Super Tuesday
geminij...@yahoo.com
went to vote. Not crowded at all. It's a tough choice this year but
at least it'll end with Bush waving bye, hopping onto a chopper to
leave the White House in the shambles it is for another generation or
two to straighten out.
-GJ
HansCa...@gmail.com
really real
Leaving the White House in shambles? What about Iraq? Don't the lives of
Iraqis matter as much as the lives of Americans?
Martin
> I was in and out in 5 minutes this morning. Then I had breakfast and
> went to vote
I don't know much about US politics, but from the radio reports this
morning it sounds like the 104 year old white haired bloke who looks a
bit like Steve Martin's doing well. That doesn't sound too good. I'd
go for the black bloke, even if he doesn't have many policies yet -
surely that's the most forward looking outcome of this election? The
Clinton woman keeps crying or coughing whenever I see her on TV or
newspapers, maybe she's nervous about living up to her husband?
really real
>
>
> What is most fearful is the idea of another generation of Clintons to
> leave the White House in even further shambles. Wow. What a sad
> outcome yesterday. Just proves that one should never underestimate
> the power of the dark side.
You're just afraid of having someone in the White House who isn't a
fundamentalist xian
Pilgrim
> On Feb 5, 5:22 pm, geminijackso...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > went to vote. Not crowded at all. It's a tough choice this year but
> > at least it'll end with Bush waving bye,
>
>
> > hopping onto a chopper to
> > leave the White House in the shambles it is for another generation or
> > two to straighten out.
> > -GJ
>
Chelsea's going to be president?
I think you're projecting the Bush family onto the Clintons, Silky and
you're entirely unconscious of it. Kudos!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJHCRVs4AY
...blub...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/03/AR2008020303194.html
Erica Jong:
"Nothing she did was ever enough to stop her detractors. Supporting a
politician husband by being a successful lawyer, raising a terrific
daughter, saving her marriage when the love of her life publicly
humiliated her -- these are things that would be considered enormously
admirable in most politicians and public figures. But because she's a
white woman, she's been pilloried for them.
She's had to endure nutcrackers made in her image, insults about the
shape of her ankles and nasty cracks from mediocrities in the media
like Rush Limbaugh, Chris Matthews and Kristol.
When she decided to run for the Senate she was called a carpetbagger.
When she won the hearts of her most conservative constituents by
supporting their actual needs, the same poisonous pundits who said it
couldn't be done attacked her.
Nor are poisonous women pundits any more kind. Maureen Dowd regularly
gives her a drubbing. And "progressives" from Susan Brownmiller to
Oprah Winfrey sport Obama buttons.
I, too, was a bluestocking from a woman's college, straight-A student,
Phi Beta Kappa, who found my voice as a writer while exiled to the
boonies with a husband who cheated. With every book I published, I saw
more clearly how uneven was the playing field for women. We were let
into the literary world on sufferance. Unless we wrote unreadable
academic tracts that nobody bought, or mysteries or romances or
something called "chick lit" (whatever that is), or biographies of
Great Men, we were booed off the stage.
I chanced to get famous for my work. Hillary got famous in the
unspeakable role of "First Lady," which Jackie Kennedy Onassis thought
sounded like the name of racehorse. If she seemed uncomfortable in her
skin, if she kept changing her hair, her image, her style, her way of
speaking, how could we blame her? She was trying to be self-
protective. Who wouldn't be if constantly attacked by a beastly
press?"
> to
> leave the White House in even further shambles. Wow.
More Bush projections, or are you just reversing reality to suit your
ideology?
> What a sad
> outcome yesterday. Just proves that one should never underestimate
> the power of the dark side.
Oooo....Democracy is scary!
I'll be extremely happy to vote for whichever Democrat wins, and I'll
probably do it with a tear in my eye.
Pilgrim
The misogyny is going to be fascinating to watch this year. I'd get a
front row seat, but, y'know, monkey poo is totally gross.
geminij...@yahoo.com
White House ie: American Political policies in general. But I'm sure
you knew what I meant.
-GJ
geminij...@yahoo.com
The fear people have of the Clinton's has nothing to do with any lack
of religious fundamental ideals. Seriously, do you really think
that? You should read up on the scandals both Clintons have been in
over the years.
I voted for Obama. I have my issues with him too but felt willing to
take a chance.
-GJ
really real
>> Leaving the White House in shambles? What about Iraq? Don't the lives of
>> Iraqis matter as much as the lives of Americans?
>
> White House ie: American Political policies in general. But I'm sure
> you knew what I meant.
My point was that politics in America tends to be totally
America-centric. No one in this campaign is going to mention the deaths,
damage and displacement of millions of Iraqis, all because of an
unnecessary war. It's only about what's good for America.
That wall in Washington, with 60,000 names of people who died in the
Vietnam War is a good example. Three million people are said to have
died in the Vietnam war, not 60,000.
really real
>
> The fear people have of the Clinton's has nothing to do with any lack
> of religious fundamental ideals. Seriously, do you really think
> that? You should read up on the scandals both Clintons have been in
> over the years.
I've heard about the murders caused and covered up by the Clintons but I
always assumed those were lies spread by hateful fundamentalist nutcase
Republicans.
What on earth did the Clintons ever do that would compare to the Bush
scandals of conspiring with the oil companies to invade Iraq and to
undermine environmental legislation, like the California emission laws
that have just been overruled?
Pilgrim
> On Feb 6, 9:59 am, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > What is most fearful is the idea of another generation of Clintons to
> > > leave the White House in even further shambles. Wow. What a sad
> > > outcome yesterday. Just proves that one should never underestimate
> > > the power of the dark side.
>
> > You're just afraid of having someone in the White House who isn't a
> > fundamentalist xian
>
> The fear people have of the Clinton's has nothing to do with any lack
> of religious fundamental ideals. Seriously, do you really think
> that? You should read up on the scandals both Clintons have been in
> over the years.
Most of these scandals amount to a conspiracy theorists wet dream and
trumped up partisan charges. The Bush family (and Cheney) make the
Clintons look like slightly soiled angels.
http://www.realchange.org/clinton.htm
>
> I voted for Obama. I have my issues with him too but felt willing to
> take a chance.
> -GJ
I like Obama more, but there really does seem to be an inordinate
amount of irrational hatred toward both Clintons.
Pilgrim
Edwards was my first choice, actually, but he's too anti-corporate to
get anywhere with the powers that be, including the corporate owned
press.
Huckabee is a populist, too, but that's not why people are voting for
him. The corporate powers and neo-cons on the GOP side are busy
having aneurysms over his current (if moot) success. I've put Billy
Kristol on suicide watch...
Jumbo
>
> I like Obama more, but there really does seem to be an inordinate
> amount of irrational hatred toward both Clintons.
Yes, that's my impression (but like Martin I'm over here and don't
know hardly anything about the in's and out's). If it's the same there
as here, people who support conservative parties get defensive about
their morally indefensible position (their viewpoint being based on a
pessimistic 'get them before they get you' view of society); people
who support more left wing parties like to score points of one another
about their credentials. Course I'm left-leaning, but never try and
score points :).
Perfesser_dudley
Prediction: Whoever is elected president of the united states in '08,
we'll survive 'em. We always seem to.
One thing i wish for ( i wish i wish i wish in vain ) is for today's
modern media to stop telling us what to think; tell us what is so,
just the facts ma'am, and will figger out what to think.
I'd also like for Open Season on any pundit who says: "What people
don't understand...". Listen, what we don't understand is what made
this country great. What media wonksters understand is what's sinking
us.
Other thing i'd like to see, just once before i die, is a good ol'
fashioned knockdown dragout political party convention, replete with
smokefilled backroom dealing; preferable to Coronations.
I'd like to see it on a snowy black & white TV.
That said, here's my punditocracy:
Republicans: We could do worse than McCain (goodbye Rudy goodbye good
riddance; may noone think it advisable to insert yuh fer Veep or Atty
Gen). My problem w/ Romney is the thought of looking at an aging Ken
doll for four years.
Democrats: I know one feller who's thinking a ticket comprised of the
two contenders would win, with no preference to top or bottom.
MuhSelf, i just say may the better minority win.
(o wait, wimmens ain't a minority. hmmm. om ahhh hmmm.)
That furthur said, here's my perennial favourites (since Harold
Stassen's no longer campaigning):
http://www.nobodyforpresident.org/
http://www.paulsen.com/archive.html
Vote, but vote,
dudley
really real
you actually believe in?
McCain says he will keep the troops in Iraq until the job is done
Clinton/Obama are surrender monkeys
Whose side are you on in this issue?
Pilgrim
> They call it SuperTuesday, but Monday's just as bad.
>
> Prediction: Whoever is elected president of the united states in '08,
> we'll survive 'em. We always seem to.
I'm worried. We're in a recession. We survived the Depression as a
group, but how many people didn't and how many suffered? We have an
environmental catastrophe looming as well as an economic one (kind of
like the dust bowl/depression combo, no?), but our actions affect the
entire world. It's not just Americans anymore that we cause suffering
to.
History repeats itself, but in new and "interesting" ways. Now we
have "superpower" interesting, and it's downright globally ugly.
>
> One thing i wish for ( i wish i wish i wish in vain ) is for today's
> modern media to stop telling us what to think; tell us what is so,
> just the facts ma'am, and will figger out what to think.
>
> I'd also like for Open Season on any pundit who says: "What people
> don't understand...". Listen, what we don't understand is what made
> this country great. What media wonksters understand is what's sinking
> us.
>
> Other thing i'd like to see, just once before i die, is a good ol'
> fashioned knockdown dragout political party convention, replete with
> smokefilled backroom dealing; preferable to Coronations.
>
> I'd like to see it on a snowy black & white TV.
>
> That said, here's my punditocracy:
>
> Republicans: We could do worse than McCain (goodbye Rudy goodbye good
> riddance; may noone think it advisable to insert yuh fer Veep or Atty
> Gen). My problem w/ Romney is the thought of looking at an aging Ken
> doll for four years.
Yeah, I sort of agree on McCain. His position on the environment is
rather progressive, except for the nuclear solution. The main issue I
have with him is his enthusiasm for continuous war. That negates any
positive positions he has and so I wouldn't vote for him even if I did
vote Republican.
I'd rather look at Romney than McCain, though. Four years of this?
http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/mccain.jpg
http://punchup.files.wordpress.com/2007/06/john_mccain.jpg
http://img.timeinc.net/time/daily/2006/0605/mccain0508.jpg
I don't know!
Romney's pretty much a "say what will win and buy the rest" kind of
guy. It's still surprising me that we haven't broken out the "flip
flopper" meme, but I guess that's only applicable to Democrats.
IOKIYAR.
I'm thinking a combo of McCain and Huckabee would go for the GOP. It
would be interesting to watch, at any rate. All the pundits will flip
out. That would be highly amusing.
>
> Democrats: I know one feller who's thinking a ticket comprised of the
> two contenders would win, with no preference to top or bottom.
> MuhSelf, i just say may the better minority win.
>
> (o wait, wimmens ain't a minority. hmmm. om ahhh hmmm.)
Well, as a friend of mine said, "The one thing men of all races can
agree on is the inferiority of women and too many women have
internalized the message". I know there are men who are genuinely
feminist (regardless of whether they will call themselves that) but
I've seen a lot more willingness to tolerate misogyny lately than I've
seen of tolerance for racism. Another friend asked this question "If
someone had gone to an Obama rally and displayed a sign that read
'Shine My Shoes" - like someone at a Clinton rally did with a sign
that read 'Iron My Shirt', would it be dismissed as funny or would we
have a collective case of guilt and anger over the blatant
racism?"
It doesn't matter how many of us there are. We were only allowed to
vote, with a few earlier exceptions, like Illinois in 1913, in 1920.
That's very recent. It's the perception people (women included, we've
been brought up with institutionalized sexism) have that men should
rule and have the privilege to believe they should without having to
justify it with ability, reason or intelligence - as the current
administration has so aptly proven.
QuinR...@hotmail.com
> On Feb 6, 9:48 am, Treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 5, 5:22 pm, geminijackso...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > > I was in and out in 5 minutes this morning. Then I had breakfast and
> > > went to vote. Not crowded at all. It's a tough choice this year but
> > > at least it'll end with Bush waving bye,
>
> > ......
>
> > > hopping onto a chopper to
> > > leave the White House in the shambles it is for another generation or
> > > two to straighten out.
> > > -GJ
>
> > What is most fearful is the idea of another generation of Clintons
>
> Chelsea's going to be president?
>
> I think you're projecting the Bush family onto the Clintons, Silky and
> you're entirely unconscious of it. Kudos!
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jWJHCRVs4AY
>
> ...blub...
>
Good article by Erica Jong ( and clever Dylan theme tie-in, too) .
Thanks for posting. Gender and race shouldn't be such an issue with
these two candidates, although it is something to think about that
race and gender might make a breakthrough this year and a Black or
woman president could actually get elected. The hyper-sensitivity
about racial references or civil rights issues in this election stand
in contrast to the stereotypes and misogyny that Hillary Clinton has
been subjected to and which seem to be standard fare and fair game.
She's a strong person and a fighter. Who do they want her to become in
order to be likeable, Laura Bush ?
The Democrats had a lot of good candidates running during the start of
the primaries. Like many Democrats, I am weighing Obama's apparent
strengths ( less-partisan, younger, inspiring, a thinker ) against
Hillary Clinton's experience, hard-work ethic, and the presumption
that she would demonstate a strong social consciousness on the
domestic front. Both are good candidates. I think, however, that
partly because of gender, past history, and the 'likeability factor',
Obama stands a better chance at winning. ( I hope that they don't
decide to become running mates because of their 'dis-likability
factor' for each other.) I think John Edwards would be a good choice
for vice-president and might add to a voter constituency. I wasn't
even able to cast a meaningful vote in my state other than
'uncommited', so I can only wait to vote in the presidential
election. It will be an exciting unpredictable election year, that's
for sure, but despite all of the excitement and hype, it's serious
business and a difficult road ahead. We need a change alright - no
more old men running the executive branch.
Martin
> I like Obama more, but there really does seem to be an inordinate
> amount of irrational hatred toward both Clintons
I'd prefer it if Hilary were black and Obama were a woman. That would
be real equality
Perfesser_dudley
Ya know, y'allmost roped me in hear, to the extent i was gonna call ya
by yr real name... "Ray".
On Feb 6, 12:28 pm, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> Dudley, you like to tread the line between the two parties,
sez you. please don't tell me what i like, and i won't underestimate
you. At very least, i'd estimate muhSelf 3rdParty as the Last of the
Bohicans.
> but what do
> you actually believe in?
>
That's too complex to answer glibly in an innerNet newsGroup post. I
will, if able, try to resurrect my beliefs before the 1st Sunday after
the 1st Full Moon after the Vernal Equinox. I'm presently looking for
the disc i backed them up to.
> McCain says he will keep the troops in Iraq until the job is done
>
hunnert years?
> Clinton/Obama are surrender monkeys
>
i'd steer clear of "monkey" references, pal. Hillary has an opposable
thumb too, yuh know?
> Whose side are you on in this issue?
>
Yer tryin' ta boil it down to the "War in Iraq"? There's more to it
than that.
I'm on the side of the person standing next to me, and the person
standing next to him or her. & the rest of our species.
& hoping we can evolve, given god's grace & intelligent design, but
doubting.
}
We're all in the same boat ready to float off the edge of the world
The flat old world
{
Did i mention that i don't believe in a heliocentricism?
The universe revolves around ME!
Hey, buddy, would you like to buy a watch real cheap
dudley
Jumbo
>
> Did i mention that i don't believe in a heliocentricism?
Common sense says sun rises, isn't it?
geminij...@yahoo.com
> > The fear people have of the Clinton's has nothing to do with any lack
> > of religious fundamental ideals. Seriously, do you really think
> > that? You should read up on the scandals both Clintons have been in
> > over the years.
>
> I've heard about the murders caused and covered up by the Clintons but I
> always assumed those were lies spread by hateful fundamentalist nutcase
> Republicans.
Ah, *that* one probably is a rumour.
>
> What on earth did the Clintons ever do that would compare to the Bush
> scandals of conspiring with the oil companies to invade Iraq and to
> undermine environmental legislation, like the California emission laws
> that have just been overruled?
pffft! The California emission laws are the least of Bush's
incompetence IMO. I'd say Clinton was far less destructive to our
country than Bush. Besides, Bush ain't running in 08.
I'm glad I'm in a State where you don't have to be a REGISTERED
Republican or Democrat to vote in the Primaries. I consider myself
neither. If I had to label myself I'd say I'm a libertarian that
leans to the left. You know... bad leg and all.
-GJ
Martin
> Common sense says sun rises, isn't it?
Doesn't it say it revolves around the earth - or the other way round?
Perfesser_dudley
Waaalll, hold on a minute there, pilgrim.
Sure is good to see ya dippin' yr toes in these waters. Sadly, i
haven't the time to engage deeply with you today, as i have to get
some sleep before i go to work overNight.
On Feb 6, 1:15 pm, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
> On Feb 6, 12:03 pm, Perfesser_dudley <dud...@cloud9.net> wrote:
>
> I'm worried. We're in a recession. We survived the Depression as a
> group, but how many people didn't and how many suffered? We have an
> environmental catastrophe looming as well as an economic one (kind of
> like the dust bowl/depression combo, no?), but our actions affect the
> entire world. It's not just Americans anymore that we cause suffering
> to.
>
"Well don't fret about that Pilgrim." http://www.geocities.com/dukejohnwayne/Pilgrim1.wav
It takes a worried mind to sing a worried song. I'm worried now, but i
won't be worried long.
We were in a recession when Clinton I took power. By whate'er (smoke &
mirrors? marketForce cycle?) we escaped it. As opposed to Carter, who
inherited Ford's "Whip Inflation Now", and his predecessor's Wage &
Price Freeze, possibly based on an economy trying to fund a War on
Communism while also funding a War on Poverty, eh?
We got thru that, just like my grandFolks beat the Great Depression.
Of course i thnik they were less weak than what i see today.
>
> > Republicans: We could do worse than McCain
>
> Yeah, I sort of agree on McCain. His position on the environment is
> rather progressive, except for the nuclear solution. The main issue I
> have with him is his enthusiasm for continuous war. That negates any
> positive positions he has and so I wouldn't vote for him even if I did
> vote Republican.
>
That said, Republicans who oppose him today will vote him against ANY
democrat, esp. Hillary.
>
> Romney's pretty much a "say what will win and buy the rest" kind of
> guy. It's still surprising me that we haven't broken out the "flip
> flopper" meme, but I guess that's only applicable to Democrats.
> IOKIYAR.
>
I miss "IOKIYAR", but i do know a working class Hispanic (latino,
correct me please) who opposes McCain on his immigration / amnesty
stand. When asked, he shrinks from Romney's obvious "flipFlops",
citing his strength on "Economy" (pocketBook). He wd, however,
possibly support NYC Mayor Bloomberg.
> > (o wait, wimmens ain't a minority. hmmm. om ahhh hmmm.)
>
> Well, as a friend of mine said, "The one thing men of all races can
> agree on is the inferiority of women and too many women have
> internalized the message".
"Well Pilgrim, I see your still protecting the ladies."
http://www.geocities.com/dukejohnwayne/Pilgrim3.wav
>
> It doesn't matter how many of us there are. We were only allowed to
> vote, with a few earlier exceptions, like Illinois in 1913, in 1920.
> That's very recent. It's the perception people (women included, we've
> been brought up with institutionalized sexism) have that men should
> rule and have the privilege to believe they should without having to
> justify it with ability, reason or intelligence - as the current
> administration has so aptly proven.
>
Just an historica note: "black" men received the right to vote (even
if it was difficult to exercise) in 1870, via the 15th Amendment to
the Constitution of the United States:
}
1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be
denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of
race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
{
Wimmens (Sufferage), the right to vote constitutionally, 1920, 19th
Amendment:
}
The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied
or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate
legislation.
{
I mean, there are people who are "pure" raceWise, not even a "touch",
but ain't no Man nor wombMan, no not one, doesn't have a Mother.
That said, thanks for dropping by. I thnik we'll make it, so long as
our Creditors don't call their chits.
That furthur said:
"You're a persistent cuss Pilgrim." http://www.geocities.com/dukejohnwayne/Pilgrim4.wav
Yr Pal,
the once & future,
President_dudley
___
'k, if any of this nonSense exceeds the bounds of propriety, chalk it
up to my Shift of Work, & how long i've been at it
Pilgrim
Oh now, Martin, they would have to be neo-pagan lesbians, too.
*grin*
But seriously, what Jong pointed out is important. The most serious
threat to tokenism right now is The Uppity White Woman (tm) who just
won't stay in her place. After we break that barrier, the domino
effect kicks in and white male supremacy kicks the bucket even while
they whine and cry out in their newly found oppression because they're
just like all the rest and all the people are part of We The People.
I'd love to see a female black president in my lifetime, or an
Hispanic or Indian (either kind) or an Asian one...but we have a way
to go.
I'd also like to see the insistence that our politicians be Christian
fall by the wayside. I know you Brits aren't often studied up on the
US constitution. We're having a real problem keeping our own citizens
and political candidates up on it, but it quite literally states:
"...no religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any
office or public trust under the United States."
That's in Article VI, section 3.
So, I'm waiting for the day when we have a Buddhist or Jewish or GASP!
a Muslim, or even GASPIER! an atheist president.
I suspect we won't see any of that in my lifetime.
Also, we need more female lead guitarists.
Martin
> Oh now, Martin, they would have to be neo-pagan lesbians, too
Yes. I would definitely support that
Perfesser_dudley
before i travel...
Naaahhh, Common sense suggests that the earth sets.
What Clancy Bros. song has "You could make me believe / with your
lying eyes / that the sun rose in the west" ? Or am i mistaken?
That said commonSensically (just then Tom Paine himSelf came runnin'
from across the field)::
}
Introduction to the Third Edition
Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET
sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour; a long habit
of not thinking a thing WRONG, gives it a superficial appearance of
being RIGHT, and raises at first a formidable outcry in defense of
custom. But the tumult soon subsides. Time makes more converts than
reason.
{
...
}
Of the Origin and Design of Government in General, with Concise
Remarks on the English Constitution
SOME writers have so confounded society with government, as to leave
little or no distinction between them; whereas they are not only
different, but have different origins. Society is produced by our
wants, and government by our wickedness; the former promotes our
happiness POSITIVELY by uniting our affections, the latter NEGATIVELY
by restraining our vices. The one encourages intercourse, the other
creates distinctions. The first is a patron, the last a punisher.
{
Sincerely,
The once & former,
Robert dudley Dickinson
___
"I'm sorry, sir," he said to me,
"I'm sorry for what she's done."
The Hysterical Bride
It's so hard for me, now, to think this song isn't about me (As I Went
Out One Morning).
It was a field.
The manager of the property, however you say it, I've heard of him
through someone else, too, you know, Robert K. (I feel bad, should I
not have said his name before? I like him. :/) Anyway, it was the
field, and he came out, there was the no trespassing sign, I look just
like the girl in that picture (62-85), the whole scene does, and like
everything on the girl, and in the picture, are signs of the chain
(the guilt, the people who helped me along the way, since meeting Bob,
like the knee, Paul, the toe, Marc, his friend, who I should have been
with instead of Bob, maybe, etc...my terrible chin because I got fat,
etc..what happened with my boobs, trying to stand up straight, not
being able to stand up to some old business man (RK) etc... I could go
on, I don't feel like it. It's in the archives, a little.
Could it be that this happened before?
Is Bob Dylan dangerous, a walking time bomb who terrorizes the female
species? (ok, we're not a species, that's the only thing I could think
of to say)
What d'ya wanna meet 'im for?
What d'ya wanna meet 'im for?
(9/23/95, 9/24/95 in Fla.)(2nd time, not 3rd time, AIWOOM)
"SEX!" (popped into my head, I was fried on speed, 2nd time there)
(I don't know. How about because he is the great and lonesome (I
thought) Bob Dylan and I want to be with him forever and ever? G-d,
what a stupid question. :) )
But I'm just a pathetic insane loser, and Bob Dylan is cool, he has a
girlfriend and a brand new wife, so I guess it's just not in the
cards. Fuck me.
The Hysterical Bride
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the fabricated video that someone sent me of that night on stage,
where they show the length of the aisle, they have me appearing in the
middle of the song (in an orange shirt, my T-shirt was white, and Bob
was in make-up, but not in this video, and Bob didn't start singing
until after we met and I didn't see him at the microphone, but heard
him say "sing") anyway, and gently touching him on the arm. He sent me
Marc, too, at least, that's what Marc said, "Bob sent me here" (the
Kabbalah Centre) and I took the whole banana. He said Bob was a good
friend of his, he called him every week, etc...And his mother, when I
called her from the midwest, knew exactly where he was going to be
after Davenport, although I fainted in the airport on the way, and
missed it, and my dad found him somehow (I don't know) in Kansas, so
he took me there (before luring me with lies into the hospital, but I
didn't care, I was totally manic, I had just married the great Bob
Dylan.)
FUCK!
I hate this story, I hate my life, I want Bob Dylan so bad, I know,
that's rude, he is never going to call me, I am never going back to
him, he's probably having sex, my life sucks.
The Hysterical Bride
>
> - Show quoted text -
Oh, also, his hair was sprayed black that night, and in the video,
it's dirty blonde. They have me disappearing, he's looking over at me
raising his eyebrows, like isn't she special? (seriously), coming back
into camera range and putting my head on his shoulder (like it said in
the paper) and moving around like an idiot, and he basically is just
ignoring me, then grabbing his ass, and he laughs and shuffles
forward, and then turns around and grabs my pinky, and is totally
smiling, and makes like a best friend sign or something. And the music
is the same on the video as the CD dylanstubs sent me, where they put
me on the back, but they totally edited out, changed it, what really
happened on stage, you know the story.
Jumbo
Not at all times.
The Hysterical Bride
>
> - Show quoted text -
The person who wrote me on the computer asked, "Are you the girl who
danced on stage with Bob Dylan?" and I wrote back, yes, and he wrote
back, "I can't believe I found you!' then some other stuff
transpired, because I was totally morose about it, like, so what, in
my heart, and then he said, well, I have the video, I thought you
might like it, and at first, I didn't even want it, I was SCARED TO
DEATH of it, thinking what did Bob Dylan think of me, and also, seeing
myself dance like an idiot across the stage to the speaker, I swear, I
didn't want to see it, then I was thinking about the whole thing, and
I was totally confused, and I was talking about it, out loud to him,
you know, in writing, you know what I mean, thinking out loud, and I
was like, "I WALKED UP TO HIM?" because at the time I only was
thinking of seeing him, then he spun around, then the next thing I
know, I am staring at his buns. The other thing I wrote was I didn't
remember what I was wearing, meaning, I was confused about my long
john underwear shirt that I left tied to the mirror of his bus, and if
I had it on on stage or not, but then thinking about outside the bus,
that would mean I got down to my bra to take it off and "mark my
territory" (he gave me the tea bag, in my mind, he was saying, "you're
mine" "you're my raspberry royale" haha lol, anyway, so I was doing
the same thing) anyway, so I must have left it up in the seats I
think, I can't believe I was carrying it, though, that doesn't make
sense (my father brought it for me, because I was traipsing around the
midwest, I remember when the police found me at one point, they wanted
me to talk to him on the phone, and he said "let me put you up in a
hotel," (WHOA! I just got this phone call from "Cedars" and it was
personal business information or something, then he asked me to verify
my address and date of birth, and I was like, no way, I don't even
know who you are, not those exact words, I was direct and
businesslike, and then he said, I'm sorry, I can't continue, I forget
his words exactly, but then it was like, sorry, I can't tell you what
this is about without your information, which is fine with me, so he
hung up. WEIRD!!!!!)- Anyway, I told my dad, no, leave me alone, I'm
having the time of my life (remember, it was also hell with voices and
stuff, sometimes, but I was listening to music, and living out some of
the songs, and traveling in a parallel universe, haha, no, it was so
weird you have no idea.) Anyway, it was small, and I guess he must
have insisted that I have it, I don't think I was wearing it, because
there is no way I stripped to my bra on the grass out by the bus
before tying it to the mirror, anyway, but I was really confused at
the time, and said, "I don't remember what I was wearing." And then I
get this video where I am in an orange shirt. It wasn't even my body
type. They totally made my boobs smaller. And my hair was different,
well, whatever, you are just going to have to believe me, I didn't put
my head on his shoulder, I didn't grab his ass making him laugh, he
didn't grab my pinky, and pull it up and make the best friend's sign,
I didn't come in the middle of the song in an orange shirt and touch
his fricken ARM, etc...etc... And I had been bathing suit thin,
smaller than "stillpassable" really small, then gained 15-20 pounds
FAST before I got to him, because I thought he liked meaty women.
Stupidest thing I have ever done. :(
Pilgrim
I started singspeaking that part of Highlands as soon as I started
reading the article.
> Thanks for posting. Gender and race shouldn't be such an issue with
> these two candidates, although it is something to think about that
> race and gender might make a breakthrough this year and a Black or
> woman president could actually get elected. The hyper-sensitivity
> about racial references or civil rights issues in this election stand
> in contrast to the stereotypes and misogyny that Hillary Clinton has
> been subjected to and which seem to be standard fare and fair game.
> She's a strong person and a fighter. Who do they want her to become in
> order to be likeable, Laura Bush ?
She's been a threat since she became First Lady. I recall all sorts
of comments in the news that reflected a kind of mass fear over her
breaking through the traditional role of helpmeet and hostess of
teas.
>
> The Democrats had a lot of good candidates running during the start of
> the primaries. Like many Democrats, I am weighing Obama's apparent
> strengths ( less-partisan, younger, inspiring, a thinker ) against
> Hillary Clinton's experience, hard-work ethic, and the presumption
> that she would demonstate a strong social consciousness on the
> domestic front. Both are good candidates. I think, however, that
> partly because of gender, past history, and the 'likeability factor',
> Obama stands a better chance at winning. ( I hope that they don't
> decide to become running mates because of their 'dis-likability
> factor' for each other.) I think John Edwards would be a good choice
> for vice-president and might add to a voter constituency.
I like the idea of an Obama/Edwards ticket, but I also think that
there's a lot of media spin going on that is anti-Clinton and that's
why there was so much shock (in the media) when she won New Hampshire
and a Clinton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket would win just as well.
But, and I hope to be proven entirely wrong, if and when Clinton loses
to Obama, the media and all the haters won't have a Clinton to project
all their unworked issues on and Obama will become the Democrat
running for office. At this point, all the dumping will land on him.
Right now he's the media darling because he can get rid of Clinton.
As I said, I hope I'm proven wrong.
> I wasn't
> even able to cast a meaningful vote in my state other than
> 'uncommited', so I can only wait to vote in the presidential
> election.
You're not in Michigan, are you? I was going to vote uncommited, too,
but I broke my ankle just before and figured it'd be ok to wait for
the general. I'm not sure if our delegates will even be seated.
> It will be an exciting unpredictable election year, that's
> for sure, but despite all of the excitement and hype, it's serious
> business and a difficult road ahead. We need a change alright - no
> more old men running the executive branch.- Hide quoted text -
really real
>
> pffft! The California emission laws are the least of Bush's
> incompetence IMO.
I disagree, because the California emission laws have, in my opinion,
being one of the great democratic success stories of recent time.
Californians pass a referendum demanding cleaner cars. To make these
cars for California, the automobile companies end up making them for the
whole country. Other places, like Canada, copy the legislation. It was
the proof that people's votes can really save the world.
Then, Bush rules that California can't make its own emission laws
anymore. The results of this giant step backwards will resonate much
more than the immediate pollution it will cause.
And getting back to an earlier question, yes, I do believe that
religious Republicans lead the scandal attacks on the Clintons.
J Buck
who died in the Vietnam War is a good example. Three million people are
said to have died in the Vietnam war, not 60,000.>
I knew it was just a matter of time after you came back here before
you'd start spewing your anti-American bullshit.
J Buck
Joan Jett says hi :)
J Buck
carpetbagger."
Seems fair. It's not like she was a New York resident.
Babs
> On Feb 6, 10:15 am, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 9:59 am, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > What is most fearful is the idea of another generation of Clintons to
> > > > leave the White House in even further shambles. Wow. What a sad
> > > > outcome yesterday. Just proves that one should never underestimate
> > > > the power of the dark side.
>
> > > fundamentalist xian
>
> ......
>
>
>
> > The misogyny is going to be fascinating to watch this year. I'd get a
> > front row seat, but, y'know, monkey poo is totally gross.
>
> Calling anti-Hillary Clinton-ism misogyny is like calling anti-bin
> Laden-ism racism.
Great analogy.
frinjdwelr
"J Buck" <jbu...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:13213-47A...@storefull-3134.bay.webtv.net...
That's right. Us patriotic Americans don't want any unsavory factoids
clouding our mirrors.
really real
>>
>
> That's right. Us patriotic Americans don't want any unsavory factoids
> clouding our mirrors.
There has been a revival lately of American propaganda to justify the
Vietnam war, which really bothers me, because if you can't learn from
your mistakes, then those millions of people died in vain. Well, they
died in vain anyway, but how many more victims of unnecessary wars will
there be?
Gemini Jackson
wrote:
136?
142?
...or something like that.
-GJ
Babs
> On Feb 6, 10:55 am, geminijackso...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > On Feb 6, 9:59 am, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > What is most fearful is the idea of another generation of Clintons to
> > > > leave the White House in even further shambles. Wow. What a sad
> > > > outcome yesterday. Just proves that one should never underestimate
> > > > the power of the dark side.
>
> > > You're just afraid of having someone in the White House who isn't a
> > > fundamentalist xian
>
> > of religious fundamental ideals. Seriously, do you really think
> > that? You should read up on the scandals both Clintons have been in
> > over the years.
>
> trumped up partisan charges. The Bush family (and Cheney) make the
> Clintons look like slightly soiled angels.
>
> http://www.realchange.org/clinton.htm
>
>
>
> > I voted for Obama. I have my issues with him too but felt willing to
> > take a chance.
> > -GJ
>
> I like Obama more, but there really does seem to be an inordinate
A lot of irrational hatred surfaces where politics are concerned. When
I told a neighbor I had voted for Obama, she informed me she would
never speak to me again. She might have been serious too. She screamed
at me for about two minutes and went inside her apartment and slammed
the door.
really real
>> died in vain anyway, but how many more victims of unnecessary wars will
>> there be?
>
> 136?
>
> 142?
>
> ...or something like that.
In some parts of the world, this joke would be considered in the same
league as Holocaust humour.
Martin
> > 136?
>
> > 142?
>
> > ...or something like that.
>
> In some parts of the world, this joke would be considered in the same
> league as Holocaust humour
Which parts?
Perfesser_dudley
Or Mohammed's turban as litFused bomb, or Mohammed's head drawn on a
leashed dog, or a teddyBear named Mohammed, or Mohammed's Radio (oooh,
i gotta track that one down).
That said, what was the artificial additive to snackFoods some years
back that seemed to cause anal leakage? Do they still have that
around? Sounds interesting.
That furthur said, what does any of this have to do with Rush
Limbaugh's fetish for "anal poisoning"?
}
Don't it make you want to rock and roll
All night long
{
dudley
Martin
> When
> I told a neighbor I had voted for Obama, she informed me she would
> never speak to me again
Was she wearing George Jones pyjamas at the time? That can cause
irrational outbursts of hostility
Pilgrim
Yeah, really. It's the new Godwins law.
Treadleson's privilege is to show a complete lack of awareness and
engage in hystrionics while bitching about white women so he doesn't
have to take anything that women like Jong say seriously.
Same old same old.
really real
>
> Or Mohammed's turban as litFused bomb, or Mohammed's head drawn on a
> leashed dog, or a teddyBear named Mohammed, or Mohammed's Radio (oooh,
> i gotta track that one down).
>
Well, it's true that some religions are more sensitive than others, but
you can get in real trouble for posting hate comments on the internet.
comments that encourage hate crimes against racial groups. Joking about
how nice it would be to round up the Jews again and gas them is really
not acceptable. Joking about millions of Vietnamese dying needlessly
from a foreign invasion seems to be okay though, at least in America.
Jumbo
But wasn't Gemini pointing out that your question "how many ..." is
itself offensive, or, at least, obtuse, if we're going to get all
sensitive about it? Surely it's not quantity of heaps of dead that
matter in assessing whether something is right or wrong.
really real
>
> But wasn't Gemini pointing out that your question "how many ..." is
> itself offensive, or, at least, obtuse, if we're going to get all
> sensitive about it? Surely it's not quantity of heaps of dead that
> matter in assessing whether something is right or wrong.
My question "how many" was an allusion to Blowing in the Wind, of course.
The number of needless deaths is a huge issue in assessing whether
something is right or wrong.
Suppose it would be a good idea to replace the dictator of Iraq. If
someone told you that twenty innocent people would die in this endeavor,
it would make it a lot more moral than if a million innocent people were
to die.
This kind of calculation goes on all the time in war. If there is a
village harbouring the enemy, you calculate how bad the collateral
damage will be before ordering the bombing.
Martin
> But wasn't Gemini pointing out that your question "how many ..." is
> itself offensive, or, at least, obtuse, if we're going to get all
> sensitive about it?
Yes
daysof48
> On Feb 7, 12:32 pm, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Babs <bambiemo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 11:01 pm, Treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 6, 10:15 am, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 6, 9:59 am, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > What is most fearful is the idea of another generation of Clintons to
> > > > > > > leave the White House in even further shambles. Wow. What a sad
> > > > > > > outcome yesterday. Just proves that one should never underestimate
> > > > > > > the power of the dark side.
>
> > > > > > You're just afraid of having someone in the White House who isn't a
> > > > > > fundamentalist xian
>
> > > > ......
>
> > > > > The misogyny is going to be fascinating to watch this year. I'd get a
> > > > > front row seat, but, y'know, monkey poo is totally gross.
>
> > > > Calling anti-Hillary Clinton-ism misogyny is like calling anti-bin
> > > > Laden-ism racism.
>
> > > Great analogy.
>
> > Yeah, really. It's the new Godwins law.
>
> > Treadleson's privilege is to show a complete lack of awareness and
> > engage in
>
>
> > hystrionics
>
> gotta love that spelling.
LOL
Is that anything like hyrtrionics?
Pilgrim
> On Feb 7, 12:32 pm, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 6, 11:20 pm, Babs <bambiemo...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 6, 11:01 pm, Treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Feb 6, 10:15 am, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > On Feb 6, 9:59 am, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > > > > What is most fearful is the idea of another generation of Clintons to
> > > > > > > leave the White House in even further shambles. Wow. What a sad
> > > > > > > outcome yesterday. Just proves that one should never underestimate
> > > > > > > the power of the dark side.
>
> > > > > > You're just afraid of having someone in the White House who isn't a
> > > > > > fundamentalist xian
>
> > > > ......
>
> > > > > The misogyny is going to be fascinating to watch this year. I'd get a
> > > > > front row seat, but, y'know, monkey poo is totally gross.
>
> > > > Calling anti-Hillary Clinton-ism misogyny is like calling anti-bin
> > > > Laden-ism racism.
>
> > > Great analogy.
>
> > Yeah, really. It's the new Godwins law.
>
> > Treadleson's privilege is to show a complete lack of awareness and
> > engage in
>
>
> > hystrionics
>
> gotta love that spelling.
Your arguments are always so substantial.
It's a fairly common misspelling, but I'm taking your jibe as another
way to avoid taking what Jong is saying seriously.
Watch out for those white women.
>
>
>
> > while bitching about white women so he doesn't
> > have to take anything that women like Jong say seriously.
>
> > Same old same old.
>
> > - Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
Jumbo
> My question "how many" was an allusion to Blowing in the Wind, of course.
That doesn't make it an appropriate allusion.
> The number of needless deaths is a huge issue in assessing whether
> something is right or wrong.
Well all I can say is I totally disagree. If someone points a gun at
my head and says press button a or b or I kill you. Button a, I'm
told, kills one child, b kills 200. The right thing, I suppose, is to
press neither and call the bluff. I will not accept that pressing
button a is "the right thing" to do. I think this quantifying approach
to ethics suggests you care more about winning a point in a debate
than about any actual deaths.
> Suppose it would be a good idea to replace the dictator of Iraq. If
> someone told you that twenty innocent people would die in this endeavor,
> it would make it a lot more moral than if a million innocent people were
> to die.
More / less moral. I don't compute that. Causing any death knowingly
is immoral. I think you're choosing the wrong words. Sorry for the
semantic argument, but I can't go with more/less moral.
> This kind of calculation goes on all the time in war.
That doesn't make it right. Lots of things "go on all the time in war"
that I would hesitate to support.
> If there is a
> village harbouring the enemy, you calculate how bad the collateral
> damage will be before ordering the bombing.
See where this has got you?
really real
>
>> This kind of calculation goes on all the time in war.
>
> That doesn't make it right. Lots of things "go on all the time in war"
> that I would hesitate to support.
That's easy for you to say, because you aren't in the trenches right
now. But all your life, your country has been involved in foreign wars
that kill innocent victims. Sure, you hesitate to support these
killings, because you feel you don't have to. Someone else is doing it
for you.
Pilgrim
>
> > Watch out for those white women.
>
> privileged, wealthy white women and their hystrionics. Most people
> would agree with that.
I've learned to not care what "most people think", particularly when
it've extremely difficult to get an accurate asssessment of what most
people are thinking.
Privileged black men are pretty much on the same level as privilege
white women. The issue is hegemony in a white AND male centered
world. When privileged white men seek to distract by blaming the
privileged white woman, it's a good bet that there is a great amount
of fear, mostly unconscious, among those who stand to lose their
status as most privileged of the great apes.
Pilgrim
> > > > > hystrionics
>
> > > > gotta love that spelling.
>
> > > Your arguments are always so substantial.
>
> > > It's a fairly common misspelling, but I'm taking your jibe as another
> > > way to avoid taking what Jong is saying seriously.
>
> > .....
>
> > > Watch out for those white women.
>
> > Isn't that just a touch broad? How about watch out for those
> > privileged, wealthy white women and their hystrionics. Most people
> > would agree with that.
>
> I've learned to not care what "most people think", particularly when
> it've
pfffft...
that was changed from I've, to almost it's.
Pilgrim
> On Feb 8, 9:03 am, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > engage in
>
> > > ......
>
> > > > hystrionics
>
> > > gotta love that spelling.
>
> > Your arguments are always so substantial.
>
> > It's a fairly common misspelling, but I'm taking your jibe as another
> > way to avoid taking what Jong is saying seriously.
>
>
> > Watch out for those white women.
>
> privileged, wealthy white women and their hystrionics. Most people
> would agree with that.
Aside from keeping in mind that every candidate running for president
is highly privileged, this list may help:
The final one #45 is the kicker
Male privilege checklist
1. My odds of being hired for a job, when competing against female
applicants, are probably skewed in my favor. The more prestigious the
job, the larger the odds are skewed.
2. I can be confident that my co-workers won't think I got my job
because of my sex - even though that might be true.
3. If I am never promoted, it's not because of my sex.
4. If I fail in my job or career, I can feel sure this won't be seen
as a black mark against my entire sex's capabilities.
5. The odds of my encountering sexual harassment on the job are so low
as to be negligible.
6. If I do the same task as a woman, and if the measurement is at all
subjective, chances are people will think I did a better job.
7. If I'm a teen or adult, and if I can stay out of prison, my odds of
being raped are so low as to be negligible.
8. I am not taught to fear walking alone after dark in average public
spaces.
9. If I choose not to have children, my masculinity will not be called
into question.
10. If I have children but do not provide primary care for them, my
masculinity will not be called into question.
11. If I have children and provide primary care for them, I'll be
praised for extraordinary parenting if I'm even marginally competent.
12. If I have children and pursue a career, no one will think I'm
selfish for not staying at home.
13. If I seek political office, my relationship with my children, or
who I hire to take care of them, will probably not be scrutinized by
the press.
14. Chances are my elected representatives are mostly people of my own
sex. The more prestigious and powerful the elected position, the more
likely this is to be true.
15. I can be somewhat sure that if I ask to see "the person in
charge," I will face a person of my own sex. The higher-up in the
organization the person is, the surer I can be.
16. As a child, chances are I was encouraged to be more active and
outgoing than my sisters.
17. As a child, I could choose from an almost infinite variety of
children's media featuring positive, active, non-stereotyped heroes of
my own sex. I never had to look for it; male heroes were the default.
18. As a child, chances are I got more teacher attention than girls
who raised their hands just as often.
19. If my day, week or year is going badly, I need not ask of each
negative episode or situation whether or not it has sexist overtones.
20. I can turn on the television or glance at the front page of the
newspaper and see people of my own sex widely represented, every day,
without exception.
21. If I'm careless with my financial affairs it won't be attributed
to my sex.
22. If I'm careless with my driving it won't be attributed to my sex.
23. I can speak in public to a large group without putting my sex on
trial.
24. If I have sex with a lot of people, it won't make me an object of
contempt or derision.
25. There are value-neutral clothing choices available to me; it is
possible for me to choose clothing that doesn't send any particular
message to the world.
26. My wardrobe and grooming are relatively cheap and consume little
time.
27. If I buy a new car, chances are I'll be offered a better price
than a woman buying the same car.
28. If I'm not conventionally attractive, the disadvantages are
relatively small and easy to ignore.
29. I can be loud with no fear of being called a shrew. I can be
aggressive with no fear of being called a bitch.
30. I can ask for legal protection from violence that happens mostly
to men without being seen as a selfish special interest, since that
kind of violence is called "crime" and is a general social concern.
(Violence that happens mostly to women is usually called "domestic
violence" or "acquaintance rape," and is seen as a special interest
issue.)
31. I can be confident that the ordinary language of day-to-day
existence will always include my sex. "All men are created equal,"
mailman, chairman, freshman, he.
32. My ability to make important decisions and my capability in
general will never be questioned depending on what time of the month
it is.
33. I will never be expected to change my name upon marriage or
questioned if I don't change my name.
34. The decision to hire me will never be based on assumptions about
whether or not I might choose to have a family sometime soon.
35. Every major religion in the world is led primarily by people of my
own sex. Even God, in most major religions, is usually pictured as
being male.
36. Most major religions argue that I should be the head of my
household, while my wife and children should be subservient to me.
37. If I have a wife or live-in girlfriend, chances are we'll divide
up household chores so that she does most of the labor, and in
particular the most repetitive and unrewarding tasks.
38. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, chances are she'll
do most of the childrearing, and in particular the most dirty,
repetitive and unrewarding parts of childrearing.
39. If I have children with a wife or girlfriend, and it turns out
that one of us needs to make career sacrifices to raise the kids,
chances are we'll both assume the career sacrificed should be hers.
40. Magazines, billboards, television, movies, pornography, and
virtually all of media is filled with images of scantily-clad women
intended to appeal to me sexually. Such images of men exist, but are
much rarer.
41. I am not expected to spend my entire life 20-40 pounds
underweight.
42. If I am heterosexual, it's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be
beaten up by a spouse or lover.
43. Complete strangers generally do not walk up to me on the street
and tell me to "smile."
44. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are
interrupted by men.
45. I have the privilege of being unaware of my male privilege.
Babs
I don't think she needs pjs to help her along. She's just limited.
But if you want to send her a gift, Martin, she could use a lift, I'm
sure.
Jumbo
That's a sleazy level of argument. You're suggesting that if I was "in
the trenches" then I would suddenly see the light and come round to
your way of thinking, and see that killing people is moral... I
maintain that regardless of my comfortable armchair situation, your
"morality" stinks. I think it derives ultimately from your
materialism. Since you stake everything on the overtly perceptible
world, you can't conceive of motives other than kill or be killed.
Finally, the UK, as far as I know, has not been involved in foreign
wars all my life, only for most of it.
Martin
> I don't think she needs pjs to help her along. She's just limited.
>
> But if you want to send her a gift, Martin, she could use a lift, I'm
> sure
Anyone who shouts abusively at you, Babs is no friend of mine
Martin
> > That's easy for you to say, because you aren't in the trenches right
> > now. But all your life, your country has been involved in foreign wars
> > that kill innocent victims. Sure, you hesitate to support these
> > killings, because you feel you don't have to. Someone else is doing it
> > for you.
>
> That's a sleazy level of argument
It's also - unless I'm much mistaken - baiting for baiting's sake
Jumbo
Pilgrim, I agree with most of your points here (admittedly some rankle
but probably because I'm a bloke...) However, I think the following
one is unfortunately phrased:
> 42. If I am heterosexual, it's incredibly unlikely that I'll ever be
> beaten up by a spouse or lover.
Many men are severely physically abused by female partners. Calling
that abuse "incredibly unlikely" is not helping anyone.
>
> 44. On average, I am not interrupted by women as often as women are
> interrupted by men.
I think you're right - but... you know ... I wonder, if we could get
reliable figures, how big a difference there'd be here.
Pilgrim
I'm just curious, but what do you consider killing in self defense or
in defense of a loved one, moral or immoral?
These kind of questions have always stumped me. I'd like to say that
I wouldn't kill anyone, ever, but I'm not sure of what I'd do under
certain circumstances which tend to blur the line between moral and
immoral. Some situations might be amoral.
really real
> That's a sleazy level of argument. You're suggesting that if I was "in
> the trenches" then I would suddenly see the light and come round to
> your way of thinking, and see that killing people is moral... I
> maintain that regardless of my comfortable armchair situation, your
> "morality" stinks. I think it derives ultimately from your
> materialism. Since you stake everything on the overtly perceptible
> world, you can't conceive of motives other than kill or be killed.
>
> Finally, the UK, as far as I know, has not been involved in foreign
> wars all my life, only for most of it.
Who are you calling sleazy?
The funny thing is, I feel that materialism is the reason for your fake
morality, because those foreign wars, be they American, British, or
Canadian, do a lot to support our standard of living. It's your material
comforts that give you your point of view. And don't try escaping into
spiritualism to escape the wars that are carried out in your name, and
for your material comforts.
really real
>> That's a sleazy level of argument
>
> It's also - unless I'm much mistaken - baiting for baiting's sake
Who are you now, the PR impersonator?
Martin, I'm having a serious discussion here. Take your shallow
hostility elsewhere, please.
Pilgrim
> On Feb 8, 11:50 am, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 10:51 am, Treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 8, 9:03 am, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Treadleson's privilege is to show a complete lack of awareness and
> > > > > > engage in
>
> > > > > ......
>
> > > > > > hystrionics
>
> > > > > gotta love that spelling.
>
> > > > Your arguments are always so substantial.
>
> > > > It's a fairly common misspelling, but I'm taking your jibe as another
> > > > way to avoid taking what Jong is saying seriously.
>
> > > .....
>
> > > > Watch out for those white women.
>
> > > Isn't that just a touch broad? How about watch out for those
> > > privileged, wealthy white women and their hystrionics. Most people
> > > would agree with that.
>
> > Aside from keeping in mind that every candidate running for president
> > is highly privileged, this list may help:
>
> > The final one #45 is the kicker
>
> > Male privilege checklist
>
>
> All of this clearly demonstrates that Sen. Clinton's candidacy really
> ISN'T about experience as they try to trick you into believing, it's
> about gender. It's identity politics plain and simple. What's worse,
> though, is the way she and Sister Gloria, to name just one, play the
> race card while speechifying about justice and equality. What a
> sleaze.
>
> I wish that she and her people would come out and tell the truth for
> ONCE in their life.
Nice try. I was originally an Edwards supporter and I still think he
was the best candidate. I'd prefer it if Obama wins, but I certainly
believe that Clinton is highly qualified and a far better choice than
any of the Republican candidates, but please, keep thinking there's
been no sexism in how Clintons candidacy (or in how she's been
perceived for the last 15 years) is being presented by the media and
in how it's being perceived by many people and keep proving my points.
Kthnkxby.
Jumbo
> On Feb 8, 12:48 pm, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Feb 8, 3:14 pm, really real <reallyr...@shaw.ca> wrote:
>
> > > >> This kind of calculation goes on all the time in war.
>
> > > > That doesn't make it right. Lots of things "go on all the time in war"
> > > > that I would hesitate to support.
>
> > > That's easy for you to say, because you aren't in the trenches right
> > > now. But all your life, your country has been involved in foreign wars
> > > that kill innocent victims. Sure, you hesitate to support these
> > > killings, because you feel you don't have to. Someone else is doing it
> > > for you.
>
> > That's a sleazy level of argument. You're suggesting that if I was "in
> > the trenches" then I would suddenly see the light and come round to
> > your way of thinking, and see that killing people is moral... I
> > maintain that regardless of my comfortable armchair situation, your
> > "morality" stinks. I think it derives ultimately from your
> > materialism. Since you stake everything on the overtly perceptible
> > world, you can't conceive of motives other than kill or be killed.
>
> > Finally, the UK, as far as I know, has not been involved in foreign
> > wars all my life, only for most of it.
>
> I'm just curious, but what do you consider killing in self defense or
> in defense of a loved one, moral or immoral?
Well, I can't really answer as I don't tend to think in terms of moral
or immoral action. I prefer your amoral angle. I was responding to
really real's quantifiable morality model.
But to attempt to answer your question: at the moment I'm having an
Epicurean-Stoic phase, so I'd have to say that being too attached to
your own life or even to another person leads to the quandary, and
that therefore the quandary is illusory.
Pilgrim
>
> I wish that she and her people would come out and tell the truth for
> ONCE in their life.
>
And why does everything you say about Clinton sound like it's a
projection of what the Bush administration has been doing?
You're really causing me to take very seriously the idea that if
progressives want to know the Right Wing is up to, all we need do is
look at what they are saying about the left.
Jumbo
>
> The funny thing is, I feel that materialism is the reason for your fake
> morality
So you're saying that considering killing to be wrong is a "fake
morality"? And so true morality involves slaughter? M Rick, where are
you? You called *me* a potential homocidal maniac...
>, because those foreign wars, be they American, British, or
> Canadian, do a lot to support our standard of living.
That's very very true.
> It's your material
> comforts that give you your point of view.
That's total bollocks. Why hasn't everyone I know got the same point
of view as me? A lot of people on my street would agree with you.
Therefore, *their* material comforts "give" them their point of view.
Silly argument.
> And don't try escaping into
> spiritualism to escape the wars that are carried out in your name, and
> for your material comforts.
I don't understand your point. You seem to be saying that because I
was born in a country, the government of which conducts war against
other countries, then any claim to regard killing as wrong on my part
is "escapist"? You're rather laying down the law in terms of what I
can legitimately believe, aren't you? If we found some people in
seriously deprived circumstances who thought killing was wrong, how
would you convert them?
Incidentally, wars are not carried out "in my name". As you well know,
they are carried out in the name of the states involved, usually for
economic profit. I am not coextensive with the state in which I was
born. I was born here and I'll die here / Against my will.
Martin
> Martin, I'm having a serious discussion here. Take your shallow
> hostility elsewhere, please
In what way have I been hostile here? Oh sorry, I know you won't
bother responding
Pilgrim
> On Feb 8, 1:15 pm, Pilgrim <mcisr...@umich.edu> wrote:> On Feb 8, 12:56 pm, Treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > I wish that she and her people would come out and tell the truth for
> > > ONCE in their life.
>
> > And why does everything you say about Clinton sound like it's a
> > projection of what the Bush administration has been doing?
>
>
> Everything I say about Clinton reflects things she does and says.
> There is no deconstruction going on here. I suggest trying the same
> approach with her.
Oh, I'm not accusing you of deconstructing anything.
>
>
>
> > You're really causing me to take very seriously the idea that if
> > progressives want to know the Right Wing is up to, all we need do is
> > look at what they are saying about the left.
>
> Again, more unnecessary and ultimately futile deconstruction. If you
> want to know what the Right Wing or Left Wing are up to, all you have
> to do is look at what they are doing.
Yes, there is no deception in politics. Never, ever, ever. It's the
one place I can trust what people are saying at face value.
> This reminds me of an SNL sketch
> where two WW2 soldiers at a checkpoint in Europe stop an American
> soldier who is black and very American (Halt! Who goes there?)
> because they suspect that he might be a German in an American uniform
> and so they start asking him more and more obscure questions about the
> States like, "who played shortstop in the 5th inning of the 3rd game
> of the 1939 World Series for the home team?" Obviously he can't
> answer the question so they say, "AHA! NOW we know what you are
> REALLY up to. You are impersonating an American."
>
> Also...progressives? They support things like Roe Vs Wade and other
> very unprogressive things. Progressive may be a slightly too
> dignified term for this view point.
Dude, you are from outer space.
Jumbo
>
>
> I wouldn't take this too seriously, Jumbo.
Oh I don't. Especially as I've just had a glass of wine and a chip
butty and Into the Mystic is on.
> He thinks that wars where
> innocents are massively murdered didn't exist until the US came into
> being and after we came into being and the institution of war started
> that every war was been started by the US. Now I KNOW that isn't true
> and the Falklands war is proof.
Well, you know, I think his basic angle (that wars are usually fought
to improve living standards for the winning side) is sound. It's just
the idea that war x can be justified by killing fewer people than in
war y I find dangerous.
Martin
> Oh I don't. Especially as I've just had a glass of wine and a chip
> butty and Into the Mystic is on
Watch your cholesterol, Jumbo. A chip butty's okay as a treat but
think of all the deep fried Mars bars and pizzas you've had this week
Pilgrim
> On Feb 8, 6:59 pm, Treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > I wouldn't take this too seriously, Jumbo.
>
> Oh I don't. Especially as I've just had a glass of wine and a chip
> butty and Into the Mystic is on.
I had to look up chip butty.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chip_butty
I'm worried about you, Jumbo.
The Hysterical Bride
I looked it up, too.
Looks yummy.
The Hysterical Bride
Reminds me of being at the University of Chicago, and heading out with
the gang to Harold's Chicken Shack and making a fry sandwich. But I
added in the chicken (all white meat) into mine, as well. It was
doused in their special hot sauce. And I'd wash it down with Orange
Nehi.
Wow, do I miss that.
Pilgrim
Oh dear! It looks awful to me.
I hope the wine is red, at least. I support copious drinking of red
wine, particularly after a chip butty.
really real
>
> Woooooo. Getting a little condescending and testy are we? You would do
> well to find a new mode of expressing your bottled up feelings.
>
Well, Martin asked an honest question and I agree, I've bottled up some
resentment from Martin's continual one word/ one sentence sniping.
Testy, yes, but I don't think I was condescending.
really real
> So you're saying that considering killing to be wrong is a "fake
> morality"? And so true morality involves slaughter? M Rick, where are
> you? You called *me* a potential homocidal maniac...
What I'm saying is that it makes no sense being utterly against war when
you live in a country at war, and you go along with it. It's not as if
you're very much to stop the slaughter.
It's as if Dudley wanted what was best for Iraq, I would think that he
would support the Democratic candidate over the Republican.
>
> Incidentally, wars are not carried out "in my name". As you well know,
> they are carried out in the name of the states involved, usually for
> economic profit. I am not coextensive with the state in which I was
> born. I was born here and I'll die here / Against my will.
What do you mean you're living in the country against your will? Are you
in chains?
really real
> I wouldn't take this too seriously, Jumbo. He thinks that wars where
> innocents are massively murdered didn't exist until the US came into
> being and after we came into being and the institution of war started
> that every war was been started by the US. Now I KNOW that isn't true
> and the Falklands war is proof.
Why would you say such a ridiculous thing. Just because I criticize
American imperialism doesn't mean I don't know anything about the
history of imperialism. The irony is, it's Americans who are always
being accused of not knowing anything about history. Bush/Cheney sure
didn't know anything about the history of Iraq before they broke it.
really real
>
> Well, you know, I think his basic angle (that wars are usually fought
> to improve living standards for the winning side) is sound. It's just
> the idea that war x can be justified by killing fewer people than in
> war y I find dangerous.
>
Nobody said it wasn't dangerous. But what is the alternative?
Jumbo
> On Feb 8, 2:45 pm, Jumbo <ch...@cupolagallery.com> wrote:> On Feb 8, 6:59 pm, Treadleson <treadl...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > > I wouldn't take this too seriously, Jumbo.
>
> > Oh I don't. Especially as I've just had a glass of wine and a chip
> > butty and Into the Mystic is on.
>
> > > He thinks that wars where
> > > innocents are massively murdered didn't exist until the US came into
> > > being and after we came into being and the institution of war started
> > > that every war was been started by the US. Now I KNOW that isn't true
> > > and the Falklands war is proof.
>
>
> > Well, you know, I think his basic angle (that wars are usually fought
> > to improve living standards for the winning side) is sound.
>
> angle is that he hates the US. Period.
I'm sure you know from the history of rmd that I'm closer politically
to rr than to you, but I agree that he often weakens his arguments by
targeting the US as a scapegoat.
Jumbo
I hate LOL cos I never laugh out loud at posts, but this one really
made me TTM.