sears wiped out THOUSANDS of
small businesses. Bought them out and shut them down.
Anyone can open whatever they want to open tho, and
if a bigger company comes and buys them out - more
power to them. No one is forced to sell. This happened
to a friend who started up a fencing company. I don't
want the GOP to ease up and tax less - I want GOV'T
to do it... and dems just don't have a good record in that
regard.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 22, 6:52 am, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> This is all real simple really. If he hadn't appeared on
> Beck and had an opinion on Obama that you don't like,
> his bio would certainly make him out to be a smart
> and successful person. He was on Beck as a result of
> his opinion, thus his opinion is what you have a problem
> with.

In my view, when one continues to hold on to off base/conspiracy
theories despite their having been debunked, they qualify as a loon. I
don't care what your background is. Degrees from Ivy League schools, a
star on the LVWOS, whatever: still a loon.

> Call it what you wish. The birthers specifically believe
> Obama was born elsewhere. Nothing seen <by me>
> supports that.

It's not just me calling it that.

> What else can he possibly say about unreleased records?

How about nothing at all, like the way it was before 1/20/2009?

> 'Nother subject. You wanna bring global warming
> into this? What else?

That would have been covered by my "denouncing science" comment.

> 'Nother subject again, but no... if she isn't speaking about
> tax law or similar -- feel free to blow off her opinions.

It's really not another subject. It's all a part of the batshit
insanity we're seeing, largely from the right. Birthers, science
denouncers, pseudo "doctors" claiming things about how women's bodies
work...

It would all be just laughable if they were crackpots with no power.
But these are elected officials. And despite your claims, there IS an
active push to pass legislation on a number of these stances. I look
forward, as an example, to the point when Paul Ryan gets called out on
his extreme stance on abortion.* Ain't no secret why repubs are
desperately trying to throw Akin under the bus. "Abs" Ryan doesn't
want to have that discussion.

*Perhaps I should say "if", given the poor state of mainstream
"liberal" media.

> My initial impressions far more often to be true.
> And if you spend an hour or more with someone
> you have 90% of what you need to know about them.

I don't fully agree. People are very good at wearing masks. That Type
A personality guy may seem confident, but all too often people like
him turn out to be quite insecure.

Maybe this is more true for younger people, though. It seems that
everything's got to be an open (Face)book for them. Privacy is a lost
art. Baffling.

> Again, I don't know how the statment came up. If a
> reporter asked him "Why do you think Obama has
> refused to release his college records"... do you not
> think he has the right to speculate?

Once again, I have never suggested that he's not free to spew whatever
he wants. It's not as simple as just a reporter asking him one
question. He's been at this for years. Writing articles, going on the
right-wing talk circuit, etc. I've linked to his articles, posted
quotes from him...dunno what else I can do to convince you that this
was not just some momentary thing.

> We don't know how many blacks were in those four years
> of law classes. Agreed? Would you guess-timate that
> there were no more than 10 to 20 percent? There are
> quite a few pictures of Obama from that period. Do you
> not find it likely that SOMEONE from those four years of
> classes would see those pictures today and say "oh yeah,
>  I remember that dude!"

*sigh* This has already been proven. How many people who remember
Obama comprise the "magic number", exactly?

Fox claims it contacted 400 people, right? Given how completely
untrustworthy Fox is, how do we know this is true? Who were the 400
people? What questions where they supposedly asked?

See, I can play the "question everything" game too.

> Sorry, I can't label him a loon for his speculative views on
> why he nor any of his law school classmates don't remember
> Obama.

I label him a loon for is overall views on Obama. You know, the ones
other than "I don't remember him" that you like to conveniently
ignore.

> If you choose to carry on about whether he's racist or
> not feel free.

No need to carry on. He's made his views quite clear. I don't think
he's wearing a white hood on the weekend, but his opinions on blacks/
minorities certainly demonstrate an element of racism. Again: chip on
his shoulder re: affirmative action....sans the white people who enjoy
it.

Nuff said.

> Her law degree doesn't have a damn thing to do with her
> personal opinions.

..."a persons background can be used as a basis of assumption/
insight."

> No more than taking bartender lessons
> have an impact on your political or personal beliefs.

I find it funny that, ever since you found out what I do, it's
constantly being brought up. There's a slightly dismissive tone at
times. Don't you realize that bartenders are the aristocrats of the
working class, 83?

You might be surprised how much being behind the stick can inform/
color one's views on a number of things. I generally avoid discussing
politics -- seeing as that can take a very quick nosedive, especially
after a few drinks have been tossed back -- but I do get the chance to
glean things from a variety of people.

At the very least, I get to hear differing views, get a feel for how
people think, see things and such. I find that to be valuable. Not
always, but often. And yes, it's true: bartenders are part time
psychologists.

> MANY extemists over the years have been well educated.
> This includes thousands of middle eastern students that
> have studied in this country.

Pretty much goes to what I'm saying. You wouldn't give weight to, say,
a muslim who's well-educated but has negative views about America,
would you? Well, that's how I feel about people like Root.

> And likewise, not one black has stepped forward either.
> Root obviously had nothing in common <in his mind>
> with any blacks. And I seriously doubt there were that many
> in his law classes.

Why does the race of who has stepped forward matter? Because Root has
floated some theory about Obama only hanging out with blacks? This is,
of course, nonsense. Obama roomed with someone who was white, and also
with a Pakistani.

The guy lived off campus and, by the accounts of most if not all of
those who have stated they remember him, was pretty much in the books.
Quiet. Spent more time in the library than socializing.

Could it be that Mr. Root simply lived in a very exclusive bubble, and
that's why he didn't remember Obama? Does Root strike you as a guy
that would have been chummy with "the blacks"?

> Seperate subjects all.

All embraced by birthers.

> She, like Paris Hilton or the Kardashians, have always
> had a presence, just not such a large stage.

Did you know who she was prior to McCain selecting her mother as VP?
Did you even know who her *mother* was? I sure as hell didn't.

> It's obvious that not every rich guy with hot chicks and
> a Ferrari is 'worthy'. You cannot deny tho that in their
> respective fields - that most people we speak of are
> indeed respected. Be it Limbaugh or Olbermann.

Limbaugh respected? Perhaps grudgingly. He certainly knows how to
carry water for the right. But then he'll pull an "Akin" and suddenly
repubs take a dim view. He's as harmful as he is helpful to them as I
see it.

Olbermann... when he's on, he's on...but he's also egotistical and
difficult to work with by his own admission. I really don't know where
he stands on the respect meter now. I think someone like Maddow has
more respect at this point.

> Don't know how that woulda been possible. What would
> you have had him do? No one had a clue as to what
> had happened, what to expect.

Come on, really? He had practically the entire nation behind him, and
what did we get? "Go shopping". Suspended civil liberties. Making
torture seem OK. To say nothing of the worldwide goodwill he pissed
away in short order. I don't need to harp on the Iraq distraction once
again. And jobs? Horrible.

I give him credit for the prescrip plan, increased aid to Africa, the
increase in fuel efficiency standards in vehicles. He did have a lot
of diversity in his cabinet appointments (I'll be nice and not comment
on how those picks worked out...) And I'd be more inclined to praise
his setting aside a lot of conservation acreage had he not been so
awful re: the environment in every other capacity. But that's about it
for me.

> My point remains - they are the same creature.

I have this thing where I hear a guy campaign on not being a nation
builder -- and then proceeding to be just that, in a country that we
had no business "building" -- and I call it bullshit. Likewise, I
have this thing where I hear a guy say that he's going to ramp up
activity in a country we're already in, and I'm not amazed when he
does just that.

Strange, I know.

> I agree with Gitmo. We have spent far too many years in
> AfG.

Agreed on Afg. "Combat operations" are supposed to end in 2014. Guess
we'll see. As far as Gitmo, there's blame to go all around. I would
have liked to see him push harder for it. But once again,
congressional resistance was at play. That includes spineless dems who
were more worried about holding office than doing the right thing, and
of course, repubs who simply wanted to block anything and everything
Obama wants to do.

> I suppose. I'm ready for radical change. Not radicals,
> radical changes.

Paul Ryan counts as a radical in my book. I know why Romney chose him,
but I can't help thinking this will end up being Sarah Palin Ver. 2.0.
(didn't take long for the right to make him into a "sex symbol", did
it?) Ryan is obviously much more politically savvy, but just as, if
not more, a liability in his own way. I don't think he'll go over well
with seniors and women...anyone, really, that isn't among the
wealthiest. Raising taxes on the middle class, doubling health care
costs for seniors, kicking the poor in the junk, privatizing
everything...I just don't see it playing out well at all.

> I honestly don't know. You've brought it up in a
> negative way numerous times.

No I didn't. I've brought it up to point out the hypocrisy of the
silence it was given by the same howler monkeys ranting about
Obamacare. Pretty sure I've never commented on it beyond that. I would
think it's obvious that overall, I feel it's a good thing.

> > All I did was point out the hypocrisy of people who bitch and moan
> > about Obamacare wile completely ignoring Bushcare. Where were all of
> > the screeching harpy Teabaggers when Bush implemented socialized
> > medicine that wasn't paid for? Not a peep. Your attempt to argue about
> > associated costs complete misses this point.
>
> There's always a peep. And costs matter.

There were no Medicare scooter-riding white hairs whining about
gubmint in their health care when Bushcare was implemented. There was
certainly no Teabagger collective doing the same. Costs, it seems,
only matter when Obama does something.

> Generic comparisons and a valid point, regardless of
> how you attempt to pair up my examples.

You paired 'em up. I just commented on the folly of doing so.

> Okay, I coulda compared Limbaugh to Olbermann,
> Palin to Wasserman-Shultz (or whatever the fuck
> her name is) etc. There is an equal balance to any
> extremist, every dumbass.

Wasserman-Shultz is an extremist? And again, there is simply no
comparison to be made in what Limbaugh peddles overall as opposed to
Olbermann.

I know, I know....you won't see it that way. But still...

> No they don't, they've simply gotten a bigger stage.
> NPR doesn't get big ratings, Air America failed and
> Al Gore spent millions to create a liberal viewpoint.

Utter nonsense. They don't have a bigger stage, they simply have a
metric shit ton of clowns.

> There are those who would advocate for NAMBLA

Is there an elected dem who's advocating for Nambla?

> as well
> as those asking for abortion to be completely outlawed.
> Neither one is going to happen.

You keep saying that, yet legislation continues to get introduced and/
or passed. If repubs got a majority, there's no question they would
indeed try to eliminate abortion and grant zygotes full personhood.
This is a part of their platform. Your current VP nod has pushed for
this multiple times. We already have schools teaching future dummies
that Nessie is real. Voter suppression is happening.

I look at the craziness permeating the GOP today and have little doubt
that they're dead serious about all of this shit. Go figure; when you
embrace extremists and put them in power, you get extremism.

> I googled "how many republicans believe obama born in kenya".
> Top link is dailykos.... and it matches your comment ( 2/3rds )
>
> Wiki says 23% of republicans -
> LA Times says 45%.

I don't read Kos; perhaps wherever I saw that number gleaned it from
them. Regardless, even if it's "just" 45%, that's still a whole lotta
craziness.

> Easy peezy - about 50% of the country thinks Obama
> deserves to be re-elected. Almost 100% of dems!
>
> There ya go.

That's what I thought. I present actual stances taken by elected
righties, ask you to find me the equivalent on the left...and all you
can come up with is "anyone who wants to re-elect Obama".

Your concession is noted and accepted.

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

> It would all be just laughable if they were crackpots with no power.
> But these are elected officials. And despite your claims, there IS an
> active push to pass legislation on a number of these stances.

We can agree there are a few that would have us restrict
abortion or even eliminate it. That is not the norm tho.
It will never happen. If they want to take it away from
teens (without parental permission) then I wouldn't argue
that. If they want to defund PP then I wouldn't argue that
one either. The view from my seat is fairly consistent -
no taxpayer money should be spent on some 15 year old
girl. That should be left up to her, her parents or the father
as to how to best deal with it and to pay for it.

> I look
> forward, as an example, to the point when Paul Ryan gets called out on
> his extreme stance on abortion.* Ain't no secret why repubs are
> desperately trying to throw Akin under the bus. "Abs" Ryan doesn't
> want to have that discussion.
>
> *Perhaps I should say "if", given the poor state of mainstream
> "liberal" media.

The entire GOP has been quick to act denouncing Akin.
Even they don't want to address it because they know
it's a lost cause. Much like dems don't want a gun control
conversation.

>> My initial impressions far more often to be true.
>> And if you spend an hour or more with someone
>> you have 90% of what you need to know about them.
>
> I don't fully agree. People are very good at wearing masks. That Type
> A personality guy may seem confident, but all too often people like
> him turn out to be quite insecure.

It ain't bulletproof but it's worked well enough for me.

> Maybe this is more true for younger people, though. It seems that
> everything's got to be an open (Face)book for them. Privacy is a lost
> art. Baffling.

The odd part is - they'll spill everything on a social
network but are losing any kind of one-on-one social
skills.

> Once again, I have never suggested that he's not free to spew whatever
> he wants. It's not as simple as just a reporter asking him one
> question. He's been at this for years. Writing articles, going on the
> right-wing talk circuit, etc. I've linked to his articles, posted
> quotes from him...dunno what else I can do to convince you that this
> was not just some momentary thing.

Maybe I'll spend an hour or two one night digging out/reading
transcripts - but really - the guy just doesn't interest me much.
He and his opinion are just farts in the wind. If the RNC
asks him to speak I'll give him some consideration.

>> We don't know how many blacks were in those four years
>> of law classes. Agreed? Would you guess-timate that
>> there were no more than 10 to 20 percent? There are
>> quite a few pictures of Obama from that period. Do you
>> not find it likely that SOMEONE from those four years of
>> classes would see those pictures today and say "oh yeah,
>> I remember that dude!"
>
> *sigh* This has already been proven. How many people who remember
> Obama comprise the "magic number", exactly?

> Fox claims it contacted 400 people, right? Given how completely
> untrustworthy Fox is, how do we know this is true? Who were the 400
> people? What questions where they supposedly asked?
>
> See, I can play the "question everything" game too.

We're well aware there were a few people who knew
and hung out with BHO during those days. The only
thing I've ever seen called into question is the fact
that no one in his four years of law classes could
place him. Regarding Fox and the poll - no idea and
I've tried to stay away from that factoid due to
knowing you'd be slanted against it.

>> Sorry, I can't label him a loon for his speculative views on
>> why he nor any of his law school classmates don't remember
>> Obama.
>
> I label him a loon for is overall views on Obama. You know, the ones
> other than "I don't remember him" that you like to conveniently
> ignore.

Hey, the man says he doesn't remember ever seeing him.
He's lying or he's not. He says he's asked every person
he DID know if they remembered him and the answer
was 'no'. Again, he's lying or he's not. Fox called 400
classmates? A lie? I don't know.

>> If you choose to carry on about whether he's racist or
>> not feel free.
>
> No need to carry on. He's made his views quite clear. I don't think
> he's wearing a white hood on the weekend, but his opinions on blacks/
> minorities certainly demonstrate an element of racism. Again: chip on
> his shoulder re: affirmative action....sans the white people who enjoy
> it.
>
> Nuff said.

I'd probably agree with the majority of that.

>> Her law degree doesn't have a damn thing to do with her
>> personal opinions.
>
> ..."a persons background can be used as a basis of assumption/
> insight."

How well they were educated in their field is a seperate
issue from their opinion on abortion or gun control etc.
Social issues are usually based on faith or personal upbringing.

>> No more than taking bartender lessons
>> have an impact on your political or personal beliefs.
>
> I find it funny that, ever since you found out what I do, it's
> constantly being brought up. There's a slightly dismissive tone at
> times. Don't you realize that bartenders are the aristocrats of the
> working class, 83?

Constantly? Twice I think. And neither time as disrespect.
The 'bartender lessons' comment was for the personal
connection. Nothing more. And my being a 'lawn mower'
has been brought out dozens of times. I don't shrink away
from it and don't expect you too either. It's my opinion
that there is NO bad or "lowly" jobs. ANY working man
or woman has my respect.

> You might be surprised how much being behind the stick can inform/
> color one's views on a number of things. I generally avoid discussing
> politics -- seeing as that can take a very quick nosedive, especially
> after a few drinks have been tossed back -- but I do get the chance to
> glean things from a variety of people.

> At the very least, I get to hear differing views, get a feel for how
> people think, see things and such. I find that to be valuable. Not
> always, but often. And yes, it's true: bartenders are part time
> psychologists.

I'm a talkative motherfucker and the job would have
suited me very well. I loved the social side of owning
the pool/game room for ten years.

>> MANY extemists over the years have been well educated.
>> This includes thousands of middle eastern students that
>> have studied in this country.
>
> Pretty much goes to what I'm saying. You wouldn't give weight to, say,
> a muslim who's well-educated but has negative views about America,
> would you? Well, that's how I feel about people like Root.

This goes back to what was said about seperating Bachmann
views against Bachmann 'job abilities'. There are quite a few
muslim radicals that got a good education here. I'm sure a
great scientist is a great scientist regardless of their personal
opinions. Again - education does not guarantee common sense.

>> And likewise, not one black has stepped forward either.
>> Root obviously had nothing in common <in his mind>
>> with any blacks. And I seriously doubt there were that many
>> in his law classes.
>
> Why does the race of who has stepped forward matter? Because Root has
> floated some theory about Obama only hanging out with blacks? This is,
> of course, nonsense. Obama roomed with someone who was white, and also
> with a Pakistani.

A misunderstanding from me maybe? From what you quoted
it seemed you were saying that no one white remembered
Obama (implying that maybe a black student had/does).

> The guy lived off campus and, by the accounts of most if not all of
> those who have stated they remember him, was pretty much in the books.
> Quiet. Spent more time in the library than socializing.
>
> Could it be that Mr. Root simply lived in a very exclusive bubble, and
> that's why he didn't remember Obama? Does Root strike you as a guy
> that would have been chummy with "the blacks"?

We'll never fully know those answers it seems. To your last
question - no --> he probably didn't hang out with many
blacks. I made a few black friends in college, and never
hung out with them outside of campus.

>> Seperate subjects all.
>
> All embraced by birthers.

That's an awful big umbrella.

>> She, like Paris Hilton or the Kardashians, have always
>> had a presence, just not such a large stage.
>
> Did you know who she was prior to McCain selecting her mother as VP?
> Did you even know who her *mother* was? I sure as hell didn't.

No, I wasn't familiar with any Palins before McCain.
Given another opportunity, it isn't likely he'd make
the same mistake again.

> Limbaugh respected? Perhaps grudgingly. He certainly knows how to
> carry water for the right. But then he'll pull an "Akin" and suddenly
> repubs take a dim view. He's as harmful as he is helpful to them as I
> see it.
>
> Olbermann... when he's on, he's on...but he's also egotistical and
> difficult to work with by his own admission. I really don't know where
> he stands on the respect meter now. I think someone like Maddow has
> more respect at this point.

Any respect given (or not) is up to the listeners. Rush
would occasionally pop up on my radio and I'd listen
on a rare occasion. He talked about anyone smoking
pot or doing drugs as scum of the earth. Then busted
for Oxy... so if I'm searching for a station and hear his
voice now - I instantly pass him by. A bit of hypocrisy
is to be expected, there's often a 'crossover' with
complicated issues. This wasn't one of those issues.

And I want the same in a politician. You've seen me
state often that a politician SHOULD tell exactly what
is on his mind. It gives us something to base our vote
on. Let them hang themselves if that is the way it
turns out. I don't want a president who says one thing
and does another. Sure as hell ain't gonna listen to
some pundit who does the same thing.

> Come on, really? He had practically the entire nation behind him, and
> what did we get? "Go shopping". Suspended civil liberties. Making
> torture seem OK. To say nothing of the worldwide goodwill he pissed
> away in short order. I don't need to harp on the Iraq distraction once
> again. And jobs? Horrible.

Strictly my opinion --> anyone in office at the time would
have been stumped as to the 'best' course of action. Do something -
even if it's wrong seems to have permeated the day.

> I give him credit for the prescrip plan, increased aid to Africa, the
> increase in fuel efficiency standards in vehicles. He did have a lot
> of diversity in his cabinet appointments (I'll be nice and not comment
> on how those picks worked out...) And I'd be more inclined to praise
> his setting aside a lot of conservation acreage had he not been so
> awful re: the environment in every other capacity. But that's about it
> for me.

That isn't too bad and I hope it didn't hurt too much to admit.

>> My point remains - they are the same creature.
>
> I have this thing where I hear a guy campaign on not being a nation
> builder -- and then proceeding to be just that, in a country that we
> had no business "building" -- and I call it bullshit. Likewise, I
> have this thing where I hear a guy say that he's going to ramp up
> activity in a country we're already in, and I'm not amazed when he
> does just that.
>
> Strange, I know.

I'm sure after finding no WMDs that Bush would like to
have had a do-over. It's never as easy as simply removing
the head of the snake. Too many little snake babies waiting
for their own opportunity. Egypt and Libya - good examples.

>> I agree with Gitmo. We have spent far too many years in
>> AfG.

>> I suppose. I'm ready for radical change. Not radicals,
>> radical changes.
>
> Paul Ryan counts as a radical in my book. I know why Romney chose him,
> but I can't help thinking this will end up being Sarah Palin Ver. 2.0.
> (didn't take long for the right to make him into a "sex symbol", did
> it?) Ryan is obviously much more politically savvy, but just as, if
> not more, a liability in his own way. I don't think he'll go over well
> with seniors and women...anyone, really, that isn't among the
> wealthiest. Raising taxes on the middle class, doubling health care
> costs for seniors, kicking the poor in the junk, privatizing
> everything...I just don't see it playing out well at all.

We're yet to see what influence Ryan may have. Rubio
would have been a better choice IMO. The only 'use'
of a VP pick is to pull in a few more voters. No one
truly gives a shit about VP. I would never have voted
for McCain BECAUSE of Palin... tho I did in SPITE of Palin.

>> I honestly don't know. You've brought it up in a
>> negative way numerous times.
>
> No I didn't. I've brought it up to point out the hypocrisy of the
> silence it was given by the same howler monkeys ranting about
> Obamacare. Pretty sure I've never commented on it beyond that. I would
> think it's obvious that overall, I feel it's a good thing.

>> There's always a peep. And costs matter.
>
> There were no Medicare scooter-riding white hairs whining about
> gubmint in their health care when Bushcare was implemented. There was
> certainly no Teabagger collective doing the same. Costs, it seems,
> only matter when Obama does something.

There are always the fiscal hawks that will call out the
president on spending. The TP already knew of the
dem reputation and record of being tax and spend.
I seriously believe they formed when they saw the
right going the same direction. IOW, it was the
GOP being at FAULT that caused the formation of
the TP.

>> Generic comparisons and a valid point, regardless of
>> how you attempt to pair up my examples.
>
> You paired 'em up. I just commented on the folly of doing so.
>
>> Okay, I coulda compared Limbaugh to Olbermann,
>> Palin to Wasserman-Shultz (or whatever the fuck
>> her name is) etc. There is an equal balance to any
>> extremist, every dumbass.
>
> Wasserman-Shultz is an extremist?

No, she's a liar and truly in the loon category if she
actually believes the shit she says. After seeing her
speak 8-10 times it is amazing the shit she is either
lying about or <worse yet> truly believes.

> And again, there is simply no comparison to be made in what
> Limbaugh peddles overall as opposed to Olbermann.
>
> I know, I know....you won't see it that way. But still...

You're correct... don't see it that way. They both look
for the extreme and peddle it to the public with
intentions of lining their own pockets. I blame
neither one tho, they've found their niche.

>> No they don't, they've simply gotten a bigger stage.
>> NPR doesn't get big ratings, Air America failed and
>> Al Gore spent millions to create a liberal viewpoint.
>
> Utter nonsense. They don't have a bigger stage, they simply have a
> metric shit ton of clowns.

The public just doesn't seem to care about liberal
talk radio. And not much more for the lib pundits on
tv. Ratings confirm that time after time.

>> There are those who would advocate for NAMBLA
>
> Is there an elected dem who's advocating for Nambla?
>
>> as well
>> as those asking for abortion to be completely outlawed.
>> Neither one is going to happen.
>
> You keep saying that, yet legislation continues to get introduced and/
> or passed. If repubs got a majority, there's no question they would
> indeed try to eliminate abortion and grant zygotes full personhood.
> This is a part of their platform. Your current VP nod has pushed for
> this multiple times. We already have schools teaching future dummies
> that Nessie is real. Voter suppression is happening.

Vote tampering has gone on forever. Re-districting, fake
names, dead people etc. It is not asking too much for
a valid ID considering that everyfuckingwhere I go they
ask me for it. My eye doctor, my bank, to get entrance into
the upcoming DNC.

http://tinyurl.com/93q59to

> I look at the craziness permeating the GOP today and have little doubt
> that they're dead serious about all of this shit. Go figure; when you
> embrace extremists and put them in power, you get extremism.

There is no doubt that many in the GOP are extemely
pro-life. When someone has a deep religious belief
about such things it should be no surprise that they
act/speak/legislate the way they do. Extreme muslims
blow shit up over their religious beliefs. Some of
our own fanatics kill abortion doctors. It's an anomoly
tho and we both realize that the public nor DC will
outlaw abortion.

>> I googled "how many republicans believe obama born in kenya".
>> Top link is dailykos.... and it matches your comment ( 2/3rds )
>>
>> Wiki says 23% of republicans -
>> LA Times says 45%.
>
> I don't read Kos; perhaps wherever I saw that number gleaned it from
> them. Regardless, even if it's "just" 45%, that's still a whole lotta
> craziness.

That's because he remains our most mysterious president
to date. He could easily have avoided it all by releasing
his records. The same stigma follows Romney/tax records.

>> Easy peezy - about 50% of the country thinks Obama
>> deserves to be re-elected. Almost 100% of dems!
>>
>> There ya go.
>
> That's what I thought. I present actual stances taken by elected
> righties, ask you to find me the equivalent on the left...and all you
> can come up with is "anyone who wants to re-elect Obama".

Sorry, I forgot the <smiley>.

Okay.. how's this -- a huuuuge percentage of liberals think
that the average conservative voter hates America and
loves Wall Street. They think we want to push women
back into "the dark ages" (ya'll are wearing the fuck out
of this meme). They think we don't love our country
and that we're all a bunch of hick racists. That better?
< do i need to insert a " ;) " >

[AJ]

On Aug 22, 8:09 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> And Entrepreneur Johnson is the one who created the Pure Profit™
> business model. So, you know, having a business doesn't always make
> you savvy about business overall.

For someone to be a grammar nazi online and pretends to be tolerant,
then maybe you should realize there are some phrases/figure of speech
comments you're not aware of. That's all "pure profit" was. Just a
saying not to be taken literally. From my part of the world their are
tons of sayings and weird metaphors you probably wouldn't hear
anywhere else. "You can't kill nothin that won't die." Sure that
sounds stupid, but if you know how it's used and what it's used for,
it makes perfect sense in that moment. If you actually got out more
and were truly interested in all cultures and diversity, then you
would know their is different slang for all regions.

[AJ]

On Aug 22, 6:42 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 22, 11:03 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > How have you been affected of late, re: taxes? Are you paying more?
> > > Are you currently being forced to pay for employees' birth control?
> > > Tell me all about your *personal* experiences with these matters.
>
> So you can't/won't detail any of this, huh? Not surprised.

Sure I could, but I don't consider you worthy of me wasting my time
going into detail. Plus, I already told you, you're unqualified. Your
little mind is more interested in scanning my posts for typos than
actual answers.
BUT, you're a typical liberal that gets off on common human gaffes and
then pumps his chest pretending to be smarter and desperately looking
for attention and approval from other yard apes on his same level of
ignorance. Remember what happened at the end of Lord Of The Flies?
A real man showed up and the children wept. Think about it.

[FVH]

On Aug 23, 10:44 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> For someone to be a grammar nazi online

LOL! Getting a bit sensitive over your piss poor spelling and grammar,
Professor? You should have paid attention in remedial reading.

> and pretends to be tolerant,

Of course being intolerant, like you are, is the sane way to go,
right? Hey, you should move to Texas and help fight this upcoming
civil war, Internet Tough Guy.

> then maybe you should realize there are some phrases/figure of speech
> comments you're not aware of.  That's all "pure profit" was.  Just a
> saying not to be taken literally.  From my part of the world their are
> tons of sayings and weird metaphors you probably wouldn't hear
> anywhere else.  "You can't kill nothin that won't die."   Sure that
> sounds stupid, but if you know how it's used and what it's used for,
> it makes perfect sense in that moment.  If you actually got out more
> and were truly interested in all cultures and diversity, then you
> would know their is different slang for all regions.

But that doesn't explain why you went on to explain your "pure profit"
theory in detail to the mass when we laughed at you all those years
ago. Psst, you can't keep going to the "slang" and typo wells and
expect people to believe you aren't dumb, dummy. You need to face this
REALITY.

[FVH]

On Aug 23, 11:01 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> Sure I could, but I don't consider you worthy of me wasting my time going into detail.

Ah, the ol' "sure I can go into detail--but I won't" excuse used by
those who are dumb and can't keep up. Psst, you're dumb, Killer.

> Plus, I already told you, you're unqualified.

You're "unqualified" to have access to a keyboard since you can't
spell, Pop n Fresh. You're also "unqualified" to act tough since you
can't follow thru on your empty death threats.

> Your little mind is more interested in scanning my posts for typos than actual answers.

Your posts are filled with a ton of typos and zero answers, though.
Can't find what isn't there, unless you have schizophrenia.

> BUT, you're a typical liberal that gets off on common human gaffes

LOL! "Common human gaffes"? Is that what you're calling your stupidity
now? Dress it up all you want, fag face, but the fact remains--you're
dumb.

> and then pumps his chest pretending to be smarter and desperately looking for attention and approval from other yard apes on his same level of ignorance.

Ironic, isn't it?

> Remember what happened at the end of Lord Of The Flies? A real man showed up and the children wept.  Think about it.

Come back to REALITY, Killer. Movies aren't real. Nice rant.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 23, 10:44 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> On Aug 22, 8:09 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > And Entrepreneur Johnson is the one who created the Pure Profit™
> > business model. So, you know, having a business doesn't always make
> > you savvy about business overall.
>
> For someone to be a grammar nazi online and pretends to be tolerant,

Speaking of grammar: horrible writing, Professor.

And the "tolerant liberal" meme is yet another fantasy image you
created.

> then maybe you should realize there are some phrases/figure of speech
> comments you're not aware of.

Yeah, people who are educated in English tend to be unaware of
fabricated "phrases/figures of speech". Because, you know, they're
bullshit.

> That's all "pure profit" was.  Just a
> saying not to be taken literally.  From my part of the world their are
> tons of sayings and weird metaphors you probably wouldn't hear
> anywhere else.  "You can't kill nothin that won't die."   Sure that
> sounds stupid, but if you know how it's used and what it's used for,
> it makes perfect sense in that moment.  If you actually got out more
> and were truly interested in all cultures and diversity, then you
> would know their is different slang for all regions.

Ah, yes, the "slang" card. Please. Don't try to pass off your stupid
"pure profit" thing as a part of some culture. It was an ignorant
explanation, nothing more. And you, talking about cultures and
diversity? LOL

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 23, 11:01 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> Sure I could, but I don't consider you worthy of me wasting my time
> going into detail.  Plus, I already told you, you're unqualified. Your
> little mind is more interested in scanning my posts for typos than
> actual answers.

Uh huh. And yet every time I put aside the trolling and ask a question
like this, you dance around it and play the "you're not worth the
time" card. But of course, you DO think it's worth the time to type a
trolling wall of text instead.

You're dancing around my question now because you know answering
honestly will show what a hypocrite you are. You've already stated
that you don't cover your employees health care. Why deny it now?
Because then you feel like you can whine about paying a non-existent
fee for non-existent birth control. Your taxes weren't raised. You
have nothing to bitch about.

> BUT, you're a typical liberal that gets off on common human gaffes

Your "gaffes" are hardly common. Play the typo card all you want, the
fact remains that your spelling is horrible and your grammar skills
suck. Imergrant. Escape goat. The right to bare arms. The list is
endless. You're simply not as educated as you like to think.

> and then pumps his chest pretending to be smarter

No need to pretend. I AM smarter than you.

> and desperately looking
> for attention and approval from other yard apes on his same level of
> ignorance.

Who here do I seek approval from? You're the one obsessed with what
the masses think and do. You swing from the ballsack of ANYONE who
disagrees with me, FVH, Steve. You claim to be ignoring someone and
then make posts directed towards them. I go away for a period of time
and you make posts looking for me. Hell, you've replied to *your own
posts* with another screen name, saying things like "Great point" and
"I totally agree". Talk about seeking attention and approval...

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 23, 1:34 pm, FVH <jarjo...@gmail.com> wrote:

> But that doesn't explain why you went on to explain your "pure profit"
> theory in detail to the mass when we laughed at you all those years
> ago. Psst, you can't keep going to the "slang" and typo wells and
> expect people to believe you aren't dumb, dummy. You need to face this
> REALITY.

Right, it's funny how he posted walls of text defending and redefining
his "pure profit" model then, but NOW it's just a "cultural" thing.
Absolutely pathetic.

El Jefe

[AJ]

Thanks for proving you can't handle being corrected and can't handle
the truth. Now get back to flaming every post I make in every
thread. Yeah that will show the class how much I'm not under your
skin. LOL!

[AJ]

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 23, 6:13 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> Thanks for proving you can't handle being corrected and can't handle
> the truth.    Now get back to flaming every post I make in every
> thread.  Yeah that will show the class how much I'm not under your
> skin.  LOL!

Thanks for proving that you deny your own words, and for responding to
all of my flames. That shows the class how much I'm not under *your*
skin. LOL!

El Jefe

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 23, 6:14 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> Sure I could, but I don't consider you worthy of me wasting my time
>  going into detail.  Plus, I already told you, you're unqualified.
> Your
>  little mind is more interested in scanning my posts for typos than
> actual answers.

More evasion noted. Keep whining about paying for things you don't
actually pay for. Play that victim card, tough guy.

El Jefe

[AJ]

You have no idea what a business owner has to pay for and deal with.
Again, you always were, are now, and always will be, unqualified. But
feel free to whine and flame every post I make the rest of the night
like a hurt bitch. I'm getting ready to take my boat out for some
night fishing. Be sure to get a good nights sleep if you have to work
tomorrow. You need be ready to work for your boss who was smarter
than you and more brave than you to start his own business and
unfortunate enough to hire a sorry piece of shit like you. So don't
spend another night watching MSNBC all night again.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 23, 6:36 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> You have no idea what a business owner has to pay for and deal with.

Yet you're too afraid to explain exactly what it is that you're
"paying" for. Evasion noted.

> I'm getting ready to take my boat out for some
> night fishing.

Spending another lonely night all by yourself, huh? Sad attempt to
impress the newsgroup with your "life" noted.

> Be sure to get a good nights sleep if you have to work
> tomorrow.  You need be ready to work for your boss who was smarter
> than you and more brave than you to start his own business

My boss didn't "start his own business". You really don't know how
things work, do you?

You bought an existing business with help from a friend and the
government. Sad attempt to make yourself look like more than you are
noted.

> and unfortunate enough to hire a sorry piece of shit like you.

Wow, looks like I really struck your nerves today. Ultra sensitivity
noted.

> So don't spend another night watching MSNBC all night again.

Dumb. You should have ended your butthurt post with the line before
this one. If you're going to troll, at least learn how to be a decent
one.

El Jefe

[steveh99]

In article <2a8c932a-a6ac-42b0-a40f-7d0ea9d9f2b2
@y11g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, misfits...@aol.com says...
>
> On Aug 23, 5:48ï¿œpm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > On Aug 23, 11:01ï¿œam, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Sure I could, but I don't consider you worthy of me wasting my time

> > > going into detail. ï¿œPlus, I already told you, you're unqualified. Your

Wow! The irony....

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 22, 9:18 pm, "83LowRider" <83lowri...@nywilldo.com> wrote:

> Rex Reed or Roger Ebert likely never directed nor acted
> in a movie. You can bet yer ass they've seen and analyzed
> thousands of them tho.

Actually, Ebert wrote the screenplay/story for a film.

> I've watched politicians my entire adult life.

Watching and doing are not quite the same, though, right? That seems
to be the distinction Entrepreneur Johnson wants to make. Do you agree
with him?

> I'm guessing that with Root, he was asked about Obama
> because he shared a very similar experience (same
> courses over the same four years). Our opinions come
> from our life experiences. If you're young, never owned
> a home or had to pay high taxes it certainly reflects as
> to how you may 'see' things. There's no right or wrong
> in such circumstances - it's that they just don't relate the
> same.

Our opinions on *some* things may come from life experiences. You, The
Professor and myself have never had an abortion, but we still have
opinions.

> >> The GOP gets more support from business because
> >> business tends to view the GOP as more business friendly.
>
> > Translation: welfare. At least, for the big dogs.
>
> There's millions of small business that have come and
> gone. Literally. Very few make it to the huge corporate
> status. Small business owners heavily prefer Romney/GOP
> because they know far too well that dems tend to tax and
> spend, over-regulate etc.

I've talked to a number of small business owners who claim that the
regulation aspect of this argument is largely nonsense when it comes
to them, that they're mostly exempt. Can you explain what regulations
you're up against that make life so difficult? I'd ask Entrepreneur
Johnson to do the same, but he's seemingly too scared to answer any
genuine questions about his personal experiences as a business owner.
He'd rather troll.

And again, as I understand it, under Obama small businesses have
gotten tax cuts, increased loan amounts. Obamacare will certainly not
effect you nor him. I don't get the impression that either of you are
suffering. So...what's missing?

> No BODY, no THING, is going to bring back the many
> mom n pop stores. Sears wiped out THOUSANDS of
> small businesses. Bought them out and shut them down.
> Anyone can open whatever they want to open tho, and
> if a bigger company comes and buys them out - more
> power to them. No one is forced to sell. This happened
> to a friend who started up a fencing company. I don't
> want the GOP to ease up and tax less - I want GOV'T
> to do it... and dems just don't have a good record in that
> regard.

Far too few firms have far too much power. THIS is what I see as the
biggest detriment to small business/entrepreneurship. And repubs have
done nothing to counter this. That they are "small business friendly"
is an illusion. I think people buy into that because they see
themselves as Steinbeck put it: temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
Ironic, seeing as most small businesses that survive stay small.

I point to the Raygun administration as the start of this. Their
approach to how the government enforces our antimonopoly laws
specifically.

El Jefe

[83LowRider]

Busboy Jefe wrote:

>> Rex Reed or Roger Ebert likely never directed nor acted
>> in a movie. You can bet yer ass they've seen and analyzed
>> thousands of them tho.
>
> Actually, Ebert wrote the screenplay/story for a film.
>
>> I've watched politicians my entire adult life.
>
> Watching and doing are not quite the same, though, right? That seems
> to be the distinction Entrepreneur Johnson wants to make. Do you agree
> with him?

>> I'm guessing that with Root, he was asked about Obama
>> because he shared a very similar experience (same
>> courses over the same four years). Our opinions come
>> from our life experiences. If you're young, never owned
>> a home or had to pay high taxes it certainly reflects as
>> to how you may 'see' things. There's no right or wrong
>> in such circumstances - it's that they just don't relate the
>> same.
>
> Our opinions on *some* things may come from life experiences. You, The
> Professor and myself have never had an abortion, but we still have
> opinions.

I don't really know where we're going with this.
My job has nothing to do with politics but has
led me to have certain political views via the
interaction. MANY other factors are involved tho.
OTOH, my political views have nothing to do with
how well I may do my job.

> I've talked to a number of small business owners who claim that the
> regulation aspect of this argument is largely nonsense when it comes
> to them, that they're mostly exempt. Can you explain what regulations
> you're up against that make life so difficult? I'd ask Entrepreneur
> Johnson to do the same, but he's seemingly too scared to answer any
> genuine questions about his personal experiences as a business owner.
> He'd rather troll.

The answer given in the past would include - stupid (as I see it)
over-regulation. TN recently adopted federal standards
regarding the trailers I used to pull. So stupid that I
stopped pulling a trailer and built a ramp onto the back
of my one ton truck. We spoke of the fact a bottle of Round-Up
in my possession could cost me all my equipment and
huge fines... even tho it's a legal product for any homeowner
and is sold in every Walmart across the country. If you
go buy a standard riding mower today, it has about
5 safety switches - one under the seat so that if you
raise up- the mower shuts down. One for reverse- so
that if you need to back up the blades disengage. While
some of these are merely annoying, others actually
slow down your work and are hard on the equipment.
Silly shit done by people with no first hand information
on what they are actually regulating.

> And again, as I understand it, under Obama small businesses have
> gotten tax cuts, increased loan amounts. Obamacare will certainly not
> effect you nor him. I don't get the impression that either of you are
> suffering. So...what's missing?

What do you think a company with 50-60 employees
is going to do once these new regualtions go into
affect? They'll simply cut back to 49 to avoid the
'penalties'. When hc is required to part of the job,
that is going to possibly be the determining factor
in new hires. It's happening to my wife right now.
The jackboot that Obama has put on the coal industry
led to massive layoffs. My wife is working a MINIMUM
of 60 hours a week simply because they put a hiring
freeze on new employees. They don't want to give those
benefits out to a new hire. The guy that helps me on
occasion (off and on for ten years) has worked at
Burger King for two years now. Plus, he worked at
BK a previous time as well. At two years (this time
around) he still gets a max of 38 hours a week. Care
to guess why?

> Far too few firms have far too much power.

Far too few PEOPLE have far too much power as well.

> THIS is what I see as the
> biggest detriment to small business/entrepreneurship. And repubs have
> done nothing to counter this. That they are "small business friendly"
> is an illusion. I think people buy into that because they see
> themselves as Steinbeck put it: temporarily embarrassed millionaires.
> Ironic, seeing as most small businesses that survive stay small.

The wife works for the largest coal company in the US.
THE largest coal company in what was THE largest energy
sector in the world. Size often has no bearing. Is it just
coincidence that Romney has a 20+ percentage advantage
amongst small business owners? While the GOP may
give only small hope to business owners, it's seen that
dems offer little to none.

> I point to the Raygun administration as the start of this. Their
> approach to how the government enforces our antimonopoly laws
> specifically.

Many would blame NAFTA, the Free Trade regulations.
There is certainly no shortage of blame to go around.

[FVH]

Ironic, isn't it?

On Aug 23, 6:13 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

[FVH]

On Aug 23, 6:36 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> You have no idea what a business owner has to pay for and deal with.

And you do, register jockey?

> Again, you always were, are now, and always will be, unqualified.

You're grossly unqualified in many aspects of life, including what it
take to run a business, fatso.

> But feel free to whine and flame every post I make the rest of the night
> like a hurt bitch.  I'm getting ready to take my boat out for some
> night fishing.  Be sure to get a good nights sleep if you have to work
> tomorrow.  You need be ready to work for your boss who was smarter
> than you and more brave than you to start his own business and
> unfortunate enough to hire a sorry piece of shit like you.  So don't
> spend another night watching MSNBC all night again.

Congrats, Jefe, you've successfully rattled Killer to the point where
he's trying to compete with you. This kid is SO easy to make mad.

[FVH]

LOL! I love how Killer continues to expose his lack of knowledge with
his rants. The kid cannot control his fat temper. He has zero self
discipline.

[FVH]

When you're desperate and have painted yourself into a fat corner, you
tend to panic and throw shit at the wall hoping it'll stick. A swing
and a miss by our resident schizophrenic.

[83LowRider]

83LowRider wrote:

> The wife works for the largest coal company in the US.
> THE largest coal company in what was THE largest energy
> sector in the world. Size often has no bearing.

Lemme add this too -

MANY of the biggest names in industry have
taken a dump and/or are long gone. As a kid
the big retail outlets were Montgomery Wards,
KMart, Sears, Penny's, Woolworths and a couple
others. Sears was huge, took a dump - bought by
KMart, which has taken a dump. Penny's is barely
existing, Wards is gone. Today we see Circuit City
come and gone, Best Buy close behind. This list
is truly endless. Computer giants like PBell gone, Yahoo
going downhill; wishing they had taken the MS buyout.
The only true titans are the energy sectors which
is to be expected - it's something we can't get enough
of. We've lost steel giants due to global competition,
car manufacturing to superior Japanese products
and soooo much more. Walmart and P&G may hang
around eternal, Exxon and GE will certainly be with
us the rest of OUR lives... and when they fail? there'll
be others to take their place. This is nothing new and
there will never be a 'cure' for it. We need that energy,
we need those GE inventions. We'd still be in the
early stages of the industrial age if not for the big
conglomerates. There would be no microwaves, internet
or cell phones. That may be a good thing in many
ways but I don't really want to give any of that shit up.

[AJ]

> There is certainly no shortage of blame to go around.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

And I would like to throw in that my State of VA is currently
restricted from offshore drilling. American oil and new jobs that our
current administration keeps us from.

[AJ]

On Aug 23, 6:51 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 23, 6:36 pm, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > You have no idea what a business owner has to pay for and deal with.
>
> Yet you're too afraid to explain exactly what it is that you're
> "paying" for. Evasion noted.

To even ask is a shining example of what you don't know.

>
> > I'm getting ready to take my boat out for some
> > night fishing.
>
> Spending another lonely night all by yourself, huh?

Nope.

>Sad attempt to
> impress the newsgroup with your "life" noted.

Yet you asked.

>
> > Be sure to get a good nights sleep if you have to work
> > tomorrow.  You need be ready to work for your boss who was smarter
> > than you and more brave than you to start his own business
>
> My boss didn't "start his own business". You really don't know how
> things work, do you?

So the owner isn't your boss? If the owner walked in and told you
what to do you would have to do it. Feel free to lie now.

>
> You bought an existing business with help from a friend and the
> government. Sad attempt to make yourself look like more than you are
> noted.

And you're wrong. Regardless of what Obama spoon feeds you. I did
build this.

>
> > and unfortunate enough to hire a sorry piece of shit like you.
>
> Wow, looks like I really struck your nerves today. Ultra sensitivity
> noted.
>
> > So don't spend another night watching MSNBC all night again.
>
> Dumb. You should have ended your butthurt post with the line before
> this one. If you're going to troll, at least learn how to be a decent
> one.
>
> El Jefe

What's a decent troll? One who gets someone like you and your
boyfriend to flame everything I post? One who is so admired no one
can bring themselves to ever killfile? One whos old posts from over a
decade ago are still talked about today? One who you have to hide
your real identify from? Maybe the very one you're getting ready to
reply to now after reading this? LOL! Decent troll indeed.

[FVH]

Piggybacking off your wet dream, eh Queenie? What a fag face.

[FVH]

On Aug 24, 9:47 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:
> To even ask is a shining example of what you don't know.

Dance, fat monkey, dance!

>> Sad attempt to impress the newsgroup with your "life" noted.
> Yet you asked.

Your schizo tells you he asked, but in REALITY he didn't. No one cares
about your pathetic, lonely life, Killer.

> So the owner isn't your boss?  If the owner walked in and told you what to do you would have to do it.  Feel free to lie now.

LOL! Now you're "moving the goalposts" because you got schooled.
Priceless.

> And you're wrong.  Regardless of what Obama spoon feeds you.  I did build this.

What does Obama have to do with you not owning John's store? Your
irrational hatred towards your black leader is disturbing. You don't
know why you're mad at Obama--you just are.

> What's a decent troll?

Certainly not you, Detective.

> One who gets someone like you and your boyfriend to flame everything I post?

So you're finally admitting you're stupid? Because that's why we reply
to you, Cap't Schizo.

> One who is so admired no one can bring themselves to ever killfile?

Yes, you admire me so much that you can't bring yourself to killfile
FVH. Psst, we know you still read and react to my posts. You can't
help yourself--you HAVE to have FVH in your fat, lonely life. You need
FVH in your life because I'm one of the few people that acknowledges
your existence.

> One whos old posts from over a decade ago are still talked about today?

Says the guy who dug up a year old post of Jefe's recently and brings
up old posts when you're fighting a losing battle. You were saying?

> One who you have to hide your real identify from?

Wait, I thought you knew who your "enemies" were, Detective? Lemme
guess-this is your idea of a ploy to trick your "enemies" into
revealing their real identity, right? LOL!!!!!

> Maybe the very one you're getting ready to reply to now after reading this? LOL!

You mean like you're replying to us, fag face?

> Decent troll indeed.

Hey you're FINALLY admitting you're a troll. I guess your "enemies"
finally got to you. LOL!

Nice rant, faggot.

[Busboy Jefe]

On Aug 24, 9:47 am, AJ <misfitskiss...@aol.com> wrote:

> To even ask is a shining example of what you don't know.

I already know that you're not paying for employee health care. You
just don't want to admit it now.

> Nope.

Oh, right. With a "good friend".

> Yet you asked.

I did not ask you what you were going to do last night. You brought it
up in some lame attempt to impress the newsgroup.

> So the owner isn't your boss?  If the owner walked in and told you
> what to do you would have to do it.  Feel free to lie now.

For somebody who supposedly frequents Vegas' high-class
establishments, you really don't understand how the hierarchies work.

> And you're wrong.  Regardless of what Obama spoon feeds you.  I did
> build this.

So, you're denying your own words yet again?

"Me and a friend bought a video store
that was going out of business and the videos that they couldn't sale
stayed in the store."

Feel free to lie now...

> What's a decent troll?

Pretty much everyone sans you.

> One who gets someone like you and your
> boyfriend to flame everything I post?

The attention of which you appear to enjoy, hence the responses AND
the flaming you do in threads not directed towards you.

> One who is so admired no one can bring themselves to ever killfile?

Why would I killfile such a great source of laughter? I'm not a little
girl like Hairpie or Bonerfan, wimps who get so bothered by posts they
don't like that they have to forcibly block themselves from reading
them.

> One whos

One WHAT?

> old posts from over a decade ago are still talked about today?

"Talked about"? Ridiculed and mocked is more like it.

> One who you have to hide your real identify from?

Why do you care so much about who people are? Perfect example of your
insecurity.

> Maybe the very one you're getting ready to
> reply to now after reading this? LOL!  Decent troll indeed.

You're a troll. Not a decent one, though. The posts you make that I
mock are unintentionally funny on your part. Thanks for the laughs,
Triple Stack.

El Jefe

[AJ]

On Aug 24, 6:43 pm, Busboy Jefe <busboyj...@gmail.com> wrote:
> So, you're denying your own words yet again?
>
> "Me and a friend bought a video store
> that was going out of business and the videos that they couldn't sale
> stayed in the store."

And where does your theory of the government helping me pay for it
come in?

Thanks for proving me right once again.