to the fans of Michael Savage
Alric Knebel
time it's broadcast on MSNBC, and the man is just a sham, a scam, and a ham.
You're idiots for wanting your politics delivered this way (if you want to
call it that. I can't help comparing his fan base with the same type of
people who'd like WWF wrestling.
--
______________________________
Alric Knebel
http://bellsouthpwp.net/a/l/alric/
______________________________
B. Nice
"Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:SrUCa.10716$d9....@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com...
> Hands down, you're idiots. Plain and simple. I've watched his show every
> time it's broadcast on MSNBC
Sorry, dude, but adding yourself to the asshole's ratings doesn't exactly
qualify you for genius-hood either.
> I can't help comparing his fan base with the same type of
> people who'd like WWF wrestling.
Didn't you just say you regularly watch his show?
-b
Dori
> time it's broadcast on MSNBC, and the man is just a sham, a scam, and a ham.
> You're idiots for wanting your politics delivered this way (if you want to
> call it that. I can't help comparing his fan base with the same type of
> people who'd like WWF wrestling.
Not TOO full of yourself, are you?
Alric Knebel
"B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:995660099a777934...@free.teranews.com...
You really are an idiot. I said I watch his show, and I do it because I'm
amazed at how bad it is, but I'm surely not among his fan base. It's just
unbelievable how far down the right wing has sunk. And anyone who can't see
how bad it is has to be something like a troglodyte. And I have to assume
that MOST of the people watching -- the ones who are watching it because
they think it's good -- are indeed fans of his. God, it's awful. I mean
it. The stuff he says is so seething with childish hatred, all I can do is
shake my head in incredulity that this guy has an audience at all, and even
more that MSNBC would throw all standards out the window, like peasants
tossing out piss, to make room on their schedule for this idiot.
But in honesty, it's so bad and so stupid, I like the idea he has a fan
base. It gives me a group I can clearly identify as just plain stupid,
people who are making right-wing conservatism look truly bad, who strip away
the veneer of "ideology" so we can see what it's really about. I assume YOU
are a fan. Your stupid rejoinders seem to be on a par with Weiner's. HE
calls The New York Times the OLD York Times, as if that's a besmirching
comment. What if it was The OLD York Times? What does that mean? He calls
Susan Sarandon, "Susan SARANWRAP." Come on, how idiotic. And there's other
little naughty names he uses to refer to people who've somehow caught his
attention. And idiots can dig it. I laugh at you, that THIS is what you're
calling a political pundit. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE
GENE POOL.
Alric
Alric Knebel
"Dori" <dori...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:7dde0223.03060...@posting.google.com...
Really? YOU clearly are among his fans, since that is about the lamest
comment ever, yet you're stupid enough to think that did the job.
Alric
Todd Fotuar
Not if he didn't get a Nielsen box.
B. Nice
> > Didn't you just say you regularly watch his show?
> You really are an idiot.
No, not really. I'm smart enough not to feed Savage's advertisers, for
example.
> I said I watch his show, and I do it because I'm
> amazed at how bad it is
So it's like some kind of sick masochism thing?
Me, I prefer to watch/listen to GOOD things because they are GOOD. Why
watch something because it is bad? Sounds like a colossal waste of time,
and an exercise in self-abuse to me.
> I'm surely not among his fan base.
If you are watching his show, you are among his fan base. What do you think
ratings measure - those who watch and enjoy, or just those who watch?
(hint - it's the second one).
> It's just unbelievable how far down the right wing has sunk.
Believe it. They are the scourge of this nation.
> I assume YOU are a fan.
Boy, are YOU off base.
-b
Sign the petition declaring George W. Bush to be a Horse's Ass
http://www.petitiononline.com/bushass/petition.html
Raymond Luxury-Yacht
LOL! Two liberals arguing and spewing their hate! LOL!
Mike Flannigan
Take a deep breath Alric. Lets not forget what we've learned from our anger
management classes. Is B. Nice really worth getting your blood pressure
worked up over? We already know he's a liberal idiot. Have you already
forgotten how he took the bait when you went trolling for neocons and only
managed to hook patsey liberals?
Alric Knebel
> "Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:J18Da.1$d5...@fe09.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> > > Didn't you just say you regularly watch his show?
>
> > You really are an idiot.
>
> No, not really. I'm smart enough not to feed Savage's advertisers, for
> example.
>
> > I said I watch his show, and I do it because I'm
> > amazed at how bad it is
>
> So it's like some kind of sick masochism thing?
>
> Me, I prefer to watch/listen to GOOD things because they are GOOD. Why
> watch something because it is bad? Sounds like a colossal waste of time,
> and an exercise in self-abuse to me.
>
> > I'm surely not among his fan base.
>
> If you are watching his show, you are among his fan base. What do you think
> ratings measure - those who watch and enjoy, or just those who watch?
> (hint - it's the second one).
>
> > It's just unbelievable how far down the right wing has sunk.
>
> Believe it. They are the scourge of this nation.
>
> > I assume YOU are a fan.
>
> Boy, are YOU off base.
>
> -b
Alric Knebel
"Raymond Luxury-Yacht" <arthur...@yahoo.co.in> wrote in message
news:5c859948.03060...@posting.google.com...
Now YOU are an idiot. If you missed Michael Savage's show, he on 5:00 P. M.
on Saturdays. Not only that, I think WWF wrestling comes on the
Superstation shortly after that, so you can make an evening of it.
Alric
Alric Knebel
"Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:RkeDa.77966$ui.54...@twister.austin.rr.com...
Is that the same guy who mistook my hillbilly parody for real, then took me
to task for it? Oh, my God. If that's the same guy, then he is truly an
idiot, and I can only hope that he will eventually change sides. (wink,
wink)
Alric
Rene
So I'm going to keep watching, and he's so bad, I'm hoping MSNBC will shame
itself further by moving him into primetime. The thing is, he's so obvious,
only the dumbest viewers will fail to notice it. Savage is just more direct
in using the same techniques used by Hannity, Ingram, and Limbaugh. You
see, expose one of them and you expose them all and he'll make it easy.
Alric
-------------------
A variation by Alric on the familiar (and threadbare) "We liberal Democrats
are bright, and everybody else is dumb" DNC Talking Point, but still amusing
to watch Alric attempt to make it.
Alric Knebel
>
> "Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:J18Da.1$d5...@fe09.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> > > Didn't you just say you regularly watch his show?
>
> > You really are an idiot.
>
> No, not really. I'm smart enough not to feed Savage's advertisers, for
> example.
>
> > I said I watch his show, and I do it because I'm
> > amazed at how bad it is
>
> So it's like some kind of sick masochism thing?
>
> Me, I prefer to watch/listen to GOOD things because they are GOOD. Why
> watch something because it is bad? Sounds like a colossal waste of time,
> and an exercise in self-abuse to me.
>
> > I'm surely not among his fan base.
>
> If you are watching his show, you are among his fan base. What do you
think
> ratings measure - those who watch and enjoy, or just those who watch?
> (hint - it's the second one).
>
> > It's just unbelievable how far down the right wing has sunk.
>
> Believe it. They are the scourge of this nation.
>
> > I assume YOU are a fan.
>
> Boy, are YOU off base.
>
> -b
Well, you pussified nitwit, I just got your "dismissive" e-mail, and, yes,
I'll take that challenge of who is going to make whom look stupid. You've
done half the work for me, just by being a knee-jerking idiot. I'll
probably just sit back and let you have you go, and I'll come in and just
point out the facts for you. But I'll go ahead and give you advice first,
you slope-skulled, ruminating nincompoop: Don't enter any thread I start
unless you've got something INTELLIGENT to contribute. And make sure it's
though out. Like you comment about my adding to Savage's popularity by
watching him, despite the fact that I'm not a member of the Nielson family
that is used to measure ratings: that was plain stupid and useless. To type
or jack-off were evidently you two options, and you decided on the one that
took the least thought for you. Anyway, just as Michael Savage represents
what's wrong with some right-wing talk show hosts, you're evidence is what's
wrong with the liberal side. Shut up. You're making us good liberals have
to work harder.
Alric
B. Nice
> Well, you pussified nitwit, I just got your "dismissive" e-mail, and, yes,
> I'll take that challenge of who is going to make whom look stupid.
O.K. Fire away.
> Don't enter any thread I start unless you've got something INTELLIGENT to
contribute.
I always have something intelligent to contribute. You may disagree, that's
certainly your prerogative. Meanwhile, I'll enter any thread I damn well
please and say whatever I damn well please.
Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
> Like you comment about my adding to Savage's popularity by
> watching him.
"Popularity" in media parlance is measured in number of
listeners/viewers/readers. By acknowledging that you listen to his radio
show every day, you yourself admit adding to Savage's popularity by a factor
of one. Even though you say you can't stand the guy, his advertisers are
happy, since folks like you prove that even pissing people off is good for
business.
Again, if listening to a show that you hate is your idea of "intelligence",
I'll stick to an alternative definition where folks listen regularly to
things that provoke thought, or even that provide mindless entertainment.
You apparently listen because you DON'T like the show.
Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me. But like I said, his advertisers are
counting on knuckleheads of two varieties: those who idolize Savage, and
those who claim to hate him. The advertisers don't care WHY you listen, so
long as you listen, and you and folks like you help him stay on the air.
> You're making us good liberals have to work harder.
Not sure what you mean by "us liberals". You may consider yourself a
'liberal' but in reality you're just another sub-intelligent dumbass.
Good luck with that.
-b
Alric Knebel
>
> "Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:4VwDa.34425$Wh6....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> > Well, you pussified nitwit, I just got your "dismissive" e-mail, and,
yes,
> > I'll take that challenge of who is going to make whom look stupid.
>
> O.K. Fire away.
>
> > Don't enter any thread I start unless you've got something INTELLIGENT
to
> contribute.
>
> I always have something intelligent to contribute. You may disagree,
that's
> certainly your prerogative. Meanwhile, I'll enter any thread I damn well
> please and say whatever I damn well please.
So far, I remember TWICE you entering a thread, and both times you were an
ass. That goes especially for the faux article I posted about Star Wars.
>
> Meanwhile, back at the ranch:
>
> > Like you comment about my adding to Savage's popularity by
> > watching him.
>
> "Popularity" in media parlance is measured in number of
> listeners/viewers/readers. By acknowledging that you listen to his radio
> show every day, you yourself admit adding to Savage's popularity by a
factor
> of one. Even though you say you can't stand the guy, his advertisers are
> happy, since folks like you prove that even pissing people off is good for
> business.
"Popularity" means liking something. And I'm not buying the products
advertised, and THAT'S what advertisers want. I can't wait to see what you
say next, Einstein.
> Again, if listening to a show that you hate is your idea of
"intelligence",
> I'll stick to an alternative definition where folks listen regularly to
> things that provoke thought, or even that provide mindless entertainment.
> You apparently listen because you DON'T like the show.
I read and watch things that provoke thought all the time, nincompoop. I
watch THAT show to analyze it. You should practice some. So far, you don't
show ANY analytical skills.
> Sounds pretty fucking stupid to me. But like I said, his advertisers are
> counting on knuckleheads of two varieties: those who idolize Savage, and
> those who claim to hate him. The advertisers don't care WHY you listen,
so
> long as you listen, and you and folks like you help him stay on the air.
Advertisers don't care if you listen or not, you shit-for-brains club
wielder. All they care about is if you buy the products. You might already
be buying them. And not only that, Copernicus: I'm not a member of the
Nielson ratings group. That's where my viewership counts. Did you just
arrive in this country?
> > You're making us good liberals have to work harder.
>
> Not sure what you mean by "us liberals". You may consider yourself a
> 'liberal' but in reality you're just another sub-intelligent dumbass.
You can't understand "us"? And I said GOOD liberals. You claim to be a
liberal, but so far, you don't seem to have the capacity for it. For sure,
you're not in the same league with other liberals I know. And you're making
our work harder, you flea-eating, knee-jerked turd.
Alric
Mike Flannigan
> anger
> > management classes. Is B. Nice really worth getting your blood pressure
> > worked up over? We already know he's a liberal idiot. Have you already
> > forgotten how he took the bait when you went trolling for neocons and
only
> > managed to hook patsey liberals?
>
> Is that the same guy who mistook my hillbilly parody for real, then took
me
> to task for it? Oh, my God. If that's the same guy, then he is truly an
> idiot, and I can only hope that he will eventually change sides. (wink,
> wink)
>
> Alric
Yes. He's the same guy. Him and John Slade. And no, you can have him. Thanks
anyway. Bet you never checked out any of the music or movies I recommended
either. Too busy arguing with idiots. One day you'll wise up.
Alric Knebel
Well, I haven't JUST been arguing with idiots. I've been downloading music,
but not the stuff you mentioned, but rare stuff, just the same. I lose
track sometimes.
What was the movie you recommended? I remember the music, but I can't
remember the movie. I'm downloading the music right now.
Alric
B. Nice
> So far, I remember TWICE you entering a thread, and both times you were an
> ass.
Your opinion and you're entitled to it. Having blinders on about your own
ass-hood certainly helps.
Meanwhile you descend into this bizarre conversation as evidence of your
credibility. Like I said, knock yourself out.
>That goes especially for the faux article I posted about Star Wars.
Not following you. You posted a "satire" site which looked nearly identical
to *real* sites, and got all upset when people didn't get the joke. This
seems to be your M.O. That and not dealing very well with criticism. Ah,
well. To each his or her own.
As I said, good luck with that.
> > "Popularity" in media parlance is measured in number of
> > listeners/viewers/readers.
> "Popularity" means liking something.
"Popularity" in media parlance is mesured in numbers of
listeners/viewers/readers.
> And I'm not buying the products advertised, and THAT'S what advertisers
want.
Utlimately advertisers realize a number of benefits from having you hear
their ads. All I'm saying is that if Savage is such a schmuck (and he is),
then why listen? Exercise your One True Power as a consumer and DON'T. If
you choose to listen anyway, despite an acknowledged total disdain for
everything the Wiener-man says, then one can only question your intelligence
for doing so. Why put yourself through that? Isn't there something better
on?
> I can't wait to see what you say next, Einstein.
See above. Hope I didn't disappoint.
> I read and watch things that provoke thought all the time, nincompoop.
And yet you are here telling me to "shut up" and "but out and let you do
your work".
You're an interesting guy, Alric. Not too bright, but interesting.
> I watch THAT show to analyze it.
Why?
> You should practice some.
No, thanks. I'm aware of what Savage is about, and I've seen/heard enough
to confirm that his values are so far from mine that there isn't anything to
be gained from becoming one of his regular viewers. Frankly, I can't stand
the sight of the guy.
> So far, you don't show ANY analytical skills.
Riiight. Well, dur, doy. Um. I guess I'll just leave the REAL politikin'
to folks like you, Perfessor.
It's all yours. I eagerly await the world changing for the better.
> > Not sure what you mean by "us liberals". You may consider yourself a
> > 'liberal' but in reality you're just another sub-intelligent dumbass.
>
>
> You can't understand "us"?
Yes. Who are your contemporaries? Name some. Who are "you"?
> And I said GOOD liberals.
And what is a "good liberal", Alric? Someone who doesn't disagree with you?
Help me out here. Throw me a bone. Toss out a definition or two.
>You claim to be a liberal
I am "liberal" although I don't know about being "*A* Liberal". Not sure
what that is, really. Many on the right confuse radicals with liberals, and
many who call themselves liberal are really radical. Hell, lots of folks
claim to be Conservatives and they're really fascists (your pal Weiner is
one such). So hey, what's in a name?
> For sure, you're not in the same league with other liberals I know.
Which ones, and what beliefs do they have that disqualify me from being in
their "league"? Maybe I don't WANT to be in their "league".
> And you're making our work harder, you flea-eating, knee-jerked turd.
Who is "us" and what "work" are you talking about?
And the name-calling helps how, exactly?
-b
Alric Knebel
"B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Not following you. You posted a "satire" site which looked nearly
identical
> to *real* sites, and got all upset when people didn't get the joke. This
> seems to be your M.O. That and not dealing very well with criticism. Ah,
> well. To each his or her own.
No, YOU didn't get it then criticized me for it. The absurdity of the
article should have been a clue. It was to some. To MOST.
> > > "Popularity" in media parlance is measured in number of
> > > listeners/viewers/readers.
>
> > "Popularity" means liking something.
>
> "Popularity" in media parlance is mesured in numbers of
> listeners/viewers/readers.
Possibly. But they'd have to have a way of knowing I watched it. Did they
change the Nielson system?
> > And I'm not buying the products advertised, and THAT'S what advertisers
> want.
>
> Utlimately advertisers realize a number of benefits from having you hear
> their ads. All I'm saying is that if Savage is such a schmuck (and he
is),
> then why listen? Exercise your One True Power as a consumer and DON'T.
If
> you choose to listen anyway, despite an acknowledged total disdain for
> everything the Wiener-man says, then one can only question your
intelligence
> for doing so. Why put yourself through that? Isn't there something
better
> on?
>
> > I can't wait to see what you say next, Einstein.
>
> See above. Hope I didn't disappoint.
>
> > I read and watch things that provoke thought all the time, nincompoop.
>
> And yet you are here telling me to "shut up" and "but out and let you do
> your work".
>
> You're an interesting guy, Alric. Not too bright, but interesting.
You wish. I watch the show because it's important to watch. You might not
see why, but I do.
>
> > I watch THAT show to analyze it.
>
> Why?
>
> > You should practice some.
>
> No, thanks. I'm aware of what Savage is about, and I've seen/heard enough
> to confirm that his values are so far from mine that there isn't anything
to
> be gained from becoming one of his regular viewers. Frankly, I can't
stand
> the sight of the guy.
It's not his values that are what's worth analyzing. It's how he presents
them. I also can't stand the sight of him. But a low-level piece of
trash's appearance on a "news" network is significant. It's important to
know you enemy.
> > So far, you don't show ANY analytical skills.
>
> Riiight. Well, dur, doy. Um. I guess I'll just leave the REAL
politikin'
> to folks like you, Perfessor.
Yes, you should.
> It's all yours. I eagerly await the world changing for the better.
You mistake being analytical for being naive.
> > > Not sure what you mean by "us liberals". You may consider yourself a
> > > 'liberal' but in reality you're just another sub-intelligent dumbass.
>>
> >
> > You can't understand "us"?
>
> Yes. Who are your contemporaries? Name some. Who are "you"?
>
> > And I said GOOD liberals.
>
> And what is a "good liberal", Alric? Someone who doesn't disagree with
you?
> Help me out here. Throw me a bone. Toss out a definition or two.
A "good" liberal is a liberal who's a little less knee-jerky. As for my
contemporaries, I belong to a list or two, so I'm in conversation with many
liberals. None to date have been anything like you. You seem sort of
tight-assed with a desire to demonstrate skills you don't have.
> >You claim to be a liberal
>
> I am "liberal" although I don't know about being "*A* Liberal". Not sure
> what that is, really. Many on the right confuse radicals with liberals,
and
> many who call themselves liberal are really radical. Hell, lots of folks
> claim to be Conservatives and they're really fascists (your pal Weiner is
> one such). So hey, what's in a name?
> > For sure, you're not in the same league with other liberals I know.
>
> Which ones, and what beliefs do they have that disqualify me from being in
> their "league"? Maybe I don't WANT to be in their "league".
One is, they don't jump on other liberals when they're being liberal. You
seem to enjoy just seeing your own words in print somewhere, so you just
jump on anything. I think it would be interesting to so a Google-thing on
you to see what your contribution has been in other places. I might have
read your stuff, but didn't pay much attention to the name until you gave me
reason to.
> > And you're making our work harder, you flea-eating, knee-jerked turd.
>
> Who is "us" and what "work" are you talking about?
"Us" are the liberals. That should be plain. It's not a list of names
somewhere, for God sake. The "work" is preresenting liberalism in a public
forum that makes it difficult to argue with, and supporting others who do a
good job. Again, this is twice we've crossed paths, and both times you've
provided nothing worth a shit to anyone but yourself. You blame me for not
getting a satire when others didjoke, and you failed to comprehend why I
would watch Savage when I provided a link to one article I wrote about him,
which I'm sure to anyone else who read it why I'd be watching his show.
Further, whether I watch or not, the program is going remain on (or be
cancelled). If you haven't read that article, I suggest you do so to
understand what my motive is. It's not important, but you'll learn a bit
about THIS liberal. The thing is, I'm making my contribution. I suggest
you make a contribution of your own.
> And the name-calling helps how, exactly?
And dissing what I'm doing is helpful how, exactly?
>
> -b
>
>
B. Nice
> > to *real* sites, and got all upset when people didn't get the joke.
This
> > seems to be your M.O. That and not dealing very well with criticism.
Ah,
> > well. To each his or her own.
>
> No, YOU didn't get it then criticized me for it.
Actually I wasn't the only one.
>The absurdity of the article should have been a clue.
The absurdity of the site was no different from the absurdity of sites like
http://www.godhatesfags.com . If you're now going to tell me THAT'S a joke
site, too, that would initiate a major sigh of relief on my end.
> It was to some. To MOST.
Even if true so what? "If you can't take the heat. . ." and all that.
> > "Popularity" in media parlance is mesured in numbers of
> > listeners/viewers/readers.
>
> Possibly.
A fact. Sorry.
> But they'd have to have a way of knowing I watched it.
They have no way of knowing people who like Weiner-man watch, either.
However, they do what's called "representative sampling". When the folks in
ratings-land see that even people who despise Weiner listen to him anyway,
they're happy. They extrapolate their representative sampling to include
the demographics of all who listen - regardless of the REASON they listen -
which boil down to raw numbers. When they say "40 million viewers tuned in
to the 2002 Superbowl", did you recall getting a phone call asking what you
were watching that day?
Ya see, Alric, by being part of 'Savage's' audience, you help keep him going
whether you are being counted directly or not. You feed his advertisers,
and keep him in business. All networks care about is "are they watching".
They don't care if you're waving your fist at the screen or blowing kisses.
All they care is that you're there --- and by your own admission, you ARE
there.
Put it this way - if you were to call Weiner and say "Hi, Mikey. I really
hate your ignorant ass, but I WATCH YOUR SHOW EVERY DAY," -- what do you
think would be the Savage Nebbish's response would be? Would he tell you to
stop watching immediately, or call you a Librul' from a Turd World Nation
and thank you for continuing to tune in?
> > You're an interesting guy, Alric. Not too bright, but interesting.
>
> You wish.
No, I really have no invested interest one way or the other, it's just an
observation.
> I watch the show because it's important to watch.
Savage, his producers and advertisers certainly think so - and they've
manipulated you and those like you into watching on a regular bases just
like the right-wankers who stroke their cocks in extasy every time his
acne-pocked, bearded face graces the screen.
> It's not his values that are what's worth analyzing. It's how he presents
> them.
What's to 'analyze'? The guy's an ignorant, hate-filled bigotted homophobe,
as are the people who watch his show -- at least the ones who watch because
they like his show - the rest are deluded manipulees fished in by the bait
being tossed out daily.
> > It's all yours. I eagerly await the world changing for the better.
>
> You mistake being analytical for being naive.
Uh - no.
> A "good" liberal is a liberal who's a little less knee-jerky.
Meaning what?
> As for my contemporaries, I belong to a list or two
Yes, I've read your moronic "movie reviews".
Keep your day job, kid.
> > Which ones, and what beliefs do they have that disqualify me from being
in
> > their "league"? Maybe I don't WANT to be in their "league".
>
> One is, they don't jump on other liberals when they're being liberal.
Sorry, but right-wing beliefs aside, being liberal is not the same as being
stupid. Whether or not two people consider themselves leaning to the left
politically shouldn't stop them from pointing out when someone is acting
like an idiot. If you are jumping up and down saying "I'm a liberal, I'm a
liberal" and acting like a complete moron, you're going to get called on
it - and not just by the right-wing fundies.
> You seem to enjoy just seeing your own words in print somewhere
Gee, Perfessor. Good thing your words are invisible. Otherwise you'd be an
awfully big hypocrite for what ye' just wrote.
> I think it would be interesting to so a Google-thing on
> you to see what your contribution has been in other places.
Knock yourself out. Don't think it would be interesting - go ye' forth and
do. Be REAL nice and I'll give you my real name and you can Google that,
too.
> I might have read your stuff, but didn't pay much attention to the name
until you gave me
> reason to.
Ah, now I see how you got hooked on Weiner.
It IS about masochism. You don't pay attention to things you like -- you
pay attention to things (and people) you DON'T like.
An interesting approach to life, my friend.
That's cool. Meanwhile, I guess I'll just sit back and soak up the ratings,
and count you among my newest "fan".
> > Who is "us" and what "work" are you talking about?
>
> "Us" are the liberals.
I see. So you speak for "the liberals" now, do you? I don't remember being
asked to vote.
How about a list of things that "the liberals" believe in, then, shall we?
This should be fun.
> The "work" is preresenting liberalism in a public
> forum that makes it difficult to argue with
O.K.
So what is "liberalism", Perfessor? And how have any single one of your
posts accomplished the goal you just identified?
> and supporting others who do a
> good job.
Wow. So you really think that being liberal is like being part of some big
"club" where people sit around slapping each other on the back, laughing,
telling jokes, and giving one another the secret handshake - while not
publicly disagreeing with one another?
Like I said, an interesting approach to life ya' got there, Perfessor.
> Again, this is twice we've crossed paths, and both times you've
> provided nothing worth a shit to anyone but yourself.
Oh, I don't know. We have no idea what unidentifed hundreds are reading
these very words and finding either insight - or amusement. Either way,
personally I couldn't give a damn whether you find what I've written to be
"valuable" or not. Frankly given that it's helped expose you for the
ranting doofus that you are, I'd say it's not all that valuable to you - but
quite useful to many others. My guess is that for the most part the casual
lurker doesn't give a shit about either one of us.
I can handle that reality. Can you?
> You blame me for not getting a satire when others did joke
I blame you for nothing. There are no accusations on the table (other than
the ones you've levied), no crimes committed (other than the ones you're
accusing me of , i.e. 'dissing a GOOD liberal' etc.). So relax. Have a hot
dog, heavy on the nitrates. Watch cartoons. Pet your cat. Catch some
rays, anything but whatever mission you seem to feel you're on today.
Me, I think I'll go take shit, then head outside and barbecue some chicken.
> and you failed to comprehend
Ah, well. Another crime I've committed, I suppose. "Failure to
comprehend". When it comes to why you watch someone regularly you admit you
hate, I am guilty as charged. I fail to comprehend why anyone given a
choice would choose to endure something as optional as watching a TV show
featuring a Talking Dick Head.
> when I provided a link to one article I wrote about him
Because you love to see your own words in print? Hmm?
> Further, whether I watch or not, the program is going remain on (or be
> cancelled).
If you and people like you cease to watch, his market share will drop and he
WILL be cancelled. This is how you help him to stay on the air.
Further, you hop on the internet and talk about what a rotten asshole he is,
and how you KNOW he's a rotten asshole because YOU WATCH EVERY DAY. Not
only that - you encourage OTHERS to watch his show, thus increasing his
audience even MORE.
Ya see, Perfessor? You are helping the Savage Weiner STAY ON THE AIR both
by being a regular member of his audience, and by recruiting new audience
members as one of his unpaid, unknowing loyal soldiers.
Were he where you are I'm sure he would pat you on the head. Maybe even
give you a big hug.
Wouldn't that be nice?
> you'll learn a bit about THIS liberal.
You're not "a liberal", Alric. You're an idiot. There is a big difference.
> The thing is, I'm making my contribution.
To Weiner's audience, yes, both by watching, and by recruiting new viewers
to his show.
Face it. You've been duped, fella. You're being used.
> And dissing what I'm doing is helpful how, exactly?
To help set you apart from others to the left of center. There are idiots
at both ends of the political spectrum. I think it's up to the rest to help
point out who they are, and how they differ from the mainstream.
Now, you do a pretty good job of this yourself just by going down the path
you do, but I think it's also important to say "Hey folks, this guy over
here calling himself a "liberal"? I consider myself pretty liberal, but I
*really* disagree with him."
See?
-b
B. Nice
> Too busy arguing with idiots. One day you'll wise up.
You mean like this argument with this idiot?
-b
Alric Knebel
"B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> Sorry, but right-wing beliefs aside, being liberal is not the same as
being
> stupid. Whether or not two people consider themselves leaning to the left
> politically shouldn't stop them from pointing out when someone is acting
> like an idiot. If you are jumping up and down saying "I'm a liberal, I'm
a
> liberal" and acting like a complete moron, you're going to get called on
> it - and not just by the right-wing fundies.
And I acted like a complete moron when? Didn't happen. You did by piping
up and showing your lack of humor. Yes, "God Hates Fags" is a serious
website, but they stuff they're talking about isn't absurd. That Star Wars
would add a gay character was absurd. You're being ridiculous in your
defense of your attitude. You have pie on your face.
> > You seem to enjoy just seeing your own words in print somewhere
>
> Gee, Perfessor. Good thing your words are invisible. Otherwise you'd be
an
> awfully big hypocrite for what ye' just wrote.
>
> > I think it would be interesting to so a Google-thing on
> > you to see what your contribution has been in other places.
>
> Knock yourself out. Don't think it would be interesting - go ye' forth
and
> do. Be REAL nice and I'll give you my real name and you can Google that,
> too.
You already gave me your real name. And I did do it, and your contribution
everywhere else is about what it is here. You were right: It wasn't
interesting. The most interesting thing is when you sort of gay-bashed some
guy, outing him for posting in some sexual newsgroup. I thought, yeah,
that's ol' B. Nice: Go low, and stay there.
> > I might have read your stuff, but didn't pay much attention to the name
> until you gave me
> > reason to.
>
> Ah, now I see how you got hooked on Weiner.
No, you don't.
> It IS about masochism. You don't pay attention to things you like -- you
> pay attention to things (and people) you DON'T like.
Go for it. I've read some of your other posts. "Turd calling the asshole
dirty" comes to mind.
> An interesting approach to life, my friend.
>
> That's cool. Meanwhile, I guess I'll just sit back and soak up the
ratings,
> and count you among my newest "fan".
As I will you. Afterall, you seem to have a thing for me, and probably due
to your glaring misunderstanding. This time, your entrance into this thread
was probably a retaliation for the sting your pride took at making the
mistake in the first one, leading me to believe your a humorless, dry,
arrogant blowhard. Now you're out to make me feel bad, even about the way I
write, because, by damn, you're determined it was MY fault your knee jerked
and caused you to whop yourself in the chin. That won't work. I can
understand WHY a humorless fuck like yourself would make the mistake, but
once it was revealed as a joke, you should have just slapped yourself on the
forhead and laughed at yourself. The first time I went to The Landover
Baptist Church parody site, I followed a link to one of the back pages, to
an article about how this one church was exposing how the life-size Jar Jar
Binks doll was a masturbation aid. That sounds like something that some
churches have actually done, so I fell for it. But when you look around the
rest of the site, it becomes clear what it was about.
> > > Who is "us" and what "work" are you talking about?
> >
> > "Us" are the liberals.
>
> I see. So you speak for "the liberals" now, do you? I don't remember
being
> asked to vote.
>
> How about a list of things that "the liberals" believe in, then, shall we?
>
> This should be fun.
Why would that be fun? Do you see how trite that comment is? I bet you
don't.
> > The "work" is preresenting liberalism in a public
> > forum that makes it difficult to argue with
>
> O.K.
>
> So what is "liberalism", Perfessor? And how have any single one of your
> posts accomplished the goal you just identified?
>
> > and supporting others who do a
> > good job.
>
> Wow. So you really think that being liberal is like being part of some
big
> "club" where people sit around slapping each other on the back, laughing,
> telling jokes, and giving one another the secret handshake - while not
> publicly disagreeing with one another?
>
> Like I said, an interesting approach to life ya' got there, Perfessor.
"Perfessor." Boy, you sure have some sense of humor there. I guess you're
just about topped out for jokes for this quarter now, huh? You've used THAT
to death, and it was not even good sarcasm. But seriously, any political
idea's success is based on an organized affiliation. Your other stuff is
just typical of your "humor": stupidly sarcastic, therefore not worth
addressing.
> > Again, this is twice we've crossed paths, and both times you've
> > provided nothing worth a shit to anyone but yourself.
>
> Oh, I don't know. We have no idea what unidentifed hundreds are reading
> these very words and finding either insight - or amusement. Either way,
> personally I couldn't give a damn whether you find what I've written to be
> "valuable" or not. Frankly given that it's helped expose you for the
> ranting doofus that you are, I'd say it's not all that valuable to you -
but
> quite useful to many others. My guess is that for the most part the
casual
> lurker doesn't give a shit about either one of us.
>
> I can handle that reality. Can you?
YOU pick out a parody article to demonstrate your shortcomings, exposing
YOURSELF as a humorless twit with a pencil-breaking sphinter and I'm a
"ranting doofus"? Oh, brother.
> > You blame me for not getting a satire when others did joke
>
> I blame you for nothing. There are no accusations on the table (other
than
> the ones you've levied), no crimes committed (other than the ones you're
> accusing me of , i.e. 'dissing a GOOD liberal' etc.). So relax. Have a
hot
> dog, heavy on the nitrates. Watch cartoons. Pet your cat. Catch some
> rays, anything but whatever mission you seem to feel you're on today.
>
> Me, I think I'll go take shit, then head outside and barbecue some
chicken.
>
> > and you failed to comprehend
>
> Ah, well. Another crime I've committed, I suppose. "Failure to
> comprehend". When it comes to why you watch someone regularly you admit
you
> hate, I am guilty as charged. I fail to comprehend why anyone given a
> choice would choose to endure something as optional as watching a TV show
> featuring a Talking Dick Head.
I made that clear. You gloss it over what he's doing with simply calling
him names. There's more going on there, and he's doing the same as the
other right-wing gabbers, but making it so plain, it's easier to describe.
If you don't believe what you're doing here in these forums is making any
sort of difference, who's wasting whose time? I have an agenda when I watch
Savage, and you're doing what here? I'm being very specific when I do what
I do. What are you doing?
> > when I provided a link to one article I wrote about him
>
> Because you love to see your own words in print? Hmm?
>
> > Further, whether I watch or not, the program is going remain on (or be
> > cancelled).
>
> If you and people like you cease to watch, his market share will drop and
he
> WILL be cancelled. This is how you help him to stay on the air.
Market share has nothing to do with it in all cases. Read why Donahue was
cancelled.
> Further, you hop on the internet and talk about what a rotten asshole he
is,
> and how you KNOW he's a rotten asshole because YOU WATCH EVERY DAY. Not
> only that - you encourage OTHERS to watch his show, thus increasing his
> audience even MORE.
>
> Ya see, Perfessor? You are helping the Savage Weiner STAY ON THE AIR both
> by being a regular member of his audience, and by recruiting new audience
> members as one of his unpaid, unknowing loyal soldiers.
>
> Were he where you are I'm sure he would pat you on the head. Maybe even
> give you a big hug.
>
> Wouldn't that be nice?
>
> > you'll learn a bit about THIS liberal.
>
> You're not "a liberal", Alric. You're an idiot. There is a big
difference.
You're the first -- besides some of the right-wing assholes -- to think so.
So, I'll go with people who know me, who are intellgent and exhibit REAL
cleverness, instead of that smugness you're passing off for cleverness right
now. And I'll go by other liberals I've admired.
> > The thing is, I'm making my contribution.
>
> To Weiner's audience, yes, both by watching, and by recruiting new viewers
> to his show.
>
> Face it. You've been duped, fella. You're being used.
>
> > And dissing what I'm doing is helpful how, exactly?
>
> To help set you apart from others to the left of center. There are
idiots
> at both ends of the political spectrum. I think it's up to the rest to
help
> point out who they are, and how they differ from the mainstream.
You have got to be kidding me. I am a mainstream liberal, and you've
already proved yourself to a couple of right wingers and conservatives in
this group to be a total idiot by missing the obvious. And you demonstrated
it to me, too. This is the first time I've ever been called anything but an
asset to this side of the political spectrum, and it's by a guy who
demonstrated too many shortcomings to have any real credentials. I'll go by
that.
And here's another thing, you shit-for-brains, no-thinking buffoon.
Buzzflash -- a liberal site -- started out by exposing Rush Limbaugh's lies.
He'd listen to the show and he'd report the truth the next day. The site
grew into what it is today. If you think sticking your thick skull in the
sand and ignoring the worst elements of the other side is going to make them
go away, you're just plain wrong. Not only has Rush prospered by doing what
he does, his imitators have gotten worse with each new manifestation of this
sort of thing. You might think people like me or "duped," but that's just
another example of your brilliant analytical skills. Before you chip in wit
h your make-believe brilliance by saying that I'm not Buzzflash, I'll state
I'm plainly aware of it already, thus depriving you of further supercillious
comments, and add that every little part helps. If you don't think so, why
are you here? Is it not to counter the opposition? You must think it
matters or you wouldn't do it. I do it because I like writing and this is a
means to utilize that skill, to use it for something productive, for
something positive, and countering the opposition is positive.
> Now, you do a pretty good job of this yourself just by going down the path
> you do, but I think it's also important to say "Hey folks, this guy over
> here calling himself a "liberal"? I consider myself pretty liberal, but I
> *really* disagree with him."
>
> See?
No, I don't see. I was knocking a right-wing loon, and you chipped in with
a negative comment. THAT'S what I see. What this is all about is, you were
sitting at your computer, bored, without anything constructive to say. But
you had this need to connect with someone in a superior way, and you have
this assumption that smugness equates with cleverness, a common mistake for
people who lack a sense of humor. You saw this thread -- maybe you
recognized my name from the last time -- and added your worthless words to
it. That brand of comment is easy to do, because you don't have to put any
in to it but a bit of smugness; no thought required. Like the last time, it
was inappropriate, and now you have to defend it . . . again. That's what
this is about. And nothing else.
Alric
Mike Flannigan
> Thanks
> > anyway. Bet you never checked out any of the music or movies I
recommended
> > either. Too busy arguing with idiots. One day you'll wise up.
>
> Well, I haven't JUST been arguing with idiots. I've been downloading
music,
> but not the stuff you mentioned, but rare stuff, just the same. I lose
> track sometimes.
>
> What was the movie you recommended? I remember the music, but I can't
> remember the movie. I'm downloading the music right now.
>
> Alric
Well. One of them was "The Passion of Joan of Arc". A 1920 silent film
thought to have been lost until 1981 when a copy was found in Norway.
Digitally restored and set to a modern operatic musical score (Richard
Einhorn's Voices of Light) this film is wonderful. I'd also recommend most
any of the Ingmar Bergman films. "The Seventh Seal" and "Cries and Whispers"
are available on DVD with English-dubbed soundtracks now and are quite well
done, particularly "Cries and Whispers". One of my favorites, "Wild
Strawberries" is still only available in English sub-titles but don't let
that detour you. The cinematography is on a par with "Citizen Kane", maybe
better, and the story line is complex and compelling.
BTW. Something I wanted to ask you during our last exchange before you
bailed out on me (and who could blame you considering the pounding you were
taking), but what did you mean when you said to Aunt "B", - "I'm sort of a
movie nut, but I thought for sure everyone had seen that poster at one time
or another. Sorry. A couple of right-wingers fell for it, but I thought for
sure the liberals wouldn't."
You had a total of three people respond to your hillbilly parody. Myself and
two liberals. Who were the "right-wingers" that that supposedly fell for it?
This goes right back to your "liberals are too sophisticated to be fooled"
nonsense. What's the matter? Can't deal with reality so you delude yourself?
Alric Knebel
I've got to leave in a few, but what I meant was, if anyone was going to
fall for it -- and I meant that it would make them mad -- it would be right
wingers, not liberals, because it was about right wingers. And I want to
make this clear: I separate right wingers from conservatives. I can sort of
understand the thinking of modern conservatism -- the guys associated with
the Bush Administration who are encouraging our deeper presence in the Mid
East -- but I might not agree with it. But their rational is convincing.
Later, dude. Tomorrow probably.
Alric
sheila
> Hands down, you're idiots. Plain and simple. I've watched his show every
> time it's broadcast on MSNBC, and the man is just a sham, a scam, and a ham.
> You're idiots for wanting your politics delivered this way (if you want to
> call it that. I can't help comparing his fan base with the same type of
> people who'd like WWF wrestling.
LOL
Gotta love these usenet posters, that a good one!
Good for a chuckle anyway
B. Nice
> And I acted like a complete moron when?
You're doing it right now, actually.
> Yes, "God Hates Fags" is a serious
> website, but they stuff they're talking about isn't absurd. That Star
Wars
> would add a gay character was absurd.
Uh-huh. So is pointing the finger at Tinky-Winky. But it happened.
> You already gave me your real name. And I did do it, and your
contribution
> everywhere else is about what it is here.
Uh, no on both counts. Anything out there with my real name on it is about
my professional life, which is nothing like my hobby Usenet debating, and
totally unrelated.
> The most interesting thing is when you sort of gay-bashed some
> guy, outing him for posting in some sexual newsgroup.
Um, no - I don't "gay-bash". I think you're talking about a guy who called
himself "rg" who was arguing that people should not protest the war once a
war has begun. I invited him to return to talking about topics he knew
something about - in soc.sexuality.general where this would-be conservative
detailed his sexual exploits, and his favorite kink of watching his wife
have sex with another man. I never knocked the guy's lifestyle - just
pointed out he should stick to talking about things he knew something about.
That was kind of funny, actually.
> > It IS about masochism. You don't pay attention to things you like --
you
> > pay attention to things (and people) you DON'T like.
>
> Go for it.
Already done, and you're still here - insisting on the last word. So you'll
continue to respond ad-infinitum, apparently.
> You have got to be kidding me. I am a mainstream liberal
Meaning what, exactly? Still waiting for your explanation of what exactly
this is supposed to mean, and who it is that let you into the club.
> This is the first time I've ever been called anything but an
> asset to this side of the political spectrum
I don't know if you're an asset or a liability, as I don't pretend to speak
for anyone but myself, personally. You apparently see yourself as the
Official Spokesperson for Mainstream Liberals. Self-appointed, of course.
> too many shortcomings to have any real credentials.
I'm not claiming "credentials", dude. I'm just here. You're the one
slapping labels on yourself and pretending to speak for others. Knock
yourself out, but don't be too suprised if someone pops up once in awhile
and reminds you that you don't speak for them.
Bored with you now, so see ya.
> Buzzflash -- a liberal site -- started out by exposing Rush Limbaugh's
lies.
Actually no, that would be F.A.I.R., and they don't exactly monitor the
shows. They don't need to. But you're probably too young to remember
F.A.I.R.
> You might think people like me or "duped," but that's just
> another example of your brilliant analytical skills.
No, it's an observation and an opinion. You for some reason choose to adopt
the stance that having certain opinions means folks get kicked out of the
Mainstream Liberals Club (and guess who's the President of the club?).
> No, I don't see.
I know. There's a lot you don't see. But that's cool. You are who you
are, I guess.
Good luck with that.
> I was knocking a right-wing loon, and you chipped in with
> a negative comment. THAT'S what I see.
Good, then mission accomplished. Knocking a right-wing loon is not in and
of itself inherently virtuous. Sorry. Exposing yourself as a left-wing
loon is no more appealing than the variety often seen at the other end of
the spectrum. "Mainstream" you ain't, pal.
-b
DDB
> Hands down, you're idiots. Plain and simple. I've watched his show every
> time it's broadcast on MSNBC, and the man is just a sham, a scam, and a
ham.
> You're idiots for wanting your politics delivered this way (if you want to
> call it that. I can't help comparing his fan base with the same type of
> people who'd like WWF wrestling.
>
That's an interesting point of view, now I must admit that I can't remember
ever having seen or heard this guy Michael Savage but it appears you're
casting dispersions on the WWF crowd which tend to be in the lower income
group of Americans, thought to be mostly democrats. So you have just shown
the main problem with the Democrat party, a deep loathing of the lower class
people within it, I believe I have heard that called limousine liberalism.
What is about a party that seeks to control the very thoughts of it's
members buy spinning reductions in increases as cuts when in fact it is a
reduced increase or who engage in fear mongering with the elderly then show
such loathing for members of their own party.
The Democrats need to realize that the elderly and even the poor they pitch
to now are not the same as those of the 60's, 70's 80's and part of the 90'
s, that generation has passed on. What the democrats are left with are more
and better educated citizens who are not easily frightened and call it as
they see it. But Democrat leadership still pitches their lies and deceit as
though they were still dealing with the old class of constituency. Keep it
up though cause it is working well for the Republican Party.
> --
> ______________________________
> Alric Knebel
> http://bellsouthpwp.net/a/l/alric/
> ______________________________
>
>
>
DDB
"Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:o%rDa.23557$Wh6....@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com...
"B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:aaffbf2dc10cb316...@free.teranews.com...>
> "Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:J18Da.1$d5...@fe09.atl2.webusenet.com...
>
> > > Didn't you just say you regularly watch his show?
>
> > You really are an idiot.
>
> No, not really. I'm smart enough not to feed Savage's advertisers, for
> example.
>
> > I said I watch his show, and I do it because I'm
> > amazed at how bad it is
>
> So it's like some kind of sick masochism thing?
>
> Me, I prefer to watch/listen to GOOD things because they are GOOD. Why
> watch something because it is bad? Sounds like a colossal waste of time,
> and an exercise in self-abuse to me.
>
> > I'm surely not among his fan base.
>
> If you are watching his show, you are among his fan base. What do you think
> ratings measure - those who watch and enjoy, or just those who watch?
> (hint - it's the second one).
>
> > It's just unbelievable how far down the right wing has sunk.
>
> Believe it. They are the scourge of this nation.
>
> > I assume YOU are a fan.
>
> Boy, are YOU off base.
>
> -bBy your is to accurately show how absurd it is, so that it will be made obvious to even the most stupid individual. A tall order, true, but it has to be done. I mean, or we going to sit back and let this nonsense go on forever? This man is an EASY target, he so obvious and so bad. It's not about a conservative agenda; it's about liberal bashing for ratings. I'm truly watching this for the reasons I said, that I'm watching the decline of political debate in America, and it's due to this sort of thing. I wrote already one article about this buffoon in which I do to him what he does to liberals, and the difference is, MY piece was an ACCURATE indictment while his was a hodgepodge mess of stupidity (go here if you're interested: http://bellsouthpwp.net/a/l/alric/weiner04122003.html). And I want to write another one based on his last two or three episodes. Last week, he listed the liberal lies. He said, "You've heard liberals say, 'Scientists don't believe in God.'" As a liberal, I have never once said, nor have I ever heard any liberal say, such a thing. But he set up the typical right-wing caricature of a liberal, which is the one most of the readers in these newsgroups have. He listed about five things, and none of them were what liberals espoused.
I am sure Mr. Savage will love fans just like who provide him with the ratings he needs to say on the air.
DDB
Pretentious little shit aren't you? You have an elevated view of your
importance to the rest of the world there Alric not mention the fact that
your enforce the stereotypical image of Liberal leadership. Don't do as I
do, do as I say along with a healthy dose of loathing the lower class. My
god what does liberalism stand for. B. NICE good job in taking him on, you'
re correct he represents the worst the party has to offer.
Alric Knebel
"DDB" <fa...@junkattbi.com> wrote in message
news:GG3Ea.1152013$S_4.1182518@rwcrnsc53...
Wogwash.
Alric
Alric Knebel
"sheila" <sheil...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2c389ef5.0306...@posting.google.com...
Are you a fan?
Alric
Alric Knebel
"B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> [silly nothingness snipped]
> Good, then mission accomplished. Knocking a right-wing loon is not in and
> of itself inherently virtuous. Sorry. Exposing yourself as a left-wing
> loon is no more appealing than the variety often seen at the other end of
> the spectrum. "Mainstream" you ain't, pal.
Let's cut through the nonsensical classifications you have for me and let's
say what this is really all about. YOU are pissed off that you made an ass
out of yourself in this forum because you didn't get a joke (I noticed you
deleted that portion of my response; very telling), and that's what this is
about, and nothing else. You were stung because your own hair-trigger
snideness caused you to look stupid in front of people, so you were looking
to retaliate. Nothing I've said about Savage deserved your comments, and
your remarks were about as accurate as all these totally off-target remarks
about how I'm the president of a liberals' club and so on. You made an ass
of yourself and you have this need to retaliate when really you should have
laughed at yourself and congratulated the author of the satire for its
accuracy. When I made a similar mistake (at the satirical Landover Baptist
Church site), that's what I did. But it's a little late for laughing at
yourself now, isn't it? You missed the opportunity. You lack a sense of
irony, just like you're incapable of seeing the irony of your comment that
I'm going to respond to your remarks "ad nauseum." That's expected, since
it was your lack of a sense of irony or an ability to laugh at yourself that
got us to this juncture. Remember, in both cases YOU responded to ME.
Maybe you need to get off the internet. You've stretched and pulled every
point until it's unrecognizable as rational thought to make it fit your
argument. For instance, that it was FAIR who used to point out Limbaugh's
lies instead of what I said, that it was Buzzflash. I had heard only about
a month ago that it was Buzzflash, but it doesn't matter to what my point
was, one way or the other, now does it? You probably missed the point, but
that would be up to your standard performance.
The thing is, you're just accusing me basically of being out of it, then to
make it look good you throw in all this stuff about my dictating what a
liberal is and so on, but YOU -- and ONLY YOU -- have demonstrated your
obtuseness and lack of humor. And you did it in front of everyone, which
really must keep your ears hot with embarrassment. You are a squishy little
creature angry at being trapped by your own trademark, inappropriate
smugness, and you continue to defend your error by using glibness in place
of cleverness. So respond any way you like, because I'm going to cut
through the bullshit and tell it like it is: YOU fucked up in a public
forum, and you're a tight-assed snit whose pride is compelling him to
retaliate "ad nauseum." That's what this is about. You saw my name on the
Savage comments and remembered it from the satire, then wanted to see if you
can catch me up. You try and try to make this into something else, by
diverting attention into these other remarks -- accusing me of being outside
the mainstream of liberalism, of being a "left-wing loon" -- but it's just
confetti designed to confuse the reader away from what REALLY happened.
Plainly put, you made a mistake, and you're just too proud to admit it.
That's what this is about, AND NOTHING ELSE. Your embarrassment is as
obvious as your rhetorical tactics. If I give it back to you, maybe you'll
see how obvious it is: You've been responding ad nauseum to my comments.
Let me delineate how this works: Now if you respond, it proves how
accurately I understand you, and you're playing into my hands by proving me
right; if you don't respond, you're doing it to avoid my manipulating you,
which means I'm manipulating you anyway. Sure, it's bullshit, but that's on
a par with what you've provided so far.
Alric Knebel
"DDB" <fa...@junkattbi.com> wrote:
>
> Pretentious little shit aren't you? You have an elevated view of your
> importance to the rest of the world there Alric not mention the fact that
> your enforce the stereotypical image of Liberal leadership. Don't do as I
> do, do as I say along with a healthy dose of loathing the lower class. My
> god what does liberalism stand for. B. NICE good job in taking him on,
you'
> re correct he represents the worst the party has to offer.
Absurd comments. Really they are. There is nothing wrong with the liberal
leadership. The errors of liberal leadership is just one more accusation
levied by right-wing pundits, and you're clearly among their followers. The
problem with liberal leadership is that right-wing talk has cowered them,
when they instead need to be proud of liberal principles. Your comments,
however, are typical of your side: I never said anything about "don't do as
I do, do as I say," and I never showed loathing for the lower class by
expressing disdain for WWF wrestling (this is in a reference to a stupid
comment you said elsewhere, in which you tried to take my comments about WWF
wrestling and turn it into some anti-working-class remark). Talk radio is
the eqivalent of WWF wrestling. It's all name-calling and squabbling, with
no substance. It's about describing liberals as strawmen then knocking them
down about things they didn't say. It's as close to political debate as WWF
wrestling is to sports.
And I am working class, you little shit. Clearly I've offended you, but I
never said a thing to suggest otherwise. Look at everything I've said.
Your remark demonstrates to me that you think working class people are
incapable of expressing themselves, of enjoying something other than WWF
Wrestling and action-adventure movies. I love proving the stereotype a lie.
Alric
rdhsr@bellsouth
Who is Michael Savage?
Biggie Gregg
SHORTcomings I'm betting he suffers.
So, Alric...need a boost?
Here's one:
http://www.dontbuyfrenchcrap.com
"Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<Si7Ea.52294$wc5....@fe04.atl2.webusenet.com>...
DDB
So you claim they are still stupid and your method works?
>
> Alric
>
>
>
Alric Knebel
"Biggie Gregg" <bigd...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:a79dbe9f.03060...@posting.google.com...
> Alric is clearly trying to compensate for any one of a number of
> SHORTcomings I'm betting he suffers.
Ironic, coming from a guy who calls himself "Biggie" Greg. . . .
> So, Alric...need a boost?
> Here's one:
> http://www.dontbuyfrenchcrap.com
. . . and THIS was really funny. Of course, I pretty much don't chew my
cud, so I don't happen to hate the French as I'm commanded to by my
political leaders, but it is still damn funny.
Alric Knebel
What you said was just so stupid, I could simply dismiss it with one word.
And I did.
Alric Knebel
"rdhsr@bellsouth" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
> Who is Michael Savage?
Interesting that you said this. When he first appeared on MSNBC, I had
never heard of him either, and when I admitted as much in this newsgroup, a
right-wing loon was quick to point out that I must not be an informed
person. Now there's been several people who also admit to having never
heard of him. Since I now am well acquainted with who he is, I'll tell you.
He's a right-wing gabber who has what is considered a strong following in
talk radio, with supposedly five million listeners. That doesn't sound like
a lot of people to me, but maybe in radioland, that's significant. He's
trash. He makes Rush Limbaugh look classy; he's that bad. And he's got to
be one of the goofiest people I've ever seen in a serious capacity on
television. He's a sputtering imbecile. He's so bad, he's fascinating to
watch. He's so bad, I'm suspicious of these alleged ratings he gets on
radio. He's so bad, I wouldn't be surprised if sensible conservatives
weren't suspecting that he was part of some left-wing conspiracy designed to
make conservatism look bad. You simply must see this show. He airs during
some of the cheapest time on television, Saturday afternoons, on MSNBC, 5:00
p. m. EST. I hope whoever is running MSNBC is stupid or crazy enough to
move him into primetime. That would be great, because he takes the
techniques used by the other right-wing gabbers and makes them obvious. The
man has no shame, and he's going for the absolute lowest common denominator,
for the people with one or two very bad emotions. Tune in. You won't
regret it.
Alric
DDB
No I have said you're an elitist and clearly show a desire to quite decent
even with members in your own party. You berate B. NICE for having an
opinion that's contrary to yours, whether you're liberal or conservative
that is an attempt at censorship, a trait that is shown all to often in the
Liberal world. If you don't have a valid argument then you resort to calling
names, which you did quit nicely as B. Nice pointed out. You're a disgrace
to your party whether liberal or conservative, showing a definite bent of
self importance hence the remark about your overt demonstration of
pretension ( I authored and therefore you should have read then you'd
understand) what crock.
As for pedigree, my father was a coal miner his whole life and I spent 22
years in the Navy, which makes me laugh when I encounter poseurs such as
yourself attempting to force your elitist point of view on others while at
the same time trying to censure their own opinion. I am not offended because
I find petty little shits like you humorous stuffed with self importance and
arrogant as all hell, trying to label others as anti- this or anti- that
because they don't agree with you. What's not to love here, you give
credence to every stereotype there is concerning liberal elitism. So as a
conservative I congratulate you, it will be folks such as yourself who
insure another 4 years of conservative leadership.
>
> Alric
>
>
>
Mike Flannigan
Well, as much as I disagree with Alric I do have to defend him on this one
point. Alric posted a web link to a ridiculous parody web-site that Alric
wrote and set up as a joke ridiculing what he sees as the stereo typical
conservative. It was really quite clever and well written. B. Nice responded
to the thing as if were authentic without even bothering to read it through
and really made a fool of himself. The only problem is that in doing so he
made a fool of Alric as well because Alric assumed that the only people dumb
enough to fall for it would be conservatives, when in fact the only people
that fell for it were other knee-jerk liberals. So basically what you're
witnessing now is a cat fight between two liberals over who's the bigger
dumb ass. And I swear, if they don't stop it pretty soon I'm going to need
surgery.
What makes this whole thing so delicious for me is the fact that several
weeks previous I had posted an article that appeared in our community
newspaper concerning a Kurdish family we know and their account of the
atrocities committed by Saddam to which Alric assumed that I had made the
whole thing up, proclaiming, "Look: You're dealing with liberals. We're
smarter than this. Your propaganda needs to get a bit more sophisticated to
fool us."
Now how's that for irony?
Alric Knebel
You're coming from a place of complete partisanship. Don't pretend
otherwise. In your partisanship, you construed everything I said to fit
every stererotypical smear coming from talk radio: "elitist," "self
important," censorship," "name-calling," and so on. You tried hard to
posture objectivity but that was just a pretention used to attack what you
hope is -- what you NEED to see as -- pretentiousness in me, when I was
merely defending my position. Your pal Welch (B. Nice) fired the first
volley, asshole, if you care to really be objective. Evidently I got to
you, and now you're trying to pretend you're protecting fair debate, when
you came in loaded for liberals. You're weak and lame.
> As for pedigree, my father was a coal miner his whole life and I spent 22
> years in the Navy, which makes me laugh when I encounter poseurs such as
> yourself attempting to force your elitist point of view on others while at
> the same time trying to censure their own opinion. I am not offended
because
> I find petty little shits like you humorous stuffed with self importance
and
> arrogant as all hell, trying to label others as anti- this or anti- that
> because they don't agree with you. What's not to love here, you give
> credence to every stereotype there is concerning liberal elitism. So as a
> conservative I congratulate you, it will be folks such as yourself who
> insure another 4 years of conservative leadership.
Speaking of petty shits, you're taking the cake. What the hell are you
rambling about? "Anti-this" and "anti-that"? What conversation were you
following? But for pretentiousness, let's take a look at these lofty
paragraphs you've cobbled together out of your hope chest of hackneyed
sentences and vain wit. Let's face it: you see me as pretentious merely
because I write well. You assume that someone who takes the time to do this
must be pretentious, because in YOUR experience, an honest, working class
man would limit his interests to watching baseball and WWF wrestling. What
a bigoted thing to assume, that a working class man couldn't appreciate art
or literature, and thereby appreciating it, study it some or give it loose
attention, and then by his interest, naturally assimilate some of it. In
truth, it's you who are an elitist, insisting that all working class people
be like you, they settle for half-baked ideas, that they espouse clichés at
every chance, using terminology passed down to them, a terminology that was
targeted for the lowest common denominator. Give me one example in which I
demonstrated "liberal elitism." Examine your example hard, study it.
You'll find that the "elitism" you see is non-existent; what's actually
there is confidence that I'm correct in my thinking, that I know I've
thought the idea through and I'm satisfied with my conclusions. Don't you
do the same? You'll never find any "elitism" in my thinking. What does
that mean, anyway? That will be another thing to think through.
The thing is, I'm more working class than you are, and most of my liberalism
is spent toward working class issues. You are retired military, meaning you
worked in an environment with some of the most stringent safety practices of
any private enterprise in the United States. You also existed for those
twenty-two years under a system that provided you a home and healthcare, and
gave you discounts at the BX and commissary. YOU have no personal
experience with being truly working class in America, in the "free"
economy -- the private sector -- where work is generally a hostile
experience for most employees. You despise all of the government programs
we propose while you yourself lived securely under the biggest government
program of all, with the most absurd retirement program of any working-class
retirement program, all paid for by working class people whom you deprive
from having the same benefits every time you go to the polls and vote
Republican. Now THAT'S elitism. The harmful kind.
What you're interpreting as "elitism" on my part is confidence. People like
you despise confidence from the liberal side. In your view, we have no
right to it, because your pundits have handed you a caricature of what
liberalism really is, and then given you a sense of self-righteousness about
your disdain for that caricature. You haven't said a single thing about me
that was accurate. Everything you said was addressing that caricature of
liberalism, yet you didn't site a single example of my exhibiting anything
like it. Not even my attacks on Welch were anything like you were
describing. You tendentiously entered the thread while pretending
otherwise, you phony shit. YOU, sir, represent the stereotypical
right-wing-pundit-listening gasbag, all puffed up with your arsenal of false
accusations and looking for a place to fire them. But you were wrong.
If you want to keep this going, let me know, you phony shit. While I'm
going to enjoy calling you names to season the debate, you twit, I'll teach
you how liberals really think.
Alric Knebel
>
> Well, as much as I disagree with Alric I do have to defend him on this one
> point. Alric posted a web link to a ridiculous parody web-site that Alric
> wrote and set up as a joke ridiculing what he sees as the stereo typical
> conservative. It was really quite clever and well written. B. Nice responded
> to the thing as if were authentic without even bothering to read it through
> and really made a fool of himself. The only problem is that in doing so he
> made a fool of Alric as well because Alric assumed that the only people dumb
> enough to fall for it would be conservatives, when in fact the only people
To be honest with you, Mr. Flannigan, I never expected anyone to fall for it, but I shouldn't have been so self-assured, now that I've recounted my own error of my first encounter with The Landover Baptist Church website. Sometimes, if you're not cued to the joke, it can be deceptive. I was so familiar with the man I was parodying (the man's real name is Al Benson and he writes for The Sierra Times; you can view one of Benson's essays here: http://www.sierratimes.com/albenson.htm), I sort of assumed subconsciously that other people were familiar with him too. But let me point out a silly assumption on YOUR part. I was not parodying a "typical conservative." I have no idea where you got that from. You're being blindly partisan for saying such a thing. I make a clear distinction between what I consider conservative Republicans and right-wing loons, and I've said as much before. The right-wing loons are the fringe groups, people way out there, who are attracted to the reactionary aspects of the conservative movement for the wrong reasons, but to whom the Republican Party has some appeal. Al Benson is one of them. He's obsessed with the Civil War and gay activism and racism. To his credit, he's a damn good writer. After reading a few of his past columns (they're archived at his page, so you can review other examples of his work, if you're interested), I wrote to him. He had said in one article that it was never stated in the Bible that slavery was a sin. I asked him what difference that made. Jesus said, "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you," and that settles it: If you wouldn't want to be a slave, then don't impose it on someone else. That settles it. Then I asked him what it was that he wanted the country to do, and why would anyone in their right mind want to live in a country in which slavery wasn't decisively considered wrong, whether biblicaly stated or not. His response was angry, that I was too liberal -- and too arrogant -- to understand. True, I swear. I am intelligent enough to know that this is not the sort of man typical of the mainstream Republican party, and this was exactly the sort of man I was parodying.
--
http://bellsouthpwp.net/a/l/alric/
kersplo...@yahoo.com
> Alric is clearly trying to compensate for any one of a number of
> SHORTcomings I'm betting he suffers.
> So, Alric...need a boost?
> Here's one:
> http://www.dontbuyfrenchcrap.com
Why does the website have a lot of strange code at the top? It does
not look like html or java. Is it some kind of malicious code? What is
it? It looks like this;
‹ Ý\ëRãH–þ¯§ÈqÇLwGØ"m ÕÀ†¡.¸ h SÕ1óg#%¥­,RJuf
—ëiêõæ öÏ~'%Ù · fkº" l$ež<×ï\Ô;§Œ+9Ív#‘9aövFÇïX"ä4q» \r»-ÖbÖD»­ ›ÉØ%»= j
³ÛmÜý²Ë ŸLùTØ û…M¶;ýn§Û[û"Oë§ ½ åó,Øy=úؤ Ø9xsrþæ ·ûGoêõû
¥Æ9 d6Ýíúo§<ŽËoåò/{ÛËå±Âþ¯¯ÿA¿ýr¯Y¤¸µ»JO5» ú]CíœN+ R ÇJÔK­o,öî¯7ÎÚÇ. à aÅ}9]=(=¾z° ®½8 M?Îî$Ìé¼z^‰‰cáô@+mv èú 5% xüª ÷÷vÞþzrÎ&< »­ ] ‰íOĬŢr
þE]få ±;Ø;ýp~>:yÇÎ ß°àlôë9 °Óá9} w^Ðj
ë¾8½‘úš-›DÍÞÎñð"e< »oO yŽ ÏÞ
™Mx.vÏÞ œƒ ðÂîn¶ í^w½½¾Í #&àf ‹Ïk‰K[Õ3Áõ‡z½ÍöV{}ssùØP)ɳH
3®æVÚÕ V ª ½íöz{c0X®0vÚ̇&J䥸åéêá
lÜkoõ6èá | ¬=Й㑻ûÙ­þ ½Ñ~Ùßl>{$³‹šæ à]Ó »lUÑNøå_ûÝ}n®ªZPX fïþPò|UÛVe† Þ$ð›Œ
¿+kÛy K„øÆ g£Ós¦x6-°ãî{~ÉÇ‘‘¹«½€›ãXN|v/>ášõ×ðxùà^p "^µã­† ÷«#­÷o2ßk¦Ñ0ØõõÁÞCwoz‘õ‡íî
³~¢·4ÑÉ„‹í¦Çغ⠕à±%¥
›¢ÄÎw;Š 1 fV®`h$W­Òì[ жpoì¸ czÂD*ÌTdќŠîȈ˜qËÀCi 3b*ufé¾·†l Š{Â9 'Ú8v̳ -– ϳØèTì¼ A<MŸ4 ‘É´FM«ÛJX…UR9Ûˆ3-P²US¿ÕËO¶Ž†ŠÐVŽÖ[{O>çÂ8â ¾Œ¹D° žk%t&#–À¨:EÎt¦æÌ*"
R þ:£‹PA ñ ÏüƒNÀ '8ÀsHƒcÑTà'f± Ö2%/ œŒ 9‹áâñh Wïl"sf¤+¸²ì' êKñóÚB á"p!Ø9<«c
E£É„ezœðX°ñèŸovéŽç×Ý3 A À–¬HCD8¯›àXÂl‘… <4–EFÏbÜ ÒBÁ£DØ > ±Uõ¼¶ÏÞ‰ÎrnœŒdÎÉLÙ R É´$„Á~/dt á!bÄ‚hÀuÈ×@AI E&2/_‘ÁD.¥˜yÓIŠ Â
u<_û¶eT¾­ !î NT³µUÞݺÓff W–&Ó|ìF
ê÷®XÐ2p,Üëõ ß»‚-q'—;|4é× a¨CiÙ' ²Üh'"GR…ìdfe,uaÛˆƒp„0k®Ú ~SG2Æ
°ä a 4W‰v­"§0Zè í ‘ · qI¾‚
Ú™B ¥_K"U ®g8 ?_ š‚J¶ëë›MoÊ <¼'rÕ£ö»½jSC -ÃÔ‰à ¦ èL°9>3>!] -R϶Jï/¥Åúíúü –³š]dz–Q¨i s5AäÀMÞ ‡Ø‡ý
.áH1{-R ±sp©´ ØÓ;^¨¿ý^h÷
­fq;¬m&] #" Z +EÜ:Ü „P[¶¹mò» ‰¸á b­õµb¼7¥Û ÏzkïÐ ˜1Ï Š"
E|$YN„ƒ´ ™2‹ Èp ) Tb •É5èH@ŒXÚ þ4ªü XL¥èÇ`…uÆÇ-
ƒ ;‡7´ðÉÆPD3^ã 5"©(Œ
ñ F"±`&B+ øËSÛÀjâ¶ù²‰Ã x(3áÆ5qÏ‹Å®1¯ غÿWêW o, K¦ö S p"‘Îã è0B Ev#r8 Bg 3 Òøi¡Ê`ÅK GOZ!莴°ä© ƒSŽT³Í€ß=‚ãÙ úª [x›|R!ð5ˆ8€©pøÈ c¸RØ ëX Âx„ý½€ .­7 I¡/‹-¼£'E'}fÜÁ"¼Ë™B¸P†Ö?t îd a‹ ²H‰úWkíëÎþ™Ï_G{Ã<‡+!Ò±hžhèÌOž½ø x ôó+ ìhoE[X°óá ¢9 ]gõ œÆV§p! C‘ ÉŽøY!^1Z .
Î 4{Îî €_ }=U| J¥ìrLJl6T8I ¦ ‰S1+· `=\£ö - ?
u) '€æ8NO 8€ç(R &s(,ìf\„ K Ig # Î (F)Ñ fn çõºxË‘ ¼Â: ë5` äJªˆ¨× D' Ã÷÷üË vH" , Äg<
U} æÕ×rÛ ô¥3 ´ —NdDê"Jëw "!NF‚ìáq{ ÈÊ€£U̦ż \ÏàÈI¹ ¥3]¸ ¦‡"âH­ÙŒü=… °É§š!Û·¬ÈÛL:x3ŽÜHº a'!¥Fp Ù " ™~¬| ¡ Ð 'P"pü™ý °
ñó+"™ ï ÷31§ÐzXÀU„<º`° C^! dOÌçXÎZ¸ '7Mkž!¾ Èù ð øLŠ©tòÒǹ"½/ìêÎ;/hç °É'ñžãÓá
¼·›+DáÔê΄Ò"ë: Iñ%•
â<—)¢Í‰˜±3@‰ì FwB<²S×4^±7' ãòJ½Æ C`½•+óÎxتx ,™¹,¹Uðê§:|-ÿØß; ž Æ?³ÕrZ¹Puý­&%$ øt ²–Þgß !'$ () V"¦„<PÚ–°+ÅŸ`¿UˆË(ÀMU‡†DP¯ÍÈ ƑV»D ÊЧ°D_ IV ^ÇÓ}ÊB—A WÙ°BØ ÏÀJ."
Mike Flannigan
>> Well, as much as I disagree with Alric I do have to defend him on this
one
>> point. Alric posted a web link to a ridiculous parody web-site that Alric
>> wrote and set up as a joke ridiculing what he sees as the stereo typical
>> conservative. It was really quite clever and well written. B. Nice
responded
>> to the thing as if were authentic without even bothering to read it
through
>> and really made a fool of himself. The only problem is that in doing so
he
>> made a fool of Alric as well because Alric assumed that the only people
dumb
>> enough to fall for it would be conservatives, when in fact the only
people
>> that fell for it were other knee-jerk liberals. . . .
>To be honest with you, Mr. Flannigan, I never expected anyone to fall for
it, but I shouldn't have been so self-assured, now that I've recounted my
own error of my >first encounter with The Landover Baptist Church website.
Sometimes, if you're not cued to the joke, it can be deceptive. I was so
familiar with the man I was >parodying (the man's real name is Al Benson and
he writes for The Sierra Times; you can view one of Benson's essays here:
>http://www.sierratimes.com/albenson.htm), I sort of assumed subconsciously
that other people were familiar with him too.
This is not the first time you've mentioned the Landover Baptist Church
website. That's funny because I've had the sermons I gleaned from there
saved on my HD for several years. I listen to them every once in while for
laughs. Always meant to mention it but never did. I can honestly say they
never took me in though.
juncture where we have no other place to go - or grow - and with satellite
communications and the internet opening international vistas, a more
accurate picture of our quality of life, our self-image as a just society,
is forthcoming.
Let me give you an example of how bad it is for working class people in my
area. Since 1992, the coast has allowed the construction of casinos. The
casinos came in with lies. They promised - in 1992 - $9 and $10 an hour
jobs, with benefits and so on. It sounded great. People migrated here from
all over the country, and there was a severe housing shortage. People were
getting top dollar for dwellings I would have figured were illegal. The
landlords immediately raised the rents to the point that in a civilized
society, it would have been criminal. People living on Section 8 benefits
were dumped from their apartments because Section 8 wouldn't pay the
increases. I rented at the time a house, behind which were apartments, and
the entire property was owned by the same man. People assumed because this
house sat in front of these apartments that the house was the residence of
the apartment manager, so I got to see who was looking for what. In about a
five month period, I saw three people who had been living in their cars,
while working, because they couldn't afford the rent. What happened was,
the casinos created a housing crunch while failing to provide the promised
wages that would make the dwellings affordable. Eventually the federal
government had to step in to assist in constructing apartments and houses,
until the supply and demand for housing equalled out. The thing is,
capitalists had no interest in fixing the situation, because they could get
more money for not investing in housing, by charging more for the houses
already constructed. All of this is true. I swear. The bottom line is
this: Capitalism is not interested in providing for people's needs; it's
about exploiting them. For that reason, healthcare should not be a
whimsical capitalist venture.
>The point I'm trying to make here is, there is a failure to understand one
another, these two political opposites, and a lack of respect. I do not
disrespect >conservatism, despite the fact that I strongly - and
rationally - disagree. However, I, too, am guilty of heated rhetoric, and
half the time I'm saying things in these >newsgroups due to an expectation,
that the wingnuts are out there with their inherited talk-radio rhetoric -
or the Al Benson-type voter hiding in the Republican >party - and I'm pretty
sure I've made that plain on several occaissions. If it were not the case,
I wouldn't be able to drop my partisanship to have the somewhat >civil
exchanges we've had about films and music*. There is a salient force in
conservatism, that has infected it, that shunts off any real understanding
of liberalism by >presenting this absurd caricature. I believe this is a
willful attempt to prevent pertinent quality-of-life issues from being
discussed, and corporate American has a >stake in these issues remaining off
the table.
>I believe progress will inevitably establish liberal principles as
essential to social justice. I believe that the way the United States
businesses view labor - as a mere >resource, instead of whole human beings
with needs and feelings - is wrong, and that labor rights will become
synonymous with civil rights. All of the other countries >have these values
fixed in place, but here they're considered a fringe idealogy. If you went
down a straightforward list of liberal principles pertaining to labor, most
>people, being among the labor class, would agree with them. Right now, our
political system is dominated by money interests which make sure
quality-of-life issues >remain out of the political arena, which is then
left with gun issues and abortion rights, things that don't affect most
people's lives, and as issues might disappear if >we'd take care of the
other stuff. Eventually, liberal principles will become something we take
for granted.
>I'm going to dismiss the rest of your comments as just partisan silliness,
whether you consider them so or not.
>Alric
Jezzz Alric. I won't even pretend to address every rambling point you've
tried to make here. I have a life and not that much acid. Suffice it to say
that it was a democrat legislature that legalized gambling in MS. They've
been running this state for over a hundred years as you well know. And about
the only people that opposed legalized gambling were conservative
Christians.
*I've listened to a lot of Elvis Costello in the last couple of days.
Outstanding. This guy came along during a time I wasn't buying much music.
I'm sorry I missed him in the context of his time. Yes, I know he's still
relevant, but I wish I had been more aware of him when he was the big thing.
Good! Time you loosened up tight ass. Try his collaboration with Burt
Bacharach. Painted from Memory. "King of America" is a masterpiece also.
Alric Knebel
"Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Jezzz Alric. I won't even pretend to address every rambling point you've
> tried to make here. I have a life and not that much acid. Suffice it to
say
> that it was a democrat legislature that legalized gambling in MS. They've
> been running this state for over a hundred years as you well know. And
about
> the only people that opposed legalized gambling were conservative
> Christians.
Nope. Sorry. This is a CONSERVATIVE state. Conservatives run it. Sure,
some Christians were opposed to it, but your average conservative has no
problem with gambling. Ever since the 60s, when the Democrats integrated
the schools, the majority of voters switched to the Republican Party. I
would have thought that was common knowledge.
Sorry you didn't appreciate the thoughts in my last post and saw fit to
dismiss them as evidence that I don't have a life. This is just easier to
for me than for most people: I type fast and think faster. Sorry it's so
hard for you, and that my attempt at reasonable dialogue went misunderstood.
As for your music recommendations, I enjoyed Elvis Costello, but I'm not
likely to pursue it further. I have my own tastes, people I think are quite
remarkable. There are only so many hours in a day -- and I do have a life
beyond movies and music and writing -- and my own favorites are Eric
Johnson, Joe Satriani, Wendy Carlos, Sarah Brightman, Vangelis, and on and
on; not to mention Bach, Beethoven, Ravel, and you get the picture. I
followed your recommendation because you were so enthusiastic about it and I
wondered about him for years, and my primary goal was to show you respect,
thinking I'd add some dignity to this discourse. You proved me naive.
Lesson learned. You even managed to squeeze a comment about Democrats in
response to my remarks about the gambling. Is that blindly partisan or
what?
Alric
DDB
No I never distorted your words I merely point them out. I never claims to
be anything but a conservative in any of my post but if it makes you feel
better congratulations you found me out even though I stated it clear LOL!
On a serious note if you were a member of my party and claimed superiority
or that you new best how to lead the party and approached me in the same
manner as your attacked B. Nice or should I say your attempt to censor him I
would simple tell you the same thing. Your ideas are not better nor more
important than mine and the same is true of your and my opinions. But your
posts indicate that you truly feel you are a superior liberal as compared to
B. Nice which couldn't be further from the truth, everyone's ideas are
important and should be embraced equally and no attempt should be made at
organized censorship. You have walked into this with your head held up and
have become a walking talking stereotype of liberal elitism on your own time
and with your own words. I did not contribute to it, I merely pointed it out
and I agree with B. Nice or Welch or what ever you call him, his liberal
ideas are as valid as yours but your obvious bent toward pretension and
delusions of grandeur wouldn't allow you to just let it go so you cut loose
with the labeling and name calling in an attempt to silence him or her. As I
said earlier, that too is a stereotypical response of a liberal who lacks
the gear to argue a topic based on its merits and the facts. So no sir I
haven't misconstrued any of your words to fit a stereotype they simply do
and only you can fix that.
No it is not what you write it is your attempt censor anyone with a
different point of view. Your statement above is very tell on the one had
you tell to study my example very and claim that I will not find it elitist
then just few sentences later you claim ignorance of what elitism means
Hmmmm? Very interesting and intellectually dishonest. True I am working
class but unlike you I embrace differing points of view and try to learn
from them both with in my party and out side of it you as well, you on the
other hand attack it in an attempt to censor the other parties into not even
expressing a point of view. Your attempt to label me only works for you
because I have no skin in the game since this is out side my party
affiliation but if it make you feel better to attempt to marginalize my
point of view on this topic then by all means carry on. Just remember it is
only you who are getting any satisfaction out of your action because it just
doesn't matter to me, clearly your attempts to answer these point of mine
indicate just how superior you believe you are. But again if it makes you
feel good continue after all you're just proving my position with every post
you make in a weak attempt to contradict it.
>
> The thing is, I'm more working class than you are, and most of my
liberalism
> is spent toward working class issues. You are retired military, meaning
you
> worked in an environment with some of the most stringent safety practices
of
> any private enterprise in the United States. You also existed for those
> twenty-two years under a system that provided you a home and healthcare,
and
> gave you discounts at the BX and commissary. YOU have no personal
> experience with being truly working class in America, in the "free"
> economy -- the private sector -- where work is generally a hostile
> experience for most employees. You despise all of the government programs
> we propose while you yourself lived securely under the biggest government
> program of all, with the most absurd retirement program of any
working-class
> retirement program, all paid for by working class people whom you deprive
> from having the same benefits every time you go to the polls and vote
> Republican. Now THAT'S elitism. The harmful kind.
Well as I said I did retire from the Navy but I never claimed to have done
it all on active duty, you made that jump all on your own because it allowed
you to make the argument you just made. Your assumption above couldn't be
further from the truth but it does reinforce yet another stereotype about
liberals, clearly you do not value the sacrifices that the military make
everyday on your behalf. Their sacrifices give you the right to posts your
elitist views and even give you the ability to freely exercise your attempts
at censoring others. Again sir, your own words enforce the stereotype and
every time you try to run from your words by explanation you dig your hole
much deeper.
As for my Navy duty I do not have access to the BX or commissary although it
would be great if there were one within even 100 miles but there isn't. My
retirement benefits will include medical coverage from age 60 when I start
getting my first retirement pay until age 63 I believe, which is when I will
be switched to what every medical program everyone else uses. Now just to
set the record straight my last 14.5 years in the Navy were spent in the
Reserve and although I traveled nationally and even internationally in the
performance of my civilian job I always attended drill weekends as scheduled
and I always went on my two weeks of active duty as I agreed to in my
enlistment contract. As for the active duty part, I spent 7.5 years on
active duty and went directly onto active service after graduating high
school, 2 weeks later in fact. See I always thought that I owed the country
something in return for all of the opportunity it provided me not he other
way around.
>
> What you're interpreting as "elitism" on my part is confidence. People
like
> you despise confidence from the liberal side. In your view, we have no
> right to it, because your pundits have handed you a caricature of what
> liberalism really is, and then given you a sense of self-righteousness
about
> your disdain for that caricature. You haven't said a single thing about
me
> that was accurate. Everything you said was addressing that caricature of
> liberalism, yet you didn't site a single example of my exhibiting anything
> like it. Not even my attacks on Welch were anything like you were
> describing. You tendentiously entered the thread while pretending
> otherwise, you phony shit. YOU, sir, represent the stereotypical
> right-wing-pundit-listening gasbag, all puffed up with your arsenal of
false
> accusations and looking for a place to fire them. But you were wrong.
Again you make some assumptions with out even shred of evidence to back your
claims then refer to me as "PEOPLE LIKE YOU" an obvious attempt to put me
into a category so you can deal with me, once again a liberal stereotype.
When I joined the Navy I was of voting age and like my father before me I
was a registered Democrat, which was a requirement in my family and
neighborhood growing up as the son of a coal miner, however after years of
watching and learning from my experiences I emerged as a registered
Republican at the end of active duty. Mind you this was many many years ago
before cable news and before talk radio emerged as it is today so these
media had no influence on me as you would have the world believe. I can't
really lay my finger on what changed me but I do remember it had a lot to do
with my view of common sense and a sense of fair play. Having met men in the
military from all walks of life I found one common denominator between all
of us and that was (1) the vast majority of us came from poor families and
(2) there was no way to escape the clutches of poverty if we had stayed
where we were. That enforced in me that the system at that time was flawed
even though millions if not billions had been confiscated from tax payers to
support the great society laid down some 15 years earlier and it still wasn'
t helping. Then I started working my butt off studying for advancement exams
in the hopes of being promoted and that paid off and distinguished me from
my peers even in the Navy. It was not long before I realized that I could
achieve anything in life as long as I worked hard for it and adopted an
attitude that the world owed me nothing. I have tried modeled my life as a
continuous learning and education experience and so far with gods good
graces I have remained fairly successful and still pursue education where
ever I can, I make the sacrifices necessary to achieve my view of success.
So to make a really long story short I have no problem with what people have
or get as long as they work for it, I expect nothing more from them than I
expect for myself. It is my view that the plan for the great society and
even reconstruction has been distorted over the years and has gone from a
hand up to a hand out, in my point of view no one alive should have the
expectation that they have a right to your or my income but they have every
right and opportunity that I do to increase their own. See now you don't
have to guess and make assumptions about my motivation.
Sure I may not write eloquently and at times my ideas may be jumbled as
presented in written but does it make them any less important. My guess is
it does to a pretentious elitist and that's ok by me.
>
> If you want to keep this going, let me know, you phony shit. While I'm
> going to enjoy calling you names to season the debate, you twit, I'll
teach
> you how liberals really think.
You already have but then again when I was part of the liberal party we
acted with grace and dignity but perhaps that is just a Midwestern state of
mind and not based on party affiliation.You are entitled to your opinions
and I mine so if your approach to is to full fill every stereotype of
liberalism there is go right ahead it is after all your right.
>
> Alric
> --
> http://bellsouthpwp.net/a/l/alric/
>
>
>
Mike Flannigan
>
> "Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote:
> >
> > Jezzz Alric. I won't even pretend to address every rambling point you've
> > tried to make here. I have a life and not that much acid. Suffice it to
> say
> > that it was a democrat legislature that legalized gambling in MS.
They've
> > been running this state for over a hundred years as you well know. And
> about
> > the only people that opposed legalized gambling were conservative
> > Christians.
>
> Nope. Sorry. This is a CONSERVATIVE state. Conservatives run it. Sure,
> some Christians were opposed to it, but your average conservative has no
> problem with gambling. Ever since the 60s, when the Democrats integrated
> the schools, the majority of voters switched to the Republican Party. I
> would have thought that was common knowledge.
So it was conservatives that elected Ronnie Muskgrove and probably the
countries most notorious tobacco litigator, Mike Moore? Not to mention a
legislature that refuses to do anything substantive about the out of control
lawsuits that are hurting business and driving insurance through the roof?
> Sorry you didn't appreciate the thoughts in my last post and saw fit to
> dismiss them as evidence that I don't have a life. This is just easier to
> for me than for most people: I type fast and think faster. Sorry it's so
> hard for you, and that my attempt at reasonable dialogue went
misunderstood.
> As for your music recommendations, I enjoyed Elvis Costello, but I'm not
> likely to pursue it further. I have my own tastes, people I think are
quite
> remarkable. There are only so many hours in a day -- and I do have a life
> beyond movies and music and writing -- and my own favorites are Eric
> Johnson, Joe Satriani, Wendy Carlos, Sarah Brightman, Vangelis, and on and
> on; not to mention Bach, Beethoven, Ravel, and you get the picture. I
> followed your recommendation because you were so enthusiastic about it and
I
> wondered about him for years, and my primary goal was to show you respect,
> thinking I'd add some dignity to this discourse. You proved me naive.
> Lesson learned. You even managed to squeeze a comment about Democrats in
> response to my remarks about the gambling. Is that blindly partisan or
> what?
>
> Alric
I didn't mean to imply that you don't have a life or that I didn't
appreciate what you had to say Alric. It's just that you present me with so
many seeming contradictions over and above the points you're trying to make
I feel like I'd have to author a War and Peace novel just to address it all
and it gets very frustrating. For instance, in your attempt to cast MS as a
conservative state (and it is nationally but what we're taking about here
are local politics) you claim most voters are Republican to make your point,
even though the governor, state attorney general and legislature are all
democrat. Then, in your attempt to explain why you consider yourself a
liberal you pine on about "the coast allowing the construction of casinos".
When I point out that it was a democrat legislature that passed legalized
gambling in MS all of a sudden I'm being blindly partisan.
The simple fact of the matter is that about the only people who opposed
gambling in MS were conservatives, and the more conservative the more they
opposed it. Most liberals only saw dollar signs, from the general public who
think the key to quality of life is funding government to the politicians
who reveled in the prospect of more power with more money to throw around.
And just to surmise on your previous post. Rent control perpetuates
substandard housing, shortages and in the long run higher prices than
otherwise would have occurred had the market been allowed to function. The
idea that housing cost were kept high deliberately is quite impossible. Even
if some dumb ass thinks he can make more money by keeping unit cost at 100%
rather than 75% at twice as many there will always be someone else to come
in and take advantage of the shortage. You call that exploitation I call it
providing for a need. It's the same thing.
You claim that capitalism isn't interested in providing for people needs but
rather exploiting them. That may be somewhat true but the end result is that
need is provided at the least possible cost. The primary reason healthcare
is so high is because through Medicare, Medicaid and insurance market forces
have all but been eliminated. We have to find a way to reintroduce them. If
we handled feeding the poor the same way we handle healthcare a pack of
hotdogs would cost $10.00 and we'd have an another crisis on our hands.
Apparently you've had some bad employment experiences. I own a small
business and I can tell you I've had my share of bad employee experiences.
More and more people these days harbor no work ethic, think they are owed
something they have not earned and have been brainwashed into thinking I'm
out to get them. This attitude makes them unemployable. Walk a mile in my
shoes sometime bud. I've been on both sides of the isle and I can tell you
being an employee lets you at least sleep at night. Exploitation my ass.
And please. Knock it off with the brainiac shit. I'd say your fingers have
far outpaced your head concerning your typing and thinking fast remark, as
nothing that large could possibly be very agile. That is, if I were going
mean about it or anything.
Mike Flannigan
On the contrary. Yours is a perfect and effortless read. Written as if you
were simply standing in front of me speaking. That's what I strive for
though rarely achieve. I like what you said about Alric also. As much as I
do like him he is quite full of himself. He thinks to be liberal is to be
intellectual. Yet he lacks the humility to admit when he's wrong, even when
nailed to the cross red handed. Such is a sign of immaturity and ultimately
weakness of character, if not soon corrected.
DDB
>
> "rdhsr@bellsouth" <rd...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >
> > Who is Michael Savage?
>
> Interesting that you said this. When he first appeared on MSNBC, I had
> never heard of him either, and when I admitted as much in this newsgroup,
a
> right-wing loon was quick to point out that I must not be an informed
> person. Now there's been several people who also admit to having never
> heard of him.
One might think that this blows holes in your theory that Conservatives are
spoon fed their ideas from talk radio and Cable Television wouldn't you
think?
Since I now am well acquainted with who he is, I'll tell you.
> He's a right-wing gabber who has what is considered a strong following in
> talk radio, with supposedly five million listeners. That doesn't sound
like
> a lot of people to me, but maybe in radioland, that's significant. He's
> trash. He makes Rush Limbaugh look classy; he's that bad. And he's got
to
> be one of the goofiest people I've ever seen in a serious capacity on
> television. He's a sputtering imbecile. He's so bad, he's fascinating to
> watch. He's so bad, I'm suspicious of these alleged ratings he gets on
> radio. He's so bad, I wouldn't be surprised if sensible conservatives
> weren't suspecting that he was part of some left-wing conspiracy designed
to
> make conservatism look bad. You simply must see this show. He airs
during
> some of the cheapest time on television, Saturday afternoons, on MSNBC,
5:00
> p. m. EST.
For a guy who professes to hate this character, here you are providing his
schedule to the world. I'm sure he appreciates your contribution to his
success you're giving him great wings..
I hope whoever is running MSNBC is stupid or crazy enough to
> move him into primetime. That would be great, because he takes the
> techniques used by the other right-wing gabbers and makes them obvious.
The
> man has no shame, and he's going for the absolute lowest common
denominator,
> for the people with one or two very bad emotions. Tune in. You won't
> regret it.
"TUNE IN YOU WON"T REGRET IT" this seems like an endorsement to me. You're
just full of contradictions aren't you?
>
> Alric
>
>
>
Alric Knebel
It's a conservative state, even on the local level. Our Democrats aren't
LIBERAL Democrats. Muskgrove got in by a hair, anyway. Also, the casinos
themselves were voted in county by county, not by the legislatures.
Liberals don't run this state, and this view that LIBERALS saw nothing but
dollar signs is just ridiculous partisanship. The referendums to allow
"dockside gambling" were initiated by local busnessman under the influence
of Vegas investors. Don't you think it's a bit arrogant to describe my own
state's politics? And you need to cool it with this hardline descriptions
of liberals and conservatives, always describing the liberals as the ones
after the money. How ridiculous can you get? Your view of liberals is just
another stark example of the same old partisan clichés. Liberalism simply
had no hand in this. The idea wasn't introduced by liberals, and it wasn't
encouraged by liberals. It was a cabal of businessmen, their political
leanings really unknown to me.
> And just to surmise on your previous post. Rent control perpetuates
> substandard housing, shortages and in the long run higher prices than
> otherwise would have occurred had the market been allowed to function. The
> idea that housing cost were kept high deliberately is quite impossible.
Even
> if some dumb ass thinks he can make more money by keeping unit cost at
100%
> rather than 75% at twice as many there will always be someone else to come
> in and take advantage of the shortage. You call that exploitation I call
it
> providing for a need. It's the same thing.
I don't know if rent controls create substandard housing, but I know a lot
of substandard housing exists without them. So, I'm going to have to
dismiss this claim of yours an unprovable. You're one of those free market
types, evidently, one of those guys who views it almost like a religion, as
if the free market system is something inherent in nature and can't be
tampered with, as if it's something fixed and as logical as the ecosystem in
a fish tank. This is an ideal, and it's not realistic and there are in fact
solutions to the problems in capitalism. There are other ways to solve the
rent problem besides rent controls, but we won't go into them. As for the
quality of housing, we have standards on how other things are produced, such
as airplanes, cars, and so on. The same should be applied to ALL housing.
So, what I'm telling you is -- what I told you -- is that the free market
didn't work. The proprietors weren't interested in building new houses.
They simply charged more for houses already built -- even the junkiest
ones -- and charged more rent for the limited supply of apartments, because
the demand made it possible. This was greed at work. The situation didn't
change until the government stepped in, and assisted in the construction of
apartments. Things are better now, somewhat, though the rents are still
inflated due to the casinos not paying the wages they originally promised, a
situation that seems to be getting worse. The annual raises they now give
have decreased over the years. At first, when they were still convincing
everyone that this was a good deal, you could get a 35- to 50-cents-an-hour
raise. Now the raises are granted on a percentage of your hourly wage, and
a misery percentage it is, between 3 to 5 percent.
> You claim that capitalism isn't interested in providing for people needs
but
> rather exploiting them. That may be somewhat true but the end result is
that
> need is provided at the least possible cost. The primary reason healthcare
> is so high is because through Medicare, Medicaid and insurance market
forces
> have all but been eliminated. We have to find a way to reintroduce them.
If
> we handled feeding the poor the same way we handle healthcare a pack of
> hotdogs would cost $10.00 and we'd have an another crisis on our hands.
This has not been the case. Foodstamps didn't cause that to happen. Also,
your observation of the inflationary effects of government intervention in
healthcare hasn't been demonstrated in other countries, where healthcare
costs seem to be under control. Capitalism doesn't meet the needs of people
at the lowest possible cost at all times. Sometimes greed gets out of
control, as in the rent situation I described. Raising rents was uncalled
for; it was oppurtunistic with no regard for the quality of life of the
people effected. And it's a clear-cut case of what happens in unfettered
capitalism. Like its antithesis -- communism -- capitalism is an ideal,
and -- like communism -- it has its diehard devotees. Maybe you're one of
them, and you should perhaps examine your attitude toward this "free market"
concept. You insist on making excuses for its failures, and then downplay
the mitigating influences of liberalism.
> Apparently you've had some bad employment experiences. I own a small
> business and I can tell you I've had my share of bad employee experiences.
> More and more people these days harbor no work ethic, think they are owed
> something they have not earned and have been brainwashed into thinking I'm
> out to get them. This attitude makes them unemployable. Walk a mile in my
> shoes sometime bud. I've been on both sides of the isle and I can tell you
> being an employee lets you at least sleep at night. Exploitation my ass.
>
> And please. Knock it off with the brainiac shit. I'd say your fingers have
> far outpaced your head concerning your typing and thinking fast remark, as
> nothing that large could possibly be very agile. That is, if I were going
> mean about it or anything.
Actually, I do think faster than I type, and I type pretty fast. Case in
point: I examined your comments for credibility, to see if you had a point,
and I sought to be fair. I really did, and I was. In the final analysis,
your idealistic belief in capitalism simply didn't match with my personal
experiences, experiences I've taken some time to convey to you, and now I'm
doing it again, with lucid language and considerable speed. I've also
observed your falling back on this very idealistic view of capitalism, and I
think it suggests that perhaps you suspect I'm right, as a religious convert
might suspect his faith is based on a tautological argument but clings to
his faith with greater tenacity, more out of pride than a desire for truth.
Reality is a better teacher than theories. In the end, I'm giving you my
experiences, things I've seen capitalism do, and that can't be countered by
a hope in a theory. And that's what it is, a theory, and there's the THEORY
of capitalism, and there's the actual application. In the actual
application, the need for housing wasn't met at the cheapest cost; that is
the reality. Landlords sought to exploit the situation. Now, if we were
talking about cars or cellphones or plasma-screen TVs, that would be okay to
do -- to charge according to the demand and what the market would bear, and
tough luck to those who can't afford those things. But housing can't be
treated that way, because it's ESSENTIAL to life. The unnecessary element
in the whole scene I described was the landlord's greed. I'm only
interested in fairness. Sure, most people are indifferent if they
themselves are not the sufferers, but indifference is just another aspect of
the dog-eat-dog, survival-of-the-fittest mentality essential to unfettered
capitalism.
And Elvis Costello is really, REALLY good. Thanks. Whatever the reason I
listened to you -- to show you respect and so on -- it was a worthwhile
experience. I might even purchase a couple of his CDs with my wages. :-)
Alric
Alric Knebel
"Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote:
>
> On the contrary. Yours is a perfect and effortless read. Written as if you
> were simply standing in front of me speaking. That's what I strive for
> though rarely achieve. I like what you said about Alric also. As much as I
> do like him he is quite full of himself. He thinks to be liberal is to be
> intellectual. Yet he lacks the humility to admit when he's wrong, even
when
> nailed to the cross red handed. Such is a sign of immaturity and
ultimately
> weakness of character, if not soon corrected.
What a crock of shit. All of it.
Alric
Alric Knebel
I highly recommend the show. It's entertaining in it's grotesqueness. Like
Tiny Tim.
Alric
DDB
Well sir can you tell me who wrote the following:
"If you want to keep this going, let me know, you phony shit. While I'm
going to enjoy calling you names to season the debate, you twit, I'll teach
you how liberals really think."
Coud you have possibly run out of things to say already.
I notice you did not respond to my reply to your post at all. Things that
make you go Hmmmm
>
> Alric
>
>
>
DDB
I'm sure he appreciates your patronage and your good work spreading the word
so he can enjoy a great market share in whatever time slot he has. For a guy
that professes to hate him you sure are working hard to add viewer ship thus
ensuring his success and probable contract extensions.
>
> Alric
>
>
>
Steamroller
>
> "Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:GDmFa.2018$Yv6...@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com...
> Like
> > Tiny Tim.
>
> I'm sure he appreciates your patronage and your good work spreading the
word
> so he can enjoy a great market share in whatever time slot he has. For a
guy
> that professes to hate him you sure are working hard to add viewer ship
thus
> ensuring his success and probable contract extensions.
I think I may start tuning in the show, based on Alric's alerting us to the
fellow. Anyone know if he is on any stations in the eastern Massachusetts
area?
Alric Knebel
"DDB" <fa...@junkattbi.com> wrote:
>
> I'm sure he appreciates your patronage and your good work spreading the
word
> so he can enjoy a great market share in whatever time slot he has. For a
guy
> that professes to hate him you sure are working hard to add viewer ship
thus
> ensuring his success and probable contract extensions.
He'll never enjoy a large market share, and I really want people to watch
this show for whatever reason, so that MSNBC will further demonstrate their
lack of class and move the nitwit to primetime. This guy blows the cover
off the right-wing talk-show technique. It's like when McCarthy went too
far and people decided it needed to stop. That's how bad this is. A lot of
decent conservatives don't like this guy. I think that someone with these
standards gets on television is a significant development. Watch it. I
especially recommend it to YOU. Then come back and tell us what you think.
Alric
Alric Knebel
"Steamroller" <Rene_squashing_the_Lef...@hotmail.com>
wrote in message news:XcrFa.639432$Si4.5...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net...
I don't know what radio station carries him, but he's on MSNBC. You get
that, don't you? Tune in. And I hope you have a Neilson box, so you'll be
counted as watching him.
Alric
Alric Knebel
Your response was so lame, and you committed to be obtuse and partisan,
there was nothing I could respond with but a response telling you you're
lame and committed to be obtuse and partisan. But that response you quoted
in THIS post was strictly for Flannigan. That hodgepodge mess you posted --
regardless of what your butt-kissing Mike said -- was difficult to read, but
behind it all, I could feel your self-righteous arrogance while you're
claiming to be just the opposite. How can I address someone so totally
clueless, so blind to his own partisanship, that talking directly at them
does no good? You're phony, full of trite, clichéd observations about
liberals, and you in your simpleton's world think you're really telling me
off. And that's what you're about. You simple don't read what I say and
just keep on with your opinion. None of what you say about me is correct.
Luckily there's the newsgroups and there's the REAL world, where none of
those banal comments touch my life. I never tried to suppress anyone's
opinion, yet this is what you saw. You saw what you wanted to see in my
exchange with Nice. You saw it that way because you were partisan. Why
didn't you see it the other way around when Nice introduced himself into the
thread against me? Couldn't all these things you say be leveled at him,
too? Yes, they could, but you won't do that because you're partisan. Yet
you chose to see it a certain way because of your partisanship. Now how the
hell does a person like me communicate through such obvious filters? An
example, your comments about
my remarks about your military retirement. Those remarks were pretty lame,
but mostly they were unfair. You're using a right-wing caricature of
liberals, and you were referred to that caricature in your response, running
up the old clichés about how liberals don't like the military (I was in the
military, the Navy) and how much we owe them and so on. All that junk about
what I owe the military aside, what I said was based on you telling me you
retired from the Navy after 22 years. What else am I to conclude from such
a comment? I think that was a bit disingenuous on your part to say you
retired from the military, and came forth with the truth only when it could
be used to prove I jumped to conclusions. A more accurate statement would
have been "I retired from the Navy RESERVES after 22 years." BIG
difference. But it's just another example of your phoniness, your need to
see liberals a certain way.
You need to take a look at yourself. You haven't got anything to say
really, but you're saying it anyway.
Alric
Alric
DDB
Your reply is just too rich to leave alone and allow to go unanswered.news:RjxFa.15238$Yv6....@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com...
Hank Ball
> Hands down, you're idiots. Plain and simple. I've watched his show every
> time it's broadcast on MSNBC, and the man is just a sham, a scam, and a ham.
> You're idiots for wanting your politics delivered this way (if you want to
> call it that. I can't help comparing his fan base with the same type of
> people who'd like WWF wrestling.
What's funny Alric is that it seems that liberals, not convervatives,
form his largest base of viewers. You've watched every show and I
wouldn't even waste my time listening to the creature.
Looks like you're the idiot.
Hank Ball
Hank Ball
the label "idiot" on all conservatives anyway. Who's the idiot here,
YOU!!!
Keep watching his show Alric and repeat this mantra, "Alric's an idiot
. . . Alric's an idiot . . . Alric's an idiot."
Hank Ball
"Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message news:<J18Da.1$d5...@fe09.atl2.webusenet.com>...
> "B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:995660099a777934...@free.teranews.com...
> >
> > "Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:SrUCa.10716$d9....@fe06.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > > Hands down, you're idiots. Plain and simple. I've watched his show
> every
> > > time it's broadcast on MSNBC
> >
> > Sorry, dude, but adding yourself to the asshole's ratings doesn't exactly
> > qualify you for genius-hood either.
> >
> > > I can't help comparing his fan base with the same type of
> > > people who'd like WWF wrestling.
> >
> > Didn't you just say you regularly watch his show?
> >
> > -b
>
> You really are an idiot. I said I watch his show, and I do it because I'm
> amazed at how bad it is, but I'm surely not among his fan base. It's just
> unbelievable how far down the right wing has sunk. And anyone who can't see
> how bad it is has to be something like a troglodyte. And I have to assume
> that MOST of the people watching -- the ones who are watching it because
> they think it's good -- are indeed fans of his. God, it's awful. I mean
> it. The stuff he says is so seething with childish hatred, all I can do is
> shake my head in incredulity that this guy has an audience at all, and even
> more that MSNBC would throw all standards out the window, like peasants
> tossing out piss, to make room on their schedule for this idiot.
>
> But in honesty, it's so bad and so stupid, I like the idea he has a fan
> base. It gives me a group I can clearly identify as just plain stupid,
> people who are making right-wing conservatism look truly bad, who strip away
> the veneer of "ideology" so we can see what it's really about. I assume YOU
> are a fan. Your stupid rejoinders seem to be on a par with Weiner's. HE
> calls The New York Times the OLD York Times, as if that's a besmirching
> comment. What if it was The OLD York Times? What does that mean? He calls
> Susan Sarandon, "Susan SARANWRAP." Come on, how idiotic. And there's other
> little naughty names he uses to refer to people who've somehow caught his
> attention. And idiots can dig it. I laugh at you, that THIS is what you're
> calling a political pundit. YOU ARE AN IDIOT. DO NOT CONTRIBUTE TO THE
> GENE POOL.
>
> Alric
Hank Ball
> "B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:<aaffbf2dc10cb316...@free.teranews.com>...
> > "Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:J18Da.1$d5...@fe09.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
>
> >
> > example.
> >
> > > I said I watch his show, and I do it because I'm
> > > amazed at how bad it is
> >
> >
> > Me, I prefer to watch/listen to GOOD things because they are GOOD. Why
> > watch something because it is bad? Sounds like a colossal waste of time,
> > and an exercise in self-abuse to me.
> >
> > > I'm surely not among his fan base.
> >
> > ratings measure - those who watch and enjoy, or just those who watch?
> > (hint - it's the second one).
> >
> > > It's just unbelievable how far down the right wing has sunk.
> >
> >
> > > I assume YOU are a fan.
> >
> >
> > -b
> >
> > Sign the petition declaring George W. Bush to be a Horse's Ass
> > http://www.petitiononline.com/bushass/petition.html
>
> LOL! Two liberals arguing and spewing their hate! LOL!
This is way too much fun, ROFL. I haven't heard one conservative in
this group even mention that they have watched Michael Savage, yet
these idiot liberals keep repeating that we MUST be watching him
because liberals wouldn't be stupid enough to watch him and help his
ratings . . . well, we have some idiot liberals in here because that
is exactly what they are doing, ROFL.
Hank Ball
Hank Ball
> "B. Nice" <seattled...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:aaffbf2dc10cb316...@free.teranews.com...
> >
> > "Alric Knebel" <alr...@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> > news:J18Da.1$d5...@fe09.atl2.webusenet.com...
> >
> > > > Didn't you just say you regularly watch his show?
>
> > > You really are an idiot.
> >
> > No, not really. I'm smart enough not to feed Savage's advertisers, for
> > example.
> >
> > > I said I watch his show, and I do it because I'm
> > > amazed at how bad it is
> >
> > So it's like some kind of sick masochism thing?
> >
> > Me, I prefer to watch/listen to GOOD things because they are GOOD. Why
> > watch something because it is bad? Sounds like a colossal waste of time,
> > and an exercise in self-abuse to me.
> >
> > > I'm surely not among his fan base.
> >
> > If you are watching his show, you are among his fan base. What do you
> think
> > ratings measure - those who watch and enjoy, or just those who watch?
> > (hint - it's the second one).
> >
> > > It's just unbelievable how far down the right wing has sunk.
> >
> > Believe it. They are the scourge of this nation.
> >
> > > I assume YOU are a fan.
> >
> > Boy, are YOU off base.
> >
> > -b
>
> I'll take that challenge of who is going to make whom look stupid. You've
> done half the work for me, just by being a knee-jerking idiot. I'll
> probably just sit back and let you have you go, and I'll come in and just
> point out the facts for you. But I'll go ahead and give you advice first,
> you slope-skulled, ruminating nincompoop: Don't enter any thread I start
> unless you've got something INTELLIGENT to contribute. And make sure it's
> though out. Like you comment about my adding to Savage's popularity by
> watching him, despite the fact that I'm not a member of the Nielson family
> that is used to measure ratings: that was plain stupid and useless. To type
> or jack-off were evidently you two options, and you decided on the one that
> took the least thought for you. Anyway, just as Michael Savage represents
> what's wrong with some right-wing talk show hosts, you're evidence is what's
> wrong with the liberal side. Shut up. You're making us good liberals have
> to work harder.
>
> Alric
ROFLMAO
Can we have some intelligent dialogue here instead of the rantings
above? I mean, if you use terms like; "pussified nitwit," "jack-off,"
"slope-skulled, ruminating nincompoop," and this is part of a message
in which you are chastising a guy for not having an intelligent reply.
Yep, I can see clearly that you're a good liberal. Your example above
proves that, in spades, ROFL.
Hank Ball
Hank Ball
Alric is all of that and more, ROFL.
Hank Ball
Alric Knebel
"Hank Ball" <hb...@cncnet.com> wrote in message
news:7d5230d1.03061...@posting.google.com...
There's Hank, back with saying to totally inane. No, the largest base of
his viewers are conservatives. Hank, I didn't expect much from you, and you
met those expectations.
Alric
Alric Knebel
> the label "idiot" on all conservatives anyway. Who's the idiot here,
> YOU!!!
>
> Keep watching his show Alric and repeat this mantra, "Alric's an idiot
> . . . Alric's an idiot . . . Alric's an idiot."
>
> Hank Ball
I thought you were a grownup, Hank. His fanbase is clearly conservative,
you moron.
Alric
Alric Knebel
Well, the first time I posted an article about the bozo, a few conservatives
did in fact stand up to defend him. Sorry you missed it.
Alric
Alric Knebel
Hank, you're a slope-skulled, ruminating nincompoop. When you think of
something you've contributed better than what I've contributed, step up to
the plate.
Alric
Mike Flannigan
Your capitol's city council is spear headed by reckless, race baiting Al
Sarpton types. The democrat legislature refuses to pass even a rudimentary
voter ID requirement because most of them know voter fraud helped get them
elected. The trial lawyers own the state legislature and now I see where the
trial lawyers have been caught buying off members of the state Supreme Court
as well. If conservatives ran the state about the only place you'd find a
trial lawyers mug would be on the back of a milk carton. And again, the
legislature made "dockside gambling" legal. They made it legal for counties
and reservations to allow it if they wanted it, where before gambling in MS
was illegal under any circumstance, and they did so for the promise of the
tax revenues it would bring in.
You must be kidding me about Muskgrove and Mike Moore being conservatives.
Suing the tobacco companies to win big cash awards for the litigants and the
state is about as much a leftist idea as there ever was. It sets a horrible
president and exonerates personal responsibility. I always said that if he
got away with that the next thing you'll see is the Oscar Meyer wiener
testifying at a Senate sub-committee hearing and damned if some fat asses
didn't sue McDonalds for making them that way recently.
Like I said. In national politics MS can usually be counted in the
conservative column, but local politics can be another matter. Why is it
arrogant for me to describe your state's politics? And you still haven't
explained why in a state that is majority Republican all the government
institutions are controlled by democrats.
So what you have to be telling me is that there's a housing cartel operating
in your area, keeping anyone or any company involved in the construction of
new housing and apartments from coming in and doing so. Is it private mafia
or government sponsored?
> > You claim that capitalism isn't interested in providing for people needs
> but
> > rather exploiting them. That may be somewhat true but the end result is
> that
> > need is provided at the least possible cost. The primary reason
healthcare
> > is so high is because through Medicare, Medicaid and insurance market
> forces
> > have all but been eliminated. We have to find a way to reintroduce them.
> If
> > we handled feeding the poor the same way we handle healthcare a pack of
> > hotdogs would cost $10.00 and we'd have an another crisis on our hands.
>
> This has not been the case. Foodstamps didn't cause that to happen.
Exactly. That's my whole point. Under the food stamp program market forces
are still in place. People on the program still shop for the best deal. They
want to get the most for their barter. Just like the rest of us. If we
handled food for the poor the way we handle healthcare the program recipient
would simply walk into the grocery store, buy what they need and the grocer
would simply send the bill on to the government to be paid. Can you not see
how this would slowly drive up the cost of food until it was practically
unaffordable for everyone?
> Also,
> your observation of the inflationary effects of government intervention in
> healthcare hasn't been demonstrated in other countries, where healthcare
> costs seem to be under control.
Cost are mandated, and the market response has been rationing.
> Capitalism doesn't meet the needs of people
> at the lowest possible cost at all times. Sometimes greed gets out of
> control, as in the rent situation I described. Raising rents was uncalled
> for; it was oppurtunistic with no regard for the quality of life of the
> people effected. And it's a clear-cut case of what happens in unfettered
> capitalism. Like its antithesis -- communism -- capitalism is an ideal,
> and -- like communism -- it has its diehard devotees. Maybe you're one of
> them, and you should perhaps examine your attitude toward this "free
market"
> concept. You insist on making excuses for its failures, and then downplay
> the mitigating influences of liberalism.
Capitalism is not an ideal or a theory. It's reality. It's simply the
natural state of economics. A population increase causes property values to
rise, this serves to temper the rate of influx. The rise in property values
provides an incentive for those who make their living providing homes and
apartments to come in and fill that need. The government can do it no
faster, and certainly not at a lower cost. If the government came in to
assist in housing development it did it at a much greater cost to the
general public than the private sector and served to only to facilitate the
influx. This benefited no one but the casino industry. The people of the US
were in essence taxed to facilitate the building of casino's on the coast of
MS.
I suppose if any of the politicians involved at the state or local level
were smart enough to foresee the consequences of their actions they could
have taken preventative measures beforehand. Like granting permits for legal
gambling piecemeal, particularly at the local level.
Sounds to me like more of a failure on the part of local officials to
prepare, than your grand indictment of Capitalism.
> And Elvis Costello is really, REALLY good. Thanks. Whatever the reason I
> listened to you -- to show you respect and so on -- it was a worthwhile
> experience. I might even purchase a couple of his CDs with my wages. :-)
>
> Alric
That is until I piss you off again huh? Then you'll no doubt never buy a
one. Sorry, but that's the way you act sometimes.
Try something. Log on to Kazaa and do a search on something unusual and
specific like "Baby Lemonade" and see if you get any hits from user name
"AgentOrange". That's me. I have a boatload of great and rare stuff. Shoot
me a private email and I'll show you around. If you're interested.
Alric Knebel
"Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote:
>
> Your capitol's city council is spear headed by reckless, race baiting Al
You're taking tiny shards of information you're getting from somewhere and
believing that's the larger picture. Sure, Mike Moore sued the tobacco
company, which you ASSUME is a LEFTIST idea, but that particular idea has
nothing to do with left or right. Just because you're a conserative and you
disagree with someone doesn't mean that everytime the person with whom you
disagree with must be a political opposite of you, therefore a Democrat.
You've taken a couple of leaps in logic just to make a completely partisan
point. You've dragged partisanship into it when party affiliation has
nothing to do with it, and now you're going to dig in. Take your comment
about fixed elections. If elections were so fixed as you levied, why
wouldn't the same apparatus be used to elect Democrats on a national level?
The Democrats here are moderate at best, and they aren't in the majority.
Again, this dockside gambling thing came about as the result of businessmen,
not liberals. This in not even debatable. You're extremely partisan, and
you're seeing what you want to see. I would guess, if anything, the men
responsible had to be Republcans. Perhaps your religious Republican would
be against it, but not a Republican businessman. This is a conservative
state: How it votes nationally is how it is. When the movie "Last
Temptation of Christ" was released, it wasn't shown here. We voted to keep
the current state flag which includes a Confederate battleflag in the
corner. It's a conservative state, plain and simple, all the way down the
hierarchy, regardless of your fragmented impression based on your
partisanship.
Focusing on lawsuits as a liberal phenomenon is equally partisan. Sure,
Democrats don't want to deprive people of the right to sue for good reasons,
despite the abuse of that right by some people, but that's a talking point.
You might disagree. You're using that point to make broad statements about
suing and about Democrats in general, as if Democrats are the only people
who sue in the United States. Lawsuits are filed by memebers of both
parties. Only Republican POLITICIANS, representing business interests, want
to stop it.
Mike Moore sued the tobacco companies for sound reasons. They had secretly
added chemicals to the tobacco to make it more addictive, then went before
congress and said that they believed cigarettes weren't addictive. That
being the case, and since we make it illegal for crack dealers to sell crack
for the same reason and we punish pot smokers, the tobacco company should at
least have to accept responsibility for the damage cigarettes cause. You
might disagree because you say it's an issue of "personal responsibility,"
but the people smoking might have a better chance of quitting if the tobacco
was natural. My own opinion is that all of those extra poisonous chemicals
should be illegal as additives, and at the very least should be added to the
side of the pack, to remind people exactly what it is they're taking into
their bodies. The tobacco companies are my particular contention, because I
myself was addicted to cigarettes at one time, but I managed to quite some
thirteen or so years ago. Luckily for me, I wan't one of those 2-pack-a-day
types, so my health wasn't damaged, and I managed to quit while I was still
ahead (I'm currently fifty and currently in good health), and I've become an
advocate for kicking the habit. Unless you've been addicted, you can't
possibly imagine how bad the addiction is, what it does to your mind when
you go into withdrawal. Most people think that the person merely
experiences a craving for the cigarette itself, as if he or she is the
selfish, self-centered type through a lack of character tempted toward
immediate satisfaction, as if a mild nervousness is the consequence of
self-denial. This is far from the truth. It's a serious addiction in the
truest sense of the word, and a person must marshal the willpower and focus
to abstain him- or herself through the withdrawals while having to deal with
the rest of life's obligations and frustrations. I had to attempt it many,
many times before I succeeded, and I made multiple attempts for my own
personal reasons, and I avoided frustrating situations during the critical
first two weeks. But my ability to discipline myself is somewhat remarkable
at times, and that was one of those times. I'm not so remarkable in other
ways, so I have sympathy for people for whom focus and discipline are not
salient characteristics. I believe that the willful addition of
addiction-inhancing chemicals into cigarettes makes the cigarette companies
liabel. I don't know if you saw the report, but tobacco companies are suing
the state of California for some anti-smoking campaigns which the tobacco
company claims will bias a jury in future lawsuits. Grey Davis says they're
suing because the ads, which are aimed at teenagers, are so effective.
That was a somewhat windy seque, but if anyone reading this is a smoker,
they'll know I'm telling the truth. The thing is, you can't look at
lawsuits as a liberal issue.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> So what you have to be telling me is that there's a housing cartel
operating
> in your area, keeping anyone or any company involved in the construction
of
> new housing and apartments from coming in and doing so. Is it private
mafia
> or government sponsored?
I didn't say any such thing, so I won't go into it again.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
>
> Exactly. That's my whole point. Under the food stamp program market forces
> are still in place. People on the program still shop for the best deal.
They
> want to get the most for their barter. Just like the rest of us. If we
> handled food for the poor the way we handle healthcare the program
recipient
> would simply walk into the grocery store, buy what they need and the
grocer
> would simply send the bill on to the government to be paid. Can you not
see
> how this would slowly drive up the cost of food until it was practically
> unaffordable for everyone?
Again, this has not been the case with nationalized healthcare in other
countries. You make a good point here, but you focus on the abuser, not the
system that provides an oppurtunity for abuse. There are solutions.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> [about nationalized healthcare]
> Cost are mandated, and the market response has been rationing.
I've heard this before, but I look at the fact that these countries with
nationalized healthcare are democracies, and the fact remains that if the
citizens didn't like what they have, they'd call to change it. This system
we use has many faults, too, and the only people who don't want to change it
are those who are either profiting from it or who have nice enough incomes
that facilitate their paying the deductables on the insurance. And I've
heard a few horror stories that prove that the insurance companies comb
through the claims and compare them to the policies, seeking a loophole so
they can't renig on their obligations. Here's an example I heard from an
acquaintance. A woman who was covered under a group policy broke her
dentures. After four months of wrangling, the insurance company refused to
pay for a new plate because they said that it was a "pre-existing
condition": the day she was employed, she already had dentures. I don't
know about you, but I'd prefer a nationalized system over a stingy system
like the one we've got.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> Capitalism is not an ideal or a theory. It's reality. It's simply the
> natural state of economics. A population increase causes property values
to
> rise, this serves to temper the rate of influx. The rise in property
values
> provides an incentive for those who make their living providing homes and
> apartments to come in and fill that need. The government can do it no
> faster, and certainly not at a lower cost. If the government came in to
> assist in housing development it did it at a much greater cost to the
> general public than the private sector and served to only to facilitate
the
> influx. This benefited no one but the casino industry. The people of the
US
> were in essence taxed to facilitate the building of casino's on the coast
of
> MS.
True, capitalism is a reality, but it's manifestation can take on both a
nature minatory to a smooth running society or a useful one. It can become
predatory and if it were left unchecked, and should therefore be regulated
to insure that everyone benefits. Again, this is a talking point of the
most fundamental differences. And it's true that the people of the United
States were taxed to facilitate the building of casinos, but it also
provided housing for the people needing housing, as it provides
transportation and so on. While your expression of capitalism on paper
looks nice -- that investors would come in and fill that need -- that's not
what happened. Investors can be lazy, just like a laborer, and he might
select to just sit back and let what inflation work for him. Also this idea
that the government is always so expensive is just not the case. They
accept a bid, and the contract goes to the lowest bidder. Objective
accomplished. There are people who insist that our post office is largely
inefficient, and compare it to Federal Express and UPS. Neither of those
organizations have to deliver literally immeasurable tons of junkmail at a
bulkrate. I for one am impressed that for a mere 37 cents, I can send
correspondence to anywhere in the United States, to anyone with a residence.
That government can't be efficient is a myth.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> I suppose if any of the politicians involved at the state or local level
> were smart enough to foresee the consequences of their actions they could
> have taken preventative measures beforehand. Like granting permits for
legal
> gambling piecemeal, particularly at the local level.
>
> Sounds to me like more of a failure on the part of local officials to
> prepare, than your grand indictment of Capitalism.
That might be the case, but on the other hand, you extoll capitalism as if
it's a natural state, and I don't believe it. Any society operating under
the idea that human beings work for profit and profit only, and pursuit of
those profits should not be interferred with under any circumstnaces, is
immoral. Laborers work every day for a set benefit. I don't see anything
wrong with society at large extending the same limitations to investors and
corporations, if people's needs require it. I do not put the ideal of
capitalism over people. Despite regulations, capitalism is doing just fine.
The balance could be better, but it does survive.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> That is until I piss you off again huh? Then you'll no doubt never buy a
> one. Sorry, but that's the way you act sometimes.
>
> Try something. Log on to Kazaa and do a search on something unusual and
> specific like "Baby Lemonade" and see if you get any hits from user name
> "AgentOrange". That's me. I have a boatload of great and rare stuff. Shoot
> me a private email and I'll show you around. If you're interested.
That will be interesting. I'll do that.
Alric
--
http://bellsouthpwp.net/a/l/alric/
______________________________
The Nice Mean Man
> Hands down, you're idiots. Plain and simple. I've watched his show every
> time it's broadcast on MSNBC, and the man is just a sham, a scam, and a ham.
> You're idiots for wanting your politics delivered this way (if you want to
> call it that. I can't help comparing his fan base with the same type of
> people who'd like WWF wrestling.
So why does he invoke such hostility in you, then? Just let it go. No
one could possibly fall for him, right? So just don't you worry your
pathetic little vermin-infested head about it none.
Just remember... Borders, language culture are coming to get ya real
soon. Three things that i'll bet you're against tooth and nail.
DDB
As near as I can tell he wasn't the one engaging in labeling and name
calling, that was you and it was a clear attempt to marginalize his point of
view in an attempt to censor him. He wasn't the one who basically said "I
published this or that and had you read it", again you imply your ideas are
important and should be read e.g. pretension. A sign of an over stuffed view
of your own importance thus giving the impression of possessing an overly
developed ego.
Couldn't all these things you say be leveled at him,
> too? Yes, they could, but you won't do that because you're partisan. Yet
> you chose to see it a certain way because of your partisanship.
I'm sorry you feel put upon or wronged in some way all I was trying to do
was point out that your selection of words paint a certain picture of you to
the world. The picture you selected is one of pretension and self import,
the name calling and labeling thing is also unnecessary and as I pointed out
is a stereotypical liberal response. If you don't want to be stereotyped
then you should attempt to forgo those traits that force you into a
stereotype. I never add anything to the words you used I merely pointed them
out, as I said before I look upon the world and day to day events as a
learning experience so I except constructive criticism and go forward with
life. You evidently can't accept constructive criticism, which is evidenced
by your responses to my posts. When cornered with your own words you lack
the gear to respond rationally and slip into name calling and labeling. I
have yet to figure out why reviewing your own words and actions would cause
you to react in such a negative way unless you really didn't think through
what you were saying as you typed your response. In any case it is no skin
off my nose since I have nothing to gain or loose by having folks you
speaking your mind freely whether it enforces certain stereotypes or not,
well I do have one thing to gain and that is 4 more years of the current
regime.
Just an after thought though, a more careful selection of words might serve
you in two aspects of communication (1) it will add to your credibility if
you can refrain from name calling and labeling (2) it may feed your ego
because more folks are willing to read the writings if they think the author
is rational and balanced instead of a massive left-wing wacko. See here is
how constructive criticism can help you out.
Now how the
> hell does a person like me communicate through such obvious filters? An
> example, your comments about
> my remarks about your military retirement. Those remarks were pretty
lame,
> but mostly they were unfair.
How where they unfair? Did they cause/force you to write the diatribe you
did concerning the benefits that the military work for and you feel should
be available to everyone without regard to any efforts to earn them? As I
said in my prior post, I don't care what anyone has or gets as long as the
put the effort forward to earn them.
The picture you painted of my service is reflective of you beliefs
concerning the military over all, I did nothing to bring that out of you,
you simply offered it up freely and while I'm at it let me point out that
this is yet another stereotypical response, you blame me for being unfair by
pointing out your words not mine, this typifies the liberal bent to no take
responsibility for their own words and actions. See time after time you trip
over yet another stereotype and evidently don't even know when you do it.
You're using a right-wing caricature of
> liberals, and you were referred to that caricature in your response,
running
> up the old clichés about how liberals don't like the military (I was in
the
> military, the Navy) and how much we owe them and so on. All that junk
about
> what I owe the military aside, what I said was based on you telling me you
> retired from the Navy after 22 years. What else am I to conclude from
such
> a comment? I think that was a bit disingenuous on your part to say you
> retired from the military, and came forth with the truth only when it
could
> be used to prove I jumped to conclusions. A more accurate statement would
> have been "I retired from the Navy RESERVES after 22 years." BIG
> difference.
No there is no difference. The Reserves are integral to our national defense
and are part of the military in general. The Reserves have been relied upon
to enable the active service to meet the mission goals without them we would
still have a Selective Service in order to meet end strength requirements. I
know of no retirees who distinguish between the two because they are the
same, especially given the number recalls in resent history. Your trying
once again to shift you words onto me but clearly you have an even lesser
view of Reserve components than you do active military, otherwise why would
you distinguish between the two?
But it's just another example of your phoniness, your need to
> see liberals a certain way.
It's interesting that you try to label me a phony especially given that I
openly and honestly discussed my history and explained how I had gone from
being registered Democrat to registered Republican as a result of my
military service and experiences. I explained everything in a way that made
it clear that these moves were based on my personal interpretations and
beliefs e.g. no attack on your beliefs or points of view. Nothing I said
should have caused you such discomfort and yet it did This is a bit of a
puzzler to me, how could my personal beliefs and explanations be construed
as phony by you especially since as I said they are mine not yours. Well I
guess I will never know because given your past responses I can tell you are
on the defensive and need to label me a phony in an attempt to distance your
self from your obvious beliefs as depicted in your selection of words.
>
> You need to take a look at yourself. You haven't got anything to say
> really, but you're saying it anyway.
I have taken a look at myself and what I see pleases me after all I found a
way to break the chains of poverty and I did it without taking anything from
anyone else, that pleases me immensely. My message is on target and is
consistent since what I have achieved is no secret and can be duplicated by
anyone with the will to put forth the effort and make the sacrifices as I
did. Sure I'm not rich but then again I'm not in poverty either and for the
record I'm nothing special so anyone with the desire can do it, but it does
require a shift in mindset. That shift is to move from thinking someone owes
you something to knowing that you have the stuff to achieve what ever you
want out of life.
So once again Arlic I sorry if a message of success and independent living
leaves you uncomfortable but those are you issues not mine.
>
> Alric
>
> Alric
>
>
>
DDB
>
> "DDB" <fa...@junkattbi.com> wrote:
> >
> > I'm sure he appreciates your patronage and your good work spreading the
> word
> > so he can enjoy a great market share in whatever time slot he has. For a
> guy
> > that professes to hate him you sure are working hard to add viewer ship
> thus
> > ensuring his success and probable contract extensions.
>
> He'll never enjoy a large market share, and I really want people to watch
> this show for whatever reason, so that MSNBC will further demonstrate
their
> lack of class and move the nitwit to primetime. This guy blows the cover
> off the right-wing talk-show technique.
Did it every occur to you that the reason he is not getting a larger viewer
ship is that he is on a liberal news cable network and most conservatives
probanbly wouldn't go to MSNBC for its news coverage in the first place. Its
the same thing with Joe Scarbourough (sp) many conservatices don't tune him
in because they don't know he is there. They have written off MSNBC as an
extension of NBC. It has only been the last half year that MSNBC has added
anything remotely conservative to their list of shows.
DDB
Not to interupt you two but if his fan base is conservative then why is he
on a liberal cable network like MSNBC?
>
> Alric
>
>
>
F.H.
> Did it every occur to you that the reason he is not getting a larger viewer
> ship is that he is on a liberal news cable network and most conservatives
> probanbly wouldn't go to MSNBC for its news coverage in the first place. Its
> the same thing with Joe Scarbourough (sp) many conservatices don't tune him
> in because they don't know he is there. They have written off MSNBC as an
> extension of NBC. It has only been the last half year that MSNBC has added
> anything remotely conservative to their list of shows.
Pretty good description of the conservative mind. Totally closed and
lacking in curiosity. Can't be they tune the buffoon out because he's
stupid and classless.
Gene
news:0RpGa.672010$Si4.6...@rwcrnsc51.ops.asp.att.net:
Funny, most liberals say MSNBC is conservative and Foxy News is far right
closing on Facist propaganda.
I think their right on one and not on the other - MSNBC is moderate.
DDB
"Gene" <Ya...@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9399A3FF25...@216.168.3.44...
Like I said they made chages after Donnahough(sp). Who could be more liberal
than him?.
Alric Knebel
"DDB" <fa...@junkattbi.com> wrote:
>
> Not to interupt you two but if his fan base is conservative then why is he
> on a liberal cable network like MSNBC?
It's not liberal. But to a fanatical right-wing loon, it only looks liberal
because it's conservatism isn't as fanatical as a right-wing loons. MSNBC
is trying hard to cut into Fox News' market. They even went so far as to
cancel Donahue before the war started because they didn't want him to give a
voice to an anti-war perspective.
Alric
Alric Knebel
"The Nice Mean Man" <HITHER...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:bc123a34.03061...@posting.google.com...
Why do I invoke such hostility in YOU?
Alric
Alric Knebel
"DDB" <fa...@junkattbi.com> wrote:
>
> Did it every occur to you that the reason he is not getting a larger
viewer
> ship is that he is on a liberal news cable network and most conservatives
> probanbly wouldn't go to MSNBC for its news coverage in the first place.
Its
> the same thing with Joe Scarbourough (sp) many conservatices don't tune
him
> in because they don't know he is there. They have written off MSNBC as an
> extension of NBC. It has only been the last half year that MSNBC has added
> anything remotely conservative to their list of shows.
MSNBC is not liberal. Neither is NBC really. Go to NBC and watch the news
and report back an example of liberal bias, and describe WHY you think it's
a liberal bias. It'll be very revealing.
Alric
Alric Knebel
"F.H." <disco...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> Pretty good description of the conservative mind. Totally closed and
> lacking in curiosity. Can't be they tune the buffoon out because he's
> stupid and classless.
That is indeed a possibility. I read a couple of reviews of his book by the
customers at Amazon, and they were saying -- as conservatives -- that Savage
was everything liberals said right wingers were, and that he was bad for
conservatism. He is trash, and some people are smart enough to see it,
regardless of political leanings. To me, this is heartening.
Alric
Alric Knebel
"Gene" <Ya...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> Funny, most liberals say MSNBC is conservative and Foxy News is far right
> closing on Facist propaganda.
> I think their right on one and not on the other - MSNBC is moderate.
I think you're wrong on one thing, and right on the other.
Alric
Alric Knebel
"DDB" <fa...@junkattbi.com> wrote:
>
> Like I said they made chages after Donnahough(sp). Who could be more
liberal
> than him?.
So, liberals shouldn't be on television?
Alric
DDB
No the piss poor viewship got him to a point where MSNBC didn't renew his
contract and realized that they were in a position of providing all liberal
shows and in a slumping market share. So they decided to add some
conservative shows to the mix in hopes of attracting new viewers the problem
is that most folks remember their line up as liberal leaning so they tuned
MSNBC out and looked for news not news slanted toward any political point of
view. I must admit though I am a very big Harball fan.
>
> Alric
>
>
>
DDB
Well arlic like I told you in my other post, I will always be honest with
you so I can safely say there is no way in hell I'm watching NBC news. They
already burned their bridges long ago and do not deserve any more of my my
time. I think any news organization that presents its news with a liberal or
conservative bent is not news at all and I don't waste my time with them. I
get most of my news off of the internet by going to the news tab on google.
This gives me world news and some local/US news paper access. I read as much
as I like with a variety of differeing view. You'll find most foreign news
articles are offered in english so you get a sense of what other nations are
reporting on the same topics.
>
> Alric
>
>
>
DDB
My personal view of Donahue work was that he was a cowardly interviewer. He
would wait until just before cutting to a commercial to make his most
stinging comment or jabs then move on to other topics after the commercial
break to avoid any rebuttal. His bread and butter was the day time talk show
circuit were he could delve into shock journalism all be it tame compared to
today's shock radio but it was the same thing on a different media and at
different time.
>
> Alric
>
>
>
>
Alric Knebel
"DDB" <fa...@junkattbi.com> wrote:
>
> As near as I can tell he wasn't the one engaging in labeling and name
That's right: as near as YOU can tell. The same guy who thinks MSNBC is
liberal.
Alric
DDB
That's the best you have out of that entire post? MSNBC was liberal but
found that unlike PBS they had to pay their own bills so they started
looking for conservative host. Like I said though they are still not out of
the woods because the word is not out that MSNBC is a place to look for a
conservative point but like I said I enjoy the entertainment that Hardball
offers, unlike Allen Combs Chris Mathews can shill credibly.
I always credit should given to folks who improve in their dialog and in
this case I must congratulate you for not dropping back to your old game of
name calling and labeling. Although I must admit without it your response is
very limited compared to others. I guess you really do lack the gear to have
a real debate.
>
> Alric
>
>
>
Gene
Trying to out fox this old greyfox?
Did you notice how one got caught?
Amazing how poor education is today.
Jay Leno asked a college student on his show what the UK stood for, She
thought it was the USSR. No wonder the politicains can lie so poorly and
still be believed.
F.H.
A free market society has no need for such information? Go for the
money, it's everything.
F.H.
> > That's right: as near as YOU can tell. The same guy who thinks MSNBC is
> > liberal.
>
> That's the best you have out of that entire post? MSNBC was liberal but
> found that unlike PBS they had to pay their own bills so they started
> looking for conservative host. Like I said though they are still not out of
> the woods because the word is not out that MSNBC is a place to look for a
> conservative point but like I said I enjoy the entertainment that Hardball
> offers, unlike Allen Combs Chris Mathews can shill credibly.
What percentage of PBS's budget is by way of government subsidies? How
does it stack up against revenue sharing with churches? How's that
(revenue sharing) coming along BTW?
F.H.
Gene
news:3EEA657C...@earthlink.net:
And how exactly do you choose your doctor, By bottom line?
F.H.
I call the White House for a referral. :))
Alric Knebel
I only engage that gear when the person is someone with whom a dialogue can
be established. You are not among such. You're an unreachable, unteachable
partisan. Your post was junk.
Alric
Mike Flannigan
> > conservative column, but local politics can be another matter. Why is it
> > arrogant for me to describe your state's politics? And you still haven't
> > explained why in a state that is majority Republican all the government
> > institutions are controlled by democrats.
>
> You're taking tiny shards of information you're getting from somewhere and
> believing that's the larger picture. Sure, Mike Moore sued the tobacco
> company, which you ASSUME is a LEFTIST idea, but that particular idea has
> nothing to do with left or right. Just because you're a conserative and
you
> disagree with someone doesn't mean that everytime the person with whom you
> disagree with must be a political opposite of you, therefore a Democrat.
What in the world are you talking about? I'm not assuming anything. Mike
Moore is a registered democrat. So is Muskgrove. They ran as democrats. The
legislature is made up of a majority of democrats. It is by and large
liberals who support suing the tobacco companies and it is conservatives who
oppose it. Are you actually denying that fact? Perhaps the scale from which
you measure is jaundiced and unknowingly tilted.
> You've taken a couple of leaps in logic just to make a completely partisan
> point. You've dragged partisanship into it when party affiliation has
> nothing to do with it, and now you're going to dig in. Take your comment
> about fixed elections. If elections were so fixed as you levied, why
> wouldn't the same apparatus be used to elect Democrats on a national
level?
Again, I don't know what you are talking about. There is no voter ID
requirement on a national level.
> The Democrats here are moderate at best, and they aren't in the majority.
Damn Alric. I've already posed the question one time. This time try for an
answer. Why are all of your government institutions owned by the democrats?
Conservative Republicans are voting for democrats? Is that what you're
trying to tell me?
> Again, this dockside gambling thing came about as the result of
businessmen,
> not liberals. This in not even debatable. You're extremely partisan, and
> you're seeing what you want to see. I would guess, if anything, the men
> responsible had to be Republcans. Perhaps your religious Republican would
> be against it, but not a Republican businessman. This is a conservative
> state: How it votes nationally is how it is. When the movie "Last
> Temptation of Christ" was released, it wasn't shown here. We voted to
keep
> the current state flag which includes a Confederate battleflag in the
> corner. It's a conservative state, plain and simple, all the way down the
> hierarchy, regardless of your fragmented impression based on your
> partisanship.
Again, the people responsible were the democrat legislature. They have the
final say. They are not businessmen. They are politicians and it was
legalized for the promise of the tax revenues.
> Focusing on lawsuits as a liberal phenomenon is equally partisan. Sure,
> Democrats don't want to deprive people of the right to sue for good
reasons,
> despite the abuse of that right by some people, but that's a talking
point.
> You might disagree. You're using that point to make broad statements
about
> suing and about Democrats in general, as if Democrats are the only people
> who sue in the United States. Lawsuits are filed by memebers of both
> parties. Only Republican POLITICIANS, representing business interests,
want
> to stop it.
No one is out to deny anyone the right to sue Alric. Is this what your
propagandist are telling you now? This ones as bad as cutting SS and the
school lunch program. What we are trying to do is place limits on the
exorbitant jury awards that are costing jobs, and driving up the cost of
products and services of every kind (including healthcare BTW) which is
hurting the poor and middle class the most. Or don't you on the left care
about those people anymore?
Yawn......
> and that was one of those times. I'm not so remarkable in other
> ways, so I have sympathy for people for whom focus and discipline are not
> salient characteristics. I believe that the willful addition of
> addiction-inhancing chemicals into cigarettes makes the cigarette
companies
> liabel. I don't know if you saw the report, but tobacco companies are
suing
> the state of California for some anti-smoking campaigns which the tobacco
> company claims will bias a jury in future lawsuits. Grey Davis says
they're
> suing because the ads, which are aimed at teenagers, are so effective.
> That was a somewhat windy seque, but if anyone reading this is a smoker,
> they'll know I'm telling the truth. The thing is, you can't look at
> lawsuits as a liberal issue.
> > Exactly. That's my whole point. Under the food stamp program market
forces
> > are still in place. People on the program still shop for the best deal.
> They
> > want to get the most for their barter. Just like the rest of us. If we
> > handled food for the poor the way we handle healthcare the program
> recipient
> > would simply walk into the grocery store, buy what they need and the
> grocer
> > would simply send the bill on to the government to be paid. Can you not
> see
> > how this would slowly drive up the cost of food until it was practically
> > unaffordable for everyone?
>
> Again, this has not been the case with nationalized healthcare in other
> countries. You make a good point here, but you focus on the abuser, not
the
> system that provides an oppurtunity for abuse.
Yes, it has been the case in other countries. That the increased cost have
been absorbed into a greater number of people and has been hidden in taxes
and deficits does not mean the cost has not risen because it has, and at an
unsustainable level. Only about 48% of medical procedures done in the US are
government paid now. Under your plan all of them will be. Very soon we'll be
paying for prescription drugs for the wealthy retired with no means test. Ma
and Paw six pack will be taxed to pay the prescription drug bill for retired
millionaires because the elderly tend to vote, and are the fastest growing
portion of the population demographically. It is liberal democrat
politicians who support extending benefits to those who can pay their own
way for no more than votes while it is Republicans that support extending
benefits only to those who truly need it.
> There are solutions.
Yeah? What are they?
> > [about nationalized healthcare]
> > Cost are mandated, and the market response has been rationing.
>
> I've heard this before, but I look at the fact that these countries with
> nationalized healthcare are democracies, and the fact remains that if the
> citizens didn't like what they have, they'd call to change it. This
system
> we use has many faults, too, and the only people who don't want to change
it
> are those who are either profiting from it or who have nice enough incomes
> that facilitate their paying the deductables on the insurance. And I've
> heard a few horror stories that prove that the insurance companies comb
> through the claims and compare them to the policies, seeking a loophole so
> they can't renig on their obligations. Here's an example I heard from an
> acquaintance. A woman who was covered under a group policy broke her
> dentures. After four months of wrangling, the insurance company refused
to
> pay for a new plate because they said that it was a "pre-existing
> condition": the day she was employed, she already had dentures. I don't
> know about you, but I'd prefer a nationalized system over a stingy system
> like the one we've got.
You've got the cart before the horse. The reason insurance is so "stingy" is
because of the high cost of healthcare, the reasons for which I've already
outlined. Luckily in your example it was payment that was being rationed.
When the government takes over it will be the procedure, as has been proven
in other countries like Canada and England.
> True, capitalism is a reality, but it's manifestation can take on both a
> nature minatory to a smooth running society or a useful one. It can
become
> predatory and if it were left unchecked, and should therefore be regulated
> to insure that everyone benefits. Again, this is a talking point of the
> most fundamental differences. And it's true that the people of the United
> States were taxed to facilitate the building of casinos, but it also
> provided housing for the people needing housing, as it provides
> transportation and so on. While your expression of capitalism on paper
> looks nice -- that investors would come in and fill that need -- that's
not
> what happened. Investors can be lazy, just like a laborer, and he might
> select to just sit back and let what inflation work for him. Also this
idea
> that the government is always so expensive is just not the case. They
> accept a bid, and the contract goes to the lowest bidder. Objective
> accomplished. There are people who insist that our post office is largely
> inefficient, and compare it to Federal Express and UPS. Neither of those
> organizations have to deliver literally immeasurable tons of junkmail at a
> bulkrate. I for one am impressed that for a mere 37 cents, I can send
> correspondence to anywhere in the United States, to anyone with a
residence.
> That government can't be efficient is a myth.
We're corresponding now, for nothing, and instantaneously courtesy the
private sector. Who is it that believes what they want to believe?
> That might be the case, but on the other hand, you extoll capitalism as if
> it's a natural state, and I don't believe it. Any society operating under
> the idea that human beings work for profit and profit only, and pursuit of
> those profits should not be interferred with under any circumstnaces, is
> immoral. Laborers work every day for a set benefit. I don't see anything
> wrong with society at large extending the same limitations to investors
and
> corporations, if people's needs require it. I do not put the ideal of
> capitalism over people. Despite regulations, capitalism is doing just
fine.
> The balance could be better, but it does survive.
>
> > . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.
> . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
> > That is until I piss you off again huh? Then you'll no doubt never buy a
> > one. Sorry, but that's the way you act sometimes.
> >
> > Try something. Log on to Kazaa and do a search on something unusual and
> > specific like "Baby Lemonade" and see if you get any hits from user name
> > "AgentOrange". That's me. I have a boatload of great and rare stuff.
Shoot
> > me a private email and I'll show you around. If you're interested.
>
> That will be interesting. I'll do that.
So. What happened? Did my user name come up?
Alric Knebel
"DDB" <fa...@junkattbi.com> wrote:
>
> No the piss poor viewship got him to a point where MSNBC didn't renew his
> contract and realized that they were in a position of providing all
liberal
> shows and in a slumping market share. So they decided to add some
> conservative shows to the mix in hopes of attracting new viewers the
problem
> is that most folks remember their line up as liberal leaning so they tuned
> MSNBC out and looked for news not news slanted toward any political point
of
> view. I must admit though I am a very big Harball fan.
Fox News reported that Donahue was canceled -- despite the fact that he was
the highest rated program on the MSNBC primetime schedule -- because MSNBC
didn't want to go into the war with a moderator who was inviting anti-war
guests. Look it up.
Alric
Alric Knebel
"Hank Ball" <hb...@cncnet.com> wrote:
>
>
> Alric is all of that and more, ROFL.
>
> Hank Ball
Hank, why don't you just say, "I know you are but what am I," and get on
with your life.
Alric
--
______________________________
Alric Knebel
http://bellsouthpwp.net/a/l/alric/
______________________________
Alric Knebel
"Mike Flannigan" <mflan...@jam.rr.com> wrote in message
news:4rRGa.13003$Il4.1...@twister.austin.rr.com...