Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
What I find sad about the IRS mess
34 views
Skip to first unread message
CheeseHusker dos
May 18, 2013, 6:01:00 PM5/18/13
to
is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
Do they not think that there's a Karl Rove in their future? And that
the tables might be turned - that their organizations, etc might come
under IRS abuse?
What if Bush had done it?
We know Nixon did...
You know - weird thought just crossed thru my mind - the very same
"liberals" growing up under Nixon and railing against the Power That
Be and expressing massive distrust of the gov't are now those very
same Powers - and we've got a whole new group railing against the
PTB...
Where's Peter Townsend when you need him?
Do they not think that there's a Karl Rove in their future? And that
the tables might be turned - that their organizations, etc might come
under IRS abuse?
What if Bush had done it?
We know Nixon did...
You know - weird thought just crossed thru my mind - the very same
"liberals" growing up under Nixon and railing against the Power That
Be and expressing massive distrust of the gov't are now those very
same Powers - and we've got a whole new group railing against the
PTB...
Where's Peter Townsend when you need him?
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 18, 2013, 7:25:19 PM5/18/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 15:01:00 -0700 (PDT), CheeseHusker dos
<jonr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>
>Do they not think that there's a Karl Rove in their future? And that
>the tables might be turned - that their organizations, etc might come
>under IRS abuse?
>
>What if Bush had done it?
>
>We know Nixon did...
The sad difference is that we are now directed to blame subordinates
<jonr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>
>Do they not think that there's a Karl Rove in their future? And that
>the tables might be turned - that their organizations, etc might come
>under IRS abuse?
>
>What if Bush had done it?
>
>We know Nixon did...
but not the teflon-coated mulatto.
Hugh
Eric Ramon
May 18, 2013, 9:22:50 PM5/18/13
to
conservatives as "not the same". Yes it is.
Meanwhile, is the current administration "liberal"? I don't think so
but they're definitely extra-constitutional.
One major problem with the right wing is that they've overplayed their
hand. They tried and tried to find something on Clinton, with the
objective being to get rid of him. That's just stupid. Now they're
trying with Obama. Instead of coming across as serious people wanting
law and decency they seem to be childish screamers.
As mentioned elsewhere, if they were ever right about something it
would get lost in the craziness. Like this additional thing about a
Marine holding an umbrella for Obama as he spoke. Sarah Palin said
"Most Americans hold their own umbrellas". Great. And then there's
this photo
http://freakoutnation.com/2013/05/17/umbrella-gate-sarah-palin-most-americans-hold-their-own-umbrellas-except-for-every-other-president/
and you can scroll down for some midget holding an umbrella over
Ronnie and Nancy.
Stuff like that makes that fringe look like laughingstocks. Outraged
laughingstocks.
So when something comes along that's a real question, nobody except
the true rightwing believers takes it seriously.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
May 18, 2013, 11:19:24 PM5/18/13
to
On 2013-05-19, Eric Ramon <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
of low-profile ones. It was right out in the open, and Obama's
was hidden and lied about.
>
> Meanwhile, is the current administration "liberal"? I don't think so
> but they're definitely extra-constitutional.
>
> One major problem with the right wing is that they've overplayed their
> hand. They tried and tried to find something on Clinton, with the
> objective being to get rid of him. That's just stupid. Now they're
> trying with Obama. Instead of coming across as serious people wanting
> law and decency they seem to be childish screamers.
>
> As mentioned elsewhere, if they were ever right about something it
> would get lost in the craziness. Like this additional thing about a
> Marine holding an umbrella for Obama as he spoke. Sarah Palin said
> "Most Americans hold their own umbrellas". Great. And then there's
> this photo
>
> http://freakoutnation.com/2013/05/17/umbrella-gate-sarah-palin-most-americans-hold-their-own-umbrellas-except-for-every-other-president/
>
> and you can scroll down for some midget holding an umbrella over
> Ronnie and Nancy.
>
> Stuff like that makes that fringe look like laughingstocks. Outraged
> laughingstocks.
>
> So when something comes along that's a real question, nobody except
> the true rightwing believers takes it seriously.
It's a sideshow. The fact you want to focus on a sideshow makes
it clear how desperately you want to change the subject.
--
Find the grain of truth in criticism, chew it, and swallow
it. -- anonymous
> On May 18, 3:01?pm, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>>
>> Do they not think that there's a Karl Rove in their future? ?And that
>> is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>>
>> the tables might be turned - that their organizations, etc might come
>> under IRS abuse?
>>
>> What if Bush had done it?
>>
>> We know Nixon did...
>>
>> You know - weird thought just crossed thru my mind - the very same
>> "liberals" growing up under Nixon and railing against the Power That
>> Be and expressing massive distrust of the gov't are now those very
>> same Powers - and we've got a whole new group railing against the
>> PTB...
>>
>> Where's Peter Townsend when you need him?
>
> Bush did do it. For some reason the NAACP thing is brushed off by
> conservatives as "not the same". Yes it is.
It is not. It is one very high profile organization, not hundreds
>> under IRS abuse?
>>
>> What if Bush had done it?
>>
>> We know Nixon did...
>>
>> You know - weird thought just crossed thru my mind - the very same
>> "liberals" growing up under Nixon and railing against the Power That
>> Be and expressing massive distrust of the gov't are now those very
>> same Powers - and we've got a whole new group railing against the
>> PTB...
>>
>> Where's Peter Townsend when you need him?
>
> Bush did do it. For some reason the NAACP thing is brushed off by
> conservatives as "not the same". Yes it is.
of low-profile ones. It was right out in the open, and Obama's
was hidden and lied about.
>
> Meanwhile, is the current administration "liberal"? I don't think so
> but they're definitely extra-constitutional.
>
> One major problem with the right wing is that they've overplayed their
> hand. They tried and tried to find something on Clinton, with the
> objective being to get rid of him. That's just stupid. Now they're
> trying with Obama. Instead of coming across as serious people wanting
> law and decency they seem to be childish screamers.
>
> As mentioned elsewhere, if they were ever right about something it
> would get lost in the craziness. Like this additional thing about a
> Marine holding an umbrella for Obama as he spoke. Sarah Palin said
> "Most Americans hold their own umbrellas". Great. And then there's
> this photo
>
> http://freakoutnation.com/2013/05/17/umbrella-gate-sarah-palin-most-americans-hold-their-own-umbrellas-except-for-every-other-president/
>
> and you can scroll down for some midget holding an umbrella over
> Ronnie and Nancy.
>
> Stuff like that makes that fringe look like laughingstocks. Outraged
> laughingstocks.
>
> So when something comes along that's a real question, nobody except
> the true rightwing believers takes it seriously.
it clear how desperately you want to change the subject.
--
Find the grain of truth in criticism, chew it, and swallow
it. -- anonymous
Eric Ramon
May 18, 2013, 11:35:34 PM5/18/13
to
On May 18, 8:19 pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
<consta...@bill.perusion.com> wrote:
> >http://freakoutnation.com/2013/05/17/umbrella-gate-sarah-palin-most-a...
from the right wing that now everything looks like a sideshow. The
fact that you latched onto the last sentence makes it clear how etc....
<consta...@bill.perusion.com> wrote:
>
> > and you can scroll down for some midget holding an umbrella over
> > Ronnie and Nancy.
>
> > Stuff like that makes that fringe look like laughingstocks. Outraged
> > laughingstocks.
>
> > So when something comes along that's a real question, nobody except
> > the true rightwing believers takes it seriously.
>
> It's a sideshow. The fact you want to focus on a sideshow makes
> it clear how desperately you want to change the subject.
>
> --
no, I'm pointing out that there have been so many "sideshows" coming
> > and you can scroll down for some midget holding an umbrella over
> > Ronnie and Nancy.
>
> > Stuff like that makes that fringe look like laughingstocks. Outraged
> > laughingstocks.
>
> > So when something comes along that's a real question, nobody except
> > the true rightwing believers takes it seriously.
>
> It's a sideshow. The fact you want to focus on a sideshow makes
> it clear how desperately you want to change the subject.
>
> --
from the right wing that now everything looks like a sideshow. The
fact that you latched onto the last sentence makes it clear how etc....
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
May 18, 2013, 11:50:45 PM5/18/13
to
On 2013-05-19, Eric Ramon <ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On May 18, 8:19?pm, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated American"
> no, I'm pointing out that there have been so many "sideshows" coming
> from the right wing that now everything looks like a sideshow. The
> fact that you latched onto the last sentence makes it clear how etc....
That's pretty pathetic. It's a sideshow that was done by a few blogs,
> from the right wing that now everything looks like a sideshow. The
> fact that you latched onto the last sentence makes it clear how etc....
and is meaningless. Yet you try and promote it to the level of Benghazi.
Give me a break.
--
"I find that a great part of the information I have was acquired
by looking up something and finding something else on the way."
-- Franklin Pierce Adams
Kyle T. Jones
May 19, 2013, 12:06:39 AM5/19/13
to
administration? That's why he's desperate to change the subject, right?
I mean, if anyone ever disagrees with you about anything, it can only
be because they're a Genuine Obama Sycophant, right?
Cheers.
--
Too bad. Read the manual. If this stuff were easy
we would not get the big bucks. -- Michael Press, June 1st 2012
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 19, 2013, 9:20:09 AM5/19/13
to
On Sat, 18 May 2013 18:22:50 -0700 (PDT), Eric Ramon
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Meanwhile, is the current administration "liberal"? I don't think so
That certainly eliminates the need to read further.
<ramon...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Meanwhile, is the current administration "liberal"? I don't think so
Hugh
dre
May 20, 2013, 9:09:04 AM5/20/13
to
On Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:01:00 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
> is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
Um, how about because the Bush admin used the IRS to wrongfully persecute the NAACP in 2004, while there is no sign that the Obama admin was actually involved in this situation? How about because the Tea Party 501(c)(4) groups weren't "social welfare" groups, but actually political organizations who rightfully *should* have been investigated in the first place? How about because none of those Tea Party groups were actually _denied_ 501(c)(4) status, yet the one group that was...was a left-leaning group?
> is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
http://www.salon.com/2013/05/15/meet_the_group_the_irs_actually_revoked_democrats/
Finally, and not least of all, how about because most liberals are burned out on the constant cries of "omfg SCANDAL!!!1!!!!1!!!" by conservatives when it's actually a tempest in a teacup?
Why is it that few *conservatives* have been concerned about the doctoring of leaked emails in the Benghazi "scandal"?
the_andr...@yahoo.com
May 20, 2013, 9:33:03 AM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 9:09 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:01:00 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
> > is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>
Because they're the bammers of politics. They are so wrapped up in the
> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:01:00 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
> > is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>
success of their party that they would rather say, "but
bush....conservatives...etc"
It's sad that we are watching our rights go down the tubes because
whomever is putting the screws to us, their party defenders will
blindly go to bat for them.
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 20, 2013, 10:40:18 AM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:09:04 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
wrote:
I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
>Um, how about because the Bush admin used the IRS to wrongfully persecute t=
>he NAACP in 2004,
I don't recall, maybe he did. Maybe he had reason, maybe he did not.
>...while there is no sign that the Obama admin was actually
>involved in this situation?
The Obie admin is not just a small group of people. It is everyone who
has the authority to act during his administration. No matter how hard
he tries he can not distance himself from the responsibility - any
more than you allow Bush to do the same.
>How about because the Tea Party 501(c)(4) grou=
very few groups, or maybe only one, violated the principles. Yet that
became an excuse to expand the investigation beyond any reasonable
parameters. Because it is Obie, vice Bush, is not a reasonable excuse.
>Finally, and not least of all, how about because most liberals are burned o=
>ut on the constant cries of "omfg SCANDAL!!!1!!!!1!!!" by conservatives whe=
happening to Bush.
Hugh
wrote:
I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
>Um, how about because the Bush admin used the IRS to wrongfully persecute t=
>he NAACP in 2004,
I don't recall, maybe he did. Maybe he had reason, maybe he did not.
>...while there is no sign that the Obama admin was actually
>involved in this situation?
The Obie admin is not just a small group of people. It is everyone who
has the authority to act during his administration. No matter how hard
he tries he can not distance himself from the responsibility - any
more than you allow Bush to do the same.
>How about because the Tea Party 501(c)(4) grou=
>ps weren't "social welfare" groups,
I think you are probably right. But compare to your NAACP instance. A
very few groups, or maybe only one, violated the principles. Yet that
became an excuse to expand the investigation beyond any reasonable
parameters. Because it is Obie, vice Bush, is not a reasonable excuse.
>Finally, and not least of all, how about because most liberals are burned o=
>ut on the constant cries of "omfg SCANDAL!!!1!!!!1!!!" by conservatives whe=
>n it's actually a tempest in a teacup?
If I get three guesses my first is because that is what is still
happening to Bush.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 20, 2013, 10:44:05 AM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:33:03 -0700 (PDT), "the_andr...@yahoo.com"
<the_andr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 9:09=A0am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:01:00 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
>> > is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>>
>
>Because they're the bammers of politics.
Your analogy is inept. Bama has only been stalemated once in four
years, albeit by the OTHER school if I remember correctly. :)
Hugh
<the_andr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On May 20, 9:09=A0am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Saturday, May 18, 2013 6:01:00 PM UTC-4, CheeseHusker dos wrote:
>> > is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>>
>
>Because they're the bammers of politics.
years, albeit by the OTHER school if I remember correctly. :)
Hugh
CheeseHusker dos
May 20, 2013, 11:13:11 AM5/20/13
to
On May 18, 5:01 pm, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>
BTW - again, a tip of the hat to the President for saying "WTF?"
> is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>
dre
May 20, 2013, 11:18:07 AM5/20/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:40:18 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:09:04 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
Right, because *I'm* the insensible one in this discussion.
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:09:04 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
> >Um, how about because the Bush admin used the IRS to wrongfully persecute t=
>
> >he NAACP in 2004,
>
>
>
> I don't recall, maybe he did. Maybe he had reason, maybe he did not.
> >...while there is no sign that the Obama admin was actually
>
> >involved in this situation?
>
>
>
> The Obie admin is not just a small group of people. It is everyone who
>
> has the authority to act during his administration. No matter how hard
>
> he tries he can not distance himself from the responsibility - any
>
> more than you allow Bush to do the same.
> >How about because the Tea Party 501(c)(4) grou=
>
> >ps weren't "social welfare" groups,
>
>
>
> I think you are probably right. But compare to your NAACP instance.
> A
>
> very few groups, or maybe only one, violated the principles.
> Yet that
>
> became an excuse to expand the investigation beyond any reasonable
>
> parameters. Because it is Obie, vice Bush, is not a reasonable excuse.
> >Finally, and not least of all, how about because most liberals are burned o=
>
> >ut on the constant cries of "omfg SCANDAL!!!1!!!!1!!!" by conservatives whe=
>
> >n it's actually a tempest in a teacup?
>
>
>
> If I get three guesses my first is because that is what is still
>
> happening to Bush.
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
May 20, 2013, 11:48:44 AM5/20/13
to
On 2013-05-20, CheeseHusker dos <jonr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
04/01/10: IRS starts targeting Tea Party.
http://bit.ly/18cl6ya
--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
> On May 18, 5:01?pm, CheeseHusker dos <jonrus...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>>
>
> BTW - again, a tip of the hat to the President for saying "WTF?"
03/31/10: IRS union chief meets with Obama at WH.
>> is how few "liberals" have said WTF?
>>
>
> BTW - again, a tip of the hat to the President for saying "WTF?"
04/01/10: IRS starts targeting Tea Party.
http://bit.ly/18cl6ya
--
Being against torture ought to be sort of a bipartisan thing.
-- Karl Lehenbauer
the_andr...@yahoo.com
May 20, 2013, 12:38:05 PM5/20/13
to
On May 20, 11:18 am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:40:18 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> > On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:09:04 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre.er...@gmail.com>
> On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:40:18 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
> > wrote:
>
> > I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
>
> Right, because *I'm* the insensible one in this discussion.
>
> > >Um, how about because the Bush admin used the IRS to wrongfully persecute t=
>
> > >he NAACP in 2004,
>
> > I don't recall, maybe he did. Maybe he had reason, maybe he did not.
>
> http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-10-29/news/0410290318_1_tax-exe...
> > wrote:
>
> > I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
>
> Right, because *I'm* the insensible one in this discussion.
>
> > >Um, how about because the Bush admin used the IRS to wrongfully persecute t=
>
> > >he NAACP in 2004,
>
> > I don't recall, maybe he did. Maybe he had reason, maybe he did not.
>
>
> > >...while there is no sign that the Obama admin was actually
>
> > >involved in this situation?
>
> > The Obie admin is not just a small group of people. It is everyone who
>
> > has the authority to act during his administration. No matter how hard
>
> > he tries he can not distance himself from the responsibility - any
>
> > more than you allow Bush to do the same.
>
> Ah, ok. So by that metric, you agree that 9/11 was Bush's fault?
>
> > >How about because the Tea Party 501(c)(4) grou=
>
> > >ps weren't "social welfare" groups,
>
> > I think you are probably right. But compare to your NAACP instance.
>
> Well for one, the NAACP's primary purpose is and has been demonstrably about social welfare, not politicking, unlike a generic Tea Party organization.
BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!
> > >...while there is no sign that the Obama admin was actually
>
> > >involved in this situation?
>
> > The Obie admin is not just a small group of people. It is everyone who
>
> > has the authority to act during his administration. No matter how hard
>
> > he tries he can not distance himself from the responsibility - any
>
> > more than you allow Bush to do the same.
>
> Ah, ok. So by that metric, you agree that 9/11 was Bush's fault?
>
> > >How about because the Tea Party 501(c)(4) grou=
>
> > >ps weren't "social welfare" groups,
>
> > I think you are probably right. But compare to your NAACP instance.
>
> Well for one, the NAACP's primary purpose is and has been demonstrably about social welfare, not politicking, unlike a generic Tea Party organization.
Wheeze....cough, cough, cough...GASP,
BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!1111ELEVENTY
Con Reeder, unhyphenated American
May 20, 2013, 12:49:59 PM5/20/13
to
On 2013-05-20, the_andr...@yahoo.com <the_andr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
only valid one, and therefore apolitical, you know that.
What gets me is that they can say it with a straight face.
--
Growth is the only evidence of life. -- John Henry Newman
> On May 20, 11:18?am, dre <andre.er...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:40:18 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> > On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:09:04 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre.er...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
>>
>> Right, because *I'm* the insensible one in this discussion.
>>
>> > >Um, how about because the Bush admin used the IRS to wrongfully persecute t=
>>
>> > >he NAACP in 2004,
>>
>> > I don't recall, maybe he did. Maybe he had reason, maybe he did not.
>>
>> http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-10-29/news/0410290318_1_tax-exe...
>>
>> > >...while there is no sign that the Obama admin was actually
>>
>> > >involved in this situation?
>>
>> > The Obie admin is not just a small group of people. It is everyone who
>>
>> > has the authority to act during his administration. No matter how hard
>>
>> > he tries he can not distance himself from the responsibility - any
>>
>> > more than you allow Bush to do the same.
>>
>> Ah, ok. ?So by that metric, you agree that 9/11 was Bush's fault?
>> On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:40:18 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> > On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:09:04 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre.er...@gmail.com>
>>
>> > wrote:
>>
>> > I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
>>
>> Right, because *I'm* the insensible one in this discussion.
>>
>> > >Um, how about because the Bush admin used the IRS to wrongfully persecute t=
>>
>> > >he NAACP in 2004,
>>
>> > I don't recall, maybe he did. Maybe he had reason, maybe he did not.
>>
>> http://articles.baltimoresun.com/2004-10-29/news/0410290318_1_tax-exe...
>>
>> > >...while there is no sign that the Obama admin was actually
>>
>> > >involved in this situation?
>>
>> > The Obie admin is not just a small group of people. It is everyone who
>>
>> > has the authority to act during his administration. No matter how hard
>>
>> > he tries he can not distance himself from the responsibility - any
>>
>> > more than you allow Bush to do the same.
>>
>>
>> > >How about because the Tea Party 501(c)(4) grou=
>>
>> > >ps weren't "social welfare" groups,
>>
>> > I think you are probably right. But compare to your NAACP instance.
>>
>> Well for one, the NAACP's primary purpose is and has been
>> demonstrably about social welfare, not politicking, unlike a generic
>> Tea Party organization.
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!
>
>
> Wheeze....cough, cough, cough...GASP,
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!1111ELEVENTY
Leftys always claim that their version of "social welfare" is the
>> > >How about because the Tea Party 501(c)(4) grou=
>>
>> > >ps weren't "social welfare" groups,
>>
>> > I think you are probably right. But compare to your NAACP instance.
>>
>> Well for one, the NAACP's primary purpose is and has been
>> demonstrably about social welfare, not politicking, unlike a generic
>> Tea Party organization.
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAA!!!!!!
>
>
> Wheeze....cough, cough, cough...GASP,
>
> BWAAAAAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAA!!!!!!1111ELEVENTY
only valid one, and therefore apolitical, you know that.
What gets me is that they can say it with a straight face.
--
Growth is the only evidence of life. -- John Henry Newman
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 20, 2013, 1:38:39 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:18:07 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
as you to be a martyr.
>> >...while there is no sign that the Obama admin was actually
>> >involved in this situation?
>> The Obie admin is not just a small group of people. It is everyone who
>> has the authority to act during his administration. No matter how hard
>> he tries he can not distance himself from the responsibility - any
>> more than you allow Bush to do the same.
>
>Ah, ok. So by that metric, you agree that 9/11 was Bush's fault?
I was not aware that Bush gave them the authority or appointed them to
the position. But by your metric, if I accept that as being the fault
of Bush Obie has to accept the fault for the school shootings and the
Boston bombs.
>> I think you are probably right. But compare to your NAACP instance.
>
>Well for one, the NAACP's primary purpose is and has been demonstrably about social welfare, not politicking, unlike a generic Tea Party organization.
I agree to some extent. But their agenda is limited to "colored
people" by the title. And they are as political as any group EXCEPT
donations are not made directly in the name of the organization.
It's like me giving to a PAC knowing what will happen to the money.
But I didn't do it - they did.
>> If I get three guesses my first is because that is what is still
>> happening to Bush.
>
>You need to take several steps back from the electron microscope you have trained on the Obama administration so you can get a proper sense of scale.
My microscope is focused on the direction the country is headed and
who is doing the directing. I refuse to be misdirected to the water
already over the dam. It is no longer a threat to the dam. It is
merely a device to divert attention from what is happening now.
We have different attitudes. You believe that everything is stacked
against you and you are not totally wrong. I believe that nothing
could have ever held me back except me.
Hugh
wrote:
>On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:40:18 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:09:04 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>> I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
>
>Right, because *I'm* the insensible one in this discussion.
That was not what I meant at all. I have never seen anyone try as hard
>On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:40:18 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>> On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:09:04 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
>>
>> wrote:
>> I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
>
>Right, because *I'm* the insensible one in this discussion.
as you to be a martyr.
>> >...while there is no sign that the Obama admin was actually
>> >involved in this situation?
>> The Obie admin is not just a small group of people. It is everyone who
>> has the authority to act during his administration. No matter how hard
>> he tries he can not distance himself from the responsibility - any
>> more than you allow Bush to do the same.
>
>Ah, ok. So by that metric, you agree that 9/11 was Bush's fault?
the position. But by your metric, if I accept that as being the fault
of Bush Obie has to accept the fault for the school shootings and the
Boston bombs.
>> I think you are probably right. But compare to your NAACP instance.
>
>Well for one, the NAACP's primary purpose is and has been demonstrably about social welfare, not politicking, unlike a generic Tea Party organization.
people" by the title. And they are as political as any group EXCEPT
donations are not made directly in the name of the organization.
It's like me giving to a PAC knowing what will happen to the money.
But I didn't do it - they did.
>> If I get three guesses my first is because that is what is still
>> happening to Bush.
>
>You need to take several steps back from the electron microscope you have trained on the Obama administration so you can get a proper sense of scale.
who is doing the directing. I refuse to be misdirected to the water
already over the dam. It is no longer a threat to the dam. It is
merely a device to divert attention from what is happening now.
We have different attitudes. You believe that everything is stacked
against you and you are not totally wrong. I believe that nothing
could have ever held me back except me.
Hugh
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 20, 2013, 1:41:32 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 11:49:59 -0500, "Con Reeder, unhyphenated
American" <cons...@bill.perusion.com> wrote:
>What gets me is that they can say it with a straight face.
Au contraire - I can say "my way or the highway" with a straight face!
American" <cons...@bill.perusion.com> wrote:
>What gets me is that they can say it with a straight face.
Hugh
dre
May 20, 2013, 4:05:47 PM5/20/13
to
dre
May 20, 2013, 4:22:25 PM5/20/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013 1:38:39 PM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:18:07 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:40:18 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:09:04 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
>
> >
>
> >Right, because *I'm* the insensible one in this discussion.
>
>
>
> That was not what I meant at all. I have never seen anyone try as hard
>
> as you to be a martyr.
That's hysterical on its own, but especially coming from you.
> On Mon, 20 May 2013 08:18:07 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Monday, May 20, 2013 10:40:18 AM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
>
> >> On Mon, 20 May 2013 06:09:04 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
>
> >>
>
> >> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> I know you don't like talking sensibly with me but...
>
> >
>
> >Right, because *I'm* the insensible one in this discussion.
>
>
>
> That was not what I meant at all. I have never seen anyone try as hard
>
> as you to be a martyr.
> >> >...while there is no sign that the Obama admin was actually
>
> >> >involved in this situation?
>
>
>
> >> The Obie admin is not just a small group of people. It is everyone who
>
> >> has the authority to act during his administration. No matter how hard
>
> >> he tries he can not distance himself from the responsibility - any
>
> >> more than you allow Bush to do the same.
>
> >
>
> >Ah, ok. So by that metric, you agree that 9/11 was Bush's fault?
>
>
>
> I was not aware that Bush gave them the authority or appointed them to
>
> the position.
> But by your metric, if I accept that as being the fault
>
> of Bush Obie has to accept the fault for the school shootings and the
>
> Boston bombs.
> >> I think you are probably right. But compare to your NAACP instance.
>
> >
>
> >Well for one, the NAACP's primary purpose is and has been demonstrably about social welfare, not politicking, unlike a generic Tea Party organization.
>
>
>
> I agree to some extent. But their agenda is limited to "colored
>
> people" by the title.
> And they are as political as any group EXCEPT
>
> donations are not made directly in the name of the organization.
> >> If I get three guesses my first is because that is what is still
>
> >> happening to Bush.
>
> >
>
> >You need to take several steps back from the electron microscope you have trained on the Obama administration so you can get a proper sense of scale.
>
>
>
> My microscope is focused on the direction the country is headed and
>
> who is doing the directing. I refuse to be misdirected to the water
>
> already over the dam. It is no longer a threat to the dam. It is
>
> merely a device to divert attention from what is happening now.
> We have different attitudes. You believe that everything is stacked
>
> against you and you are not totally wrong. I believe that nothing
>
> could have ever held me back except me.
Which, incidentally, is also why your claim about everyone starting from the same point is so much utter bullshit.
dre
May 20, 2013, 4:25:34 PM5/20/13
to
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 20, 2013, 5:24:41 PM5/20/13
to
On Mon, 20 May 2013 13:22:25 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>> I was not aware that Bush gave them the authority or appointed them to
>> the position.
>
>Shift those goalposts, dude. It has been widely documented that the Bush a=
>dmin was warned about the possibility of 9/11; therefore by your own logic,=
and responsible to Obie pursued unconstitutional events. You countered
with an extraneous event that by no stretch of the imagination was
pursued or under the control of Bush.
>the Boston bo=
we invaded the country of Muslim wherever that is. And it happened
during the term of the closest thing we have ever had to a Muslim
president.
It was the act of two stupid kids who were brainwashed into thinking
that such an act might change anything - other than increase the hate,
that is. And the survivor has little teeny boppers all over the place
saying he is innocent and having tattoos about him. Doesn't that speak
well for the country?
>> I agree to some extent. But their agenda is limited to "colored
>> people" by the title.
>Hardly. Do a little research.
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. I said "by
the title" not "in reality". But anyother activity makes the title not
only deceptive, but a lie. It's so funny when "colored people" is now
a hate term.
Actually the NAACP here appears to be a reasonable and moderate group.
>> >> If I get three guesses my first is because that is what is still
>> >> happening to Bush.
>> >You need to take several steps back from the electron microscope you hav=
>e trained on the Obama administration so you can get a proper sense of scal=
>eady been shown to be sorely lacking, so it's no wonder you think the past =
conclusions about you that I have.
> I guess =
>I wouldn't *truly* feel like nothing could ever hold me back unless I was t=
>ransported back to those joyful times in the '40s and '50s when all black p=
>eople did was laugh and dance, respectfully call all the young white kids "=
>Which, incidentally, is also why your claim about everyone starting from th=
soul and that is the only equality between people.
Other than that we never had the same talents and since I am white I
enjoyed every social advantage over you, particularly if you lived in
the South. And the only thing that will finally matter is how God sees
us.
Hugh
wrote:
>> I was not aware that Bush gave them the authority or appointed them to
>> the position.
>
>dmin was warned about the possibility of 9/11; therefore by your own logic,=
> Bush owns that event.
>
>> But by your metric, if I accept that as being the fault
>> of Bush Obie has to accept the fault for the school shootings and the
>> Boston bombs.
>
>Only if you likewise acknowledge that the failure to prevent both past and =
>
>> But by your metric, if I accept that as being the fault
>> of Bush Obie has to accept the fault for the school shootings and the
>> Boston bombs.
>
>future shootings lies squarely with the NRA and GOP, and that
We are getting nowhere. I pointed out that people under the control of
and responsible to Obie pursued unconstitutional events. You countered
with an extraneous event that by no stretch of the imagination was
pursued or under the control of Bush.
>the Boston bo=
>mbings are a reaction to a long history of US interventionist policies.
Were they American Indians, Korean or Vietnamese? Or did I forget that
we invaded the country of Muslim wherever that is. And it happened
during the term of the closest thing we have ever had to a Muslim
president.
It was the act of two stupid kids who were brainwashed into thinking
that such an act might change anything - other than increase the hate,
that is. And the survivor has little teeny boppers all over the place
saying he is innocent and having tattoos about him. Doesn't that speak
well for the country?
>> I agree to some extent. But their agenda is limited to "colored
>> people" by the title.
>Hardly. Do a little research.
the title" not "in reality". But anyother activity makes the title not
only deceptive, but a lie. It's so funny when "colored people" is now
a hate term.
Actually the NAACP here appears to be a reasonable and moderate group.
>> >> If I get three guesses my first is because that is what is still
>> >> happening to Bush.
>e trained on the Obama administration so you can get a proper sense of scal=
>e.
>> My microscope is focused on the direction the country is headed and
>> who is doing the directing. I refuse to be misdirected to the water
>> already over the dam. It is no longer a threat to the dam. It is
>> merely a device to divert attention from what is happening now.
>Your microscope also needs cleaning and your historical perspective has alr=
>> My microscope is focused on the direction the country is headed and
>> who is doing the directing. I refuse to be misdirected to the water
>> already over the dam. It is no longer a threat to the dam. It is
>> merely a device to divert attention from what is happening now.
>eady been shown to be sorely lacking, so it's no wonder you think the past =
>does not inform the present.
If I didn't know Obie's past I would not be applauding changing his
present.
>
>> We have different attitudes. You believe that everything is stacked
>>=20
>
>> We have different attitudes. You believe that everything is stacked
>> against you and you are not totally wrong. I believe that nothing
>>=20
>> could have ever held me back except me.
>
>The twisted, bizarre things you convince yourself about me...wow.
What you post is more evidence than one wouild ever need to form the
>
>The twisted, bizarre things you convince yourself about me...wow.
conclusions about you that I have.
> I guess =
>I wouldn't *truly* feel like nothing could ever hold me back unless I was t=
>ransported back to those joyful times in the '40s and '50s when all black p=
>eople did was laugh and dance, respectfully call all the young white kids "=
>sir" and "miss", and be "slightly" held back in employment opportunities.
That is precisely why I said you are not totally wrong.
>Which, incidentally, is also why your claim about everyone starting from th=
>e same point is so much utter bullshit.
In such a case I am very sorry for you because you were born without a
soul and that is the only equality between people.
Other than that we never had the same talents and since I am white I
enjoyed every social advantage over you, particularly if you lived in
the South. And the only thing that will finally matter is how God sees
us.
Hugh
Michael Press
May 20, 2013, 5:47:01 PM5/20/13
to
In article <slrnkpkl1j.6...@bill.perusion.com>,
--Bob Dylan
<http://dylanchords.info/05_biabh/its_alright_ma_im_only_bleeding.htm>
"It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)"
Tabbed by Eyolf Østrem
Dropped D tuning (D-A-d-g-b-e')
capo 2nd fret (sounding key E minor)
Chords:
D 000232
G/b 02003x (or -0 or -3)
Csus2 030030
Bb6 01030x
F/d 000211
G/d 000433
A 202220
: . . . : . . .
|--1--/3-------1----|(2)--------------|-
|.-1--/3-------1----|-3---3-3-3-3-3--.|-
|--2--/4-------2----|-2---2-2-2-2-2---|-
|--0---0-------0----|-0---0-0-0-0-0---|-
|.-0---0-------0----|-0---0-0-0-0-0--.|-
|--0---0-------0----|-0---0-0-0-0-0---|-
Darkness at the break of noon
D
Shadows even the silver spoon
Csus2
The handmade blade, the child's balloon
G/b
Eclipses both the sun and moon
Bb6
To understand you know too soon
D
There is no sense in trying.
Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool's gold mouthpiece
The hollow horn plays wasted words
Proves to warn
That he not busy being born
Is busy dying.
Temptation's page flies out the door
You follow, find yourself at war
Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before
You discover
That you'd just be
One more person crying.
D A
So don't fear if you hear
D G/b
A foreign sound to your ear
D A G/b A D
It's alright, Ma, I'm only sighing.
As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred.
Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Made everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It's easy to see without looking too far
That not much
Is really sacred.
While preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have
To stand naked.
An' though the rules of the road have been lodged
It's only people's games that you got to dodge
And it's alright, Ma, I can make it.
Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you're the one
That can do what's never been done
That can win what's never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you.
You lose yourself, you reappear
You suddenly find you got nothing to fear
Alone you stand with nobody near
When a trembling distant voice, unclear
Startles your sleeping ears to hear
That somebody thinks
They really found you.
A question in your nerves is lit
Yet you know there is no answer fit to satisfy
Insure you not to quit
To keep it in your mind and not fergit
That it is not he or she or them or it
That you belong to.
Although the masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools
I got nothing, Ma, to live up to.
For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something
They invest in.
While some on principles baptized
To strict party platform ties
Social clubs in drag disguise
Outsiders they can freely criticize
Tell nothing except who to idolize
And then say God bless him.
While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he's in.
But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it's alright, Ma, if I can't please him.
Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn't talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares Propaganda, all is phony.
While them that defend what they cannot see
With a killer's pride, security
It blows the minds most bitterly
For them that think death's honesty
Won't fall upon them naturally
Life sometimes
Must get lonely.
My eyes collide head-on with stuffed graveyards
False gods, I scuff
At pettiness which plays so rough
Walk upside-down inside handcuffs
Kick my legs to crash it off
Say okay, I have had enough
What else can you show me?
And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They'd probably put my head in a guillotine
But it's alright, Ma, it's life, and life only.
--
Michael Press
> Growth is the only evidence of life. -- John Henry Newman
He not busy being born is busy dying.
--Bob Dylan
<http://dylanchords.info/05_biabh/its_alright_ma_im_only_bleeding.htm>
"It's Alright, Ma (I'm Only Bleeding)"
Tabbed by Eyolf Østrem
Dropped D tuning (D-A-d-g-b-e')
capo 2nd fret (sounding key E minor)
Chords:
D 000232
G/b 02003x (or -0 or -3)
Csus2 030030
Bb6 01030x
F/d 000211
G/d 000433
A 202220
: . . . : . . .
|--1--/3-------1----|(2)--------------|-
|.-1--/3-------1----|-3---3-3-3-3-3--.|-
|--2--/4-------2----|-2---2-2-2-2-2---|-
|--0---0-------0----|-0---0-0-0-0-0---|-
|.-0---0-------0----|-0---0-0-0-0-0--.|-
|--0---0-------0----|-0---0-0-0-0-0---|-
Darkness at the break of noon
D
Shadows even the silver spoon
Csus2
The handmade blade, the child's balloon
G/b
Eclipses both the sun and moon
Bb6
To understand you know too soon
D
There is no sense in trying.
Pointed threats, they bluff with scorn
Suicide remarks are torn
From the fool's gold mouthpiece
The hollow horn plays wasted words
Proves to warn
That he not busy being born
Is busy dying.
Temptation's page flies out the door
You follow, find yourself at war
Watch waterfalls of pity roar
You feel to moan but unlike before
You discover
That you'd just be
One more person crying.
D A
So don't fear if you hear
D G/b
A foreign sound to your ear
D A G/b A D
It's alright, Ma, I'm only sighing.
As some warn victory, some downfall
Private reasons great or small
Can be seen in the eyes of those that call
To make all that should be killed to crawl
While others say don't hate nothing at all
Except hatred.
Disillusioned words like bullets bark
As human gods aim for their mark
Made everything from toy guns that spark
To flesh-colored Christs that glow in the dark
It's easy to see without looking too far
That not much
Is really sacred.
While preachers preach of evil fates
Teachers teach that knowledge waits
Can lead to hundred-dollar plates
Goodness hides behind its gates
But even the president of the United States
Sometimes must have
To stand naked.
An' though the rules of the road have been lodged
It's only people's games that you got to dodge
And it's alright, Ma, I can make it.
Advertising signs that con you
Into thinking you're the one
That can do what's never been done
That can win what's never been won
Meantime life outside goes on
All around you.
You lose yourself, you reappear
You suddenly find you got nothing to fear
Alone you stand with nobody near
When a trembling distant voice, unclear
Startles your sleeping ears to hear
That somebody thinks
They really found you.
A question in your nerves is lit
Yet you know there is no answer fit to satisfy
Insure you not to quit
To keep it in your mind and not fergit
That it is not he or she or them or it
That you belong to.
Although the masters make the rules
For the wise men and the fools
I got nothing, Ma, to live up to.
For them that must obey authority
That they do not respect in any degree
Who despise their jobs, their destinies
Speak jealously of them that are free
Cultivate their flowers to be
Nothing more than something
They invest in.
While some on principles baptized
To strict party platform ties
Social clubs in drag disguise
Outsiders they can freely criticize
Tell nothing except who to idolize
And then say God bless him.
While one who sings with his tongue on fire
Gargles in the rat race choir
Bent out of shape from society's pliers
Cares not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That he's in.
But I mean no harm nor put fault
On anyone that lives in a vault
But it's alright, Ma, if I can't please him.
Old lady judges watch people in pairs
Limited in sex, they dare
To push fake morals, insult and stare
While money doesn't talk, it swears
Obscenity, who really cares Propaganda, all is phony.
While them that defend what they cannot see
With a killer's pride, security
It blows the minds most bitterly
For them that think death's honesty
Won't fall upon them naturally
Life sometimes
Must get lonely.
My eyes collide head-on with stuffed graveyards
False gods, I scuff
At pettiness which plays so rough
Walk upside-down inside handcuffs
Kick my legs to crash it off
Say okay, I have had enough
What else can you show me?
And if my thought-dreams could be seen
They'd probably put my head in a guillotine
But it's alright, Ma, it's life, and life only.
--
Michael Press
dre
May 21, 2013, 9:24:52 AM5/21/13
to
On Monday, May 20, 2013 5:24:41 PM UTC-4, J. Hugh Sullivan wrote:
> >The twisted, bizarre things you convince yourself about me...wow.
>
>
>
> What you post is more evidence than one wouild ever need to form the
>
> conclusions about you that I have.
Pot. Kettle. Black.
> >The twisted, bizarre things you convince yourself about me...wow.
>
>
>
> What you post is more evidence than one wouild ever need to form the
>
> conclusions about you that I have.
*Plonk*
J. Hugh Sullivan
May 21, 2013, 10:32:19 AM5/21/13
to
On Tue, 21 May 2013 06:24:52 -0700 (PDT), dre <andre...@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
>*Plonk*
I accept your surrender.
Your problem is not the color of your kettle.
Hugh
wrote:
>Pot. Kettle. Black.
>
>*Plonk*
I accept your surrender.
Your problem is not the color of your kettle.
Hugh
0 new messages