From the You Can't Make This Shit Up files
Dana Carpender
before they're allowed in to see any of the campaign speeches -- no, no,
you can't go see them speak if you're undecided, and trying to make up
your mind, you have to already be part of the choir.
Better yet, the wording of the oath is as follows: "I, (full name) ...
do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United
States." It later adds that, "In signing the above endorsement you are
consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser
of President Bush.
Herby? Reelection of the United States?
Yeesh. And these are the most powerful people in the free world.
Dana
Joe Shimkus
Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
I Want to Believe.....but I think I'm going to have to have a cite for
this one.
--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A
Windows has always aspired to be Mac-like without Microsoft ever really
understanding what that even means. - Robert Cringely
Dana Carpender
Joe Shimkus wrote:
> In article <4ZhQc.246566$Oq2.63928@attbi_s52>,
> Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
>
>>Apparently Bush and Cheney have started making people sign loyalty oaths
>>before they're allowed in to see any of the campaign speeches -- no, no,
>> you can't go see them speak if you're undecided, and trying to make up
>>your mind, you have to already be part of the choir.
>>
>>Better yet, the wording of the oath is as follows: "I, (full name) ...
>>do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United
>>States." It later adds that, "In signing the above endorsement you are
>>consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser
>>of President Bush.
>>
>>Herby? Reelection of the United States?
>>
>>Yeesh. And these are the most powerful people in the free world.
>
>
> I Want to Believe.....but I think I'm going to have to have a cite for
> this one.
>
http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm
Though I first heard about it on the Daily Show this evening.
Dana
Joe Shimkus
Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
> Joe Shimkus wrote:
>
> > In article <4ZhQc.246566$Oq2.63928@attbi_s52>,
> > Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Apparently Bush and Cheney have started making people sign loyalty oaths
> >>before they're allowed in to see any of the campaign speeches
> > I Want to Believe.....but I think I'm going to have to have a cite for
> > this one.
> >
>
> http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm
Well, it's not Bush & Cheney or the RNC requiring it (at least as far as
the article reports) and it is a rally as opposed to something like a
debate but, yeah, for the undecided/independent voter who wants more
information to make up his/her mind to have to swear fealty...that
stinks. Unless Cheney pulls out (which would seem the politically moral
- as if those words go together - thing to do), I'm sure it'll
contribute to the "I'm a divider, not a uniter" aspect of this
Administration and polarize the populace even further. Oops, just read
that the event happened not "will happen." Well, that's nice.
Greg Goss
>>>Better yet, the wording of the oath is as follows: "I, (full name) ...
>>>do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United
>>>States." It later adds that, "In signing the above endorsement you are
>>>consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser
>>>of President Bush.
>>>
>>>Herby? Reelection of the United States?
Yup. Herby. This is the first I've heard of their new endorsement of
pot legalization.
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Dana Carpender
Greg Goss wrote:
I move that henceforth George W. Bush's nickname be changed from "Dubya"
to "Herby." Second?
Dana
Bob Ward
Jon Stewart, a reliable news reporter? Sure...
Stephan Lemonjello Jr.
Who are? The person who wrote that probably has very little power.
John Dean
That's just one rally for Cheney supporters - no suggestion it's a
general thing for for the Republican ticket, no suggestion it applies to
campaign speeches in general. If it's a rally for supporters I don't see
why they can't restrict it if they want.
--
John Dean
Oxford
John Hatpin
>Herby?
The US really needs a sentient Volkswagen at the helm.
--
John Hatpin
Joe Shimkus
John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> Dana Carpender wrote (in small part):
>
> >Herby?
>
> The US really needs a sentient Volkswagen at the helm.
About two weeks ago I saw an old Beetle on the road w/ a Herbie (note
the spelling) paint job.
John Hatpin
>In article <ovd4h0dta4mhd8de9...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Dana Carpender wrote (in small part):
>>
>> >Herby?
>>
>> The US really needs a sentient Volkswagen at the helm.
>
>About two weeks ago I saw an old Beetle on the road w/ a Herbie (note
>the spelling) paint job.
Yeah, I was aware of the spelling difference and chose to ignore for
the porpoises of the gag.
What is it with cars with personalities and thought-processes?
Herbie, Christine, Knight Rider - that's just off the top of my head.
There must be more.
--
John Hatpin
Joe Shimkus
John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
> What is it with cars with personalities and thought-processes?
> Herbie, Christine, Knight Rider - that's just off the top of my head.
> There must be more.
Superbus! Or whatever that ill-conceived thing was called.
Dave Wilton
>>http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm
>>
>>Though I first heard about it on the Daily Show this evening.
>>
>>Dana
>
>
>Jon Stewart, a reliable news reporter? Sure...
He's a hell of a lot more reliable than most of the CNN or Fox News
reporters. First, the Daily Show stories are all from other news
sources, so he can't be less reliable than "real" journalists. Second,
he is just about the only one to throw the bullshit flag on
politicians--something "real" reporters never do.
Take for example the claim that Kerry is the most liberal member of
the Senate and the Edwards is the fourth most liberal. No "real" TV
journalist that I've seen has ever questioned this claim. This "fact"
is endlessly repeated on all the political talk shows. But the
comedian Stewart has questioned it. Earlier this week he demolished a
Republican congressman who tried to repeat it on his show. The
congressman did not know the source of the statistic (Stewart did:
"The National Journal") nor what period the statistic covered (2003
only; the congressman stated it was for their entire Senate careers).
In truth, the National Journal's methodology is suspect. So suspect,
in fact, that they are revamping their methodology as of next year.
Even those who created the statistic don't think its valid.
Also extremely useful is the Daily Show's habit of clipping together
statements of different people who use the exact same phrasing. Not
only is it funny, but it clearly demonstrates the use of "talking
points" to ensure all your speakers are on message. It clearly shows
that you're being fed a line of propaganda and the talk show guests
aren't giving their own opinions, but rather those of the campaign.
I'm not recommending The Daily Show as one's primary source of source
of news, but Stewart has more journalistic integrity and skill than
most TV reporters.
--Dave Wilton
da...@wilton.net
http://www.wordorigins.org
Richard R. Hershberger
> In article <BiiQc.246686$Oq2.222367@attbi_s52>,
> Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
> > Joe Shimkus wrote:
> >
> > > In article <4ZhQc.246566$Oq2.63928@attbi_s52>,
> > > Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > >>Apparently Bush and Cheney have started making people sign loyalty oaths
> > >>before they're allowed in to see any of the campaign speeches
>
>
> > > I Want to Believe.....but I think I'm going to have to have a cite for
> > > this one.
> > >
> >
> > http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm
>
> Well, it's not Bush & Cheney or the RNC requiring it (at least as far as
Yes it is: "Yier Shi, a spokesman for the Republican National
Committee, which is putting on Saturday's event, confirmed that those
interested in seeing Cheney were asked to sign an endorsement form if
they couldn't be verified as Bush-Cheney supporters."
The article goes on to explain that people who have contributed money
or volunteered for the campaign don't have to sign. That's certainly
inspiring. But I have to give them points for pointing out that
Republicans weren't invited to the Democratic Convention, and this
apparently is pretty much the same thing...
Richard R. Hershberger
Dana Carpender
Bob Ward wrote:
As he mentions frequently, he's the fake news -- but he does take his
jokes from the real news, and this one is verifiable.
Dana
>
>
>
Dana Carpender
Stephan Lemonjello Jr. wrote:
And the guys higher up A) came up with the idea, or at the very least
approved it, B) obviously hired the wrong person for the job, and C)
didn't bother to proofread the thing before it went out.
Geez, whatever happened to The Buck Stops Here?
Dana
>
>
Richard Evans
>In article <4ZhQc.246566$Oq2.63928@attbi_s52>,
> Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
>> Apparently Bush and Cheney have started making people sign loyalty oaths
>> before they're allowed in to see any of the campaign speeches -- no, no,
>> you can't go see them speak if you're undecided, and trying to make up
>> your mind, you have to already be part of the choir.
>>
>> Better yet, the wording of the oath is as follows: "I, (full name) ...
>> do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United
>> States." It later adds that, "In signing the above endorsement you are
>> consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser
>> of President Bush.
>>
>> Herby? Reelection of the United States?
>>
>> Yeesh. And these are the most powerful people in the free world.
>
>I Want to Believe.....but I think I'm going to have to have a cite for
>this one.
FWIW, John Stewart showed the document on The Daily Show on Aug 4.
Dick Evans
Joe Shimkus
rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote:
> Yes it is: "Yier Shi, a spokesman for the Republican National
> Committee, which is putting on Saturday's event, confirmed that those
> interested in seeing Cheney were asked to sign an endorsement form if
> they couldn't be verified as Bush-Cheney supporters."
Well, confirming that it happened isn't exactly the same thing as
requiring or even endorsing it but, yeah, they could have at least said
"stop doing that."
Richard Evans
>Also extremely useful is the Daily Show's habit of clipping together
>statements of different people who use the exact same phrasing. Not
>only is it funny, but it clearly demonstrates the use of "talking
>points" to ensure all your speakers are on message. It clearly shows
>that you're being fed a line of propaganda and the talk show guests
>aren't giving their own opinions, but rather those of the campaign.
He also does a wonderful job of compiling clips of pols contradicting
themselves: swearing that they never said something, then switching to
an earlier clip that absolutely proves they did say it. I wish there
was a Web site that compiled such a collection for all the candidates.
Dick Evans
M C Hamster
news:eli4h0dnuosirvnvm...@4ax.com...
>
> Take for example the claim that Kerry is the most liberal member of
> the Senate and the Edwards is the fourth most liberal. No "real" TV
> journalist that I've seen has ever questioned this claim. This "fact"
> is endlessly repeated on all the political talk shows. But the
> comedian Stewart has questioned it. Earlier this week he demolished a
> Republican congressman who tried to repeat it on his show. The
> congressman did not know the source of the statistic (Stewart did:
> "The National Journal") nor what period the statistic covered (2003
> only; the congressman stated it was for their entire Senate careers).
>
> In truth, the National Journal's methodology is suspect. So suspect,
> in fact, that they are revamping their methodology as of next year.
> Even those who created the statistic don't think its valid.
>
Here's the truth, as opposed to the useful lie-meme, about Kerry and
Edwards' degree of liberalness, based on 2003
(http://voteview.uh.edu/sen108.htm) :
Kerry: Tied for 24th most liberal
Edwards: Tied for 19th most liberal
But of course the so-called "liberal media" never reports these, but instead
allows the National Journal's utter crappo analysis stand as "THE TRUTH".
The analysis above is based on all 379 Senate roll calls in 2003 (excluding
the ones where the outcome was 100-0 or 99-1, which would add some useless
noise to the analysis... see the technical notes for details on why this is
so). The National Journal's is based on 62 cherry-picked roll calls. Which
one sounds like the better analysis?
The right-wing dominated media in this country really make me wanna puke
sometimes.
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Dana Carpender
John Hatpin wrote:
My Mother the Car.
Dana
Russell Stewart
> That's just one rally for Cheney supporters - no suggestion it's a
> general thing for for the Republican ticket, no suggestion it applies to
> campaign speeches in general. If it's a rally for supporters I don't see
> why they can't restrict it if they want.
I don't think anyone is questioning whether they have a legal
right to restrict it.
--
Russell Stewart | E-Mail: dia...@swcp.com
UNM CS Department | WWW: http://www.swcp.com/~diamond
"Democrats: Always ready to stand up for what they
later realize they should have believed in."
-Jon Stewart,
"The Daily Show"
Dana Carpender
Richard R. Hershberger wrote:
Gee, and I thought that the convention didn't start till the end of
August...
Dana
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek
> Apparently Bush and Cheney have started making people sign loyalty oaths
> you can't go see them speak if you're undecided, and trying to make up
> your mind, you have to already be part of the choir.
>
> Better yet, the wording of the oath is as follows: "I, (full name) ...
> do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the United
> States." It later adds that, "In signing the above endorsement you are
> consenting to use and release of your name by Bush-Cheney as an endorser
> of President Bush.
>
> Herby? Reelection of the United States?
>
> Yeesh. And these are the most powerful people in the free world.
>
>
"you are consenting to use and release"
How about "you consent to ...". What's up the gerunds? Do they have a
gerund bias?
Bill
Greg Goss
>Well, it's not Bush & Cheney or the RNC requiring it (at least as far as
>the article reports) and it is a rally as opposed to something like a
>debate but, yeah, for the undecided/independent voter who wants more
>information to make up his/her mind to have to swear fealty...that
>stinks.
Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote:
> rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote:
>
>> Yes it is: "Yier Shi, a spokesman for the Republican National
>> Committee, which is putting on Saturday's event, confirmed that those
>> interested in seeing Cheney were asked to sign an endorsement form if
>> they couldn't be verified as Bush-Cheney supporters."
>
>Well, confirming that it happened isn't exactly the same thing as
>requiring or even endorsing it but, yeah, they could have at least said
>"stop doing that."
"The RNC which is putting on Saturday's event..."
So, it *IS* "Bush & Cheney or the RNC requiring it."
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek
> fatigue. That's all I can muster right now...
We suffered through eight years of Zippy. Really, you ain't seen
nothing yet.
Bill
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek
> Dana Carpender wrote (in small part):
>
>
>>Herby?
>
>
> The US really needs a sentient Volkswagen at the helm.
>
Well, as long as it's no the Love Bug and we're not going to resurrect
Buddy Hackett to do the driving.
Bill
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek
Inflation and general disrespect. The sign now reads "I'll screw you
for two bits."
Bill
Peter Boulding
<dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>Geez, whatever happened to The Buck Stops Here?
It morphed into The Bucks Stop Here.
--
Regards Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal gallery: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
Fractal music: http://www.pjbmusic2.freeserve.co.uk/
huey.c...@gmail.com
LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES:
My fellow Americans - So, these two guys are fuckin' this owl...
--
Huey "You want wax job?" Callison
Bill Van
Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
> John Hatpin wrote:
>
> > What is it with cars with personalities and thought-processes?
> > Herbie, Christine, Knight Rider - that's just off the top of my head.
> > There must be more.
>
> My Mother the Car.
>
> Dana
Roger Zelazny's Devil Car, in which the title character is the villain
and the hero's car, named Jenny, is pretty much sentient.
Joe Shimkus
Bill Van <bil...@separatethis.canada.com> wrote:
Speed Buggy.
Scott P
>On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 04:01:37 GMT, Dana Carpender
><dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
[I accidentally snipped who wrote this]
>>> I Want to Believe.....but I think I'm going to have to have a cite for
>>> this one.
>>>
>>
>>http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm
>>
>>Though I first heard about it on the Daily Show this evening.
>>
>>Dana
>
>
>Jon Stewart, a reliable news reporter? Sure...
>
>
The Daily Show goof around and makes jokes but they often also draw
attention to stories that the three cable news networks conveniently
gloss over.
Scott
Matt Ackeret
Dave Wilton <da...@SPAMwilton.net> wrote:
>Take for example the claim that Kerry is the most liberal member of
>the Senate and the Edwards is the fourth most liberal. No "real" TV
>journalist that I've seen has ever questioned this claim. This "fact"
>is endlessly repeated on all the political talk shows. But the
>comedian Stewart has questioned it. Earlier this week he demolished a
>Republican congressman who tried to repeat it on his show. The
>congressman did not know the source of the statistic (Stewart did:
>"The National Journal") nor what period the statistic covered (2003
>only; the congressman stated it was for their entire Senate careers).
The annoying thing about this is that the Congressman didn't even
get the *point* of Jon's question.
Jon kept asking it, but the Congressman kept answering as if Jon was stupid.
Jon was trying to find out exactly where the stat came from, but the
guy kept saying something like "different people give out the ratings".
Richard Evans
>The annoying thing about this is that the Congressman didn't even
>get the *point* of Jon's question.
I'm sure he did get the point, and he was deflecting it in exactly the
way Jon was chiding him about.
Dick Evans
Lesmond
>
>What is it with cars with personalities and thought-processes?
>Herbie, Christine, Knight Rider -
KITT. The Knight Rider car was named KITT.
--
That's not art. That's just annoying.
SoCalMike
>
> We suffered through eight years of Zippy. Really, you ain't seen
> nothing yet.
the 8 years of zippy seem like a magical long lost time, compared to the
4 years of hell weve been through.
in fact, if zippy was running against chimpie, i bet the zip would win.
SoCalMike
Joe Shimkus wrote:
> In article <arg4h09bbv3glm214...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>What is it with cars with personalities and thought-processes?
>>Herbie, Christine, Knight Rider - that's just off the top of my head.
>>There must be more.
>
>
> Superbus! Or whatever that ill-conceived thing was called.
supertrain?
John Hatpin
>On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 15:28:46 +0100, John Hatpin wrote:
>
>>What is it with cars with personalities and thought-processes?
>>Herbie, Christine, Knight Rider -
>
>KITT. The Knight Rider car was named KITT.
So it was - thanks.
--
John Hatpin
Richard R. Hershberger
> In article <82401463.04080...@posting.google.com>,
> rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote:
>
> > Yes it is: "Yier Shi, a spokesman for the Republican National
> > Committee, which is putting on Saturday's event, confirmed that those
> > interested in seeing Cheney were asked to sign an endorsement form if
> > they couldn't be verified as Bush-Cheney supporters."
>
> Well, confirming that it happened isn't exactly the same thing as
> requiring or even endorsing it but, yeah, they could have at least said
> "stop doing that."
The RNC is putting on the event. Are you suggesting that some outside
organization imposed this requirement on the RNC, but no one mentioned
this?
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> > We suffered through eight years of Zippy. Really, you ain't seen
> > nothing yet.
> the 8 years of zippy seem like a magical long lost time, compared to the
> 4 years of hell weve been through.
Sheesh, you've got that backwards. It's like you live through the looking
glass or in the bizzarro universe.
John
--
Remove the dead poet to e-mail, tho CC'd posts are unwelcome.
Ask me about joining the NRA.
Dave Wilton
<davo...@speakeasy.hairnet> wrote:
I don't know about this survey either. Robert Byrd is the most liberal
senator? Robert Byrd may be many things, but he is not especially
liberal.
This survey is better than the National Journal's in that it explains
its methodology, but there is still an arbitrary division into the
binary of liberal/conservative voting. Who says a particular vote is
liberal or conservative? Some votes can be easily interpreted this
way, others cannot.
For instance, take the vote against the $87 million for the war in
Iraq. If a senator votes against it because the administration has no
plan for Iraq, is that a liberal position? It is not a stand against
the war in principle. If anything, it is a stand for fiscal
responsibility--a conservative virtue.
Any ranking like this is bound to be somewhat silly. You can't reduce
American politics to a binary of liberal or conservative choices.
--Dave Wilton
da...@wilton.net
http://www.wordorigins.org
Joe Shimkus
> Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote in message
> news:<joe-71054D.1...@individual.net>...
> > In article <82401463.04080...@posting.google.com>,
> > rrh...@acme.com (Richard R. Hershberger) wrote:
> >
> > > Yes it is: "Yier Shi, a spokesman for the Republican National
> > > Committee, which is putting on Saturday's event, confirmed that those
> > > interested in seeing Cheney were asked to sign an endorsement form if
> > > they couldn't be verified as Bush-Cheney supporters."
> >
> > Well, confirming that it happened isn't exactly the same thing as
> > requiring or even endorsing it but, yeah, they could have at least said
> > "stop doing that."
>
> The RNC is putting on the event. Are you suggesting that some outside
> organization imposed this requirement on the RNC, but no one mentioned
> this?
My interpretation of the article is that it was locals who added this
requirement as part of their role in handing out passes to the show not
that it was a dictate from the RNC. There is no love lost between me
and the RNC particularly given that they're backing that santorum from
Crawford but I'm not certain how much can be laid at their feet in this
except for the fact that since it's their show, they're responsible.
Dana Carpender
Matt Ackeret wrote:
Yep. I found myself wondering if he was obfuscating, or really that dense.
Dana
Greg Goss
>SoCalMike <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> > We suffered through eight years of Zippy. Really, you ain't seen
>> > nothing yet.
>
>> the 8 years of zippy seem like a magical long lost time, compared to the
>> 4 years of hell weve been through.
>
>Sheesh, you've got that backwards. It's like you live through the looking
>glass or in the bizzarro universe.
Ditto.
Greg Goss
Richard Evans
wrote:
>
>We suffered through eight years of Zippy. Really, you ain't seen
>nothing yet.
Yeah, those eight years of peace and prosperity were sheer hell.
Dick Evans
ra...@westnet.poe.com
You mean the years where we ignored problems and enjoyed a prosperity
largely founded on the tech bubble (ie a phantom prosperity), untill th
eproblems blew up in our faces and the bubble burst leaving a large
recession?
Yeah. They were bad, much like credit card debt is bad: you can go a long
time not realizing how bad untill finally the credit runs out and biull
comes due.
Dana Carpender
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> Richard Evans <inf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
>>"Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek" <leret...@putaindencule.com>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>We suffered through eight years of Zippy. Really, you ain't seen
>>>nothing yet.
>
>
>>Yeah, those eight years of peace and prosperity were sheer hell.
>
>
> You mean the years where we ignored problems and enjoyed a prosperity
> largely founded on the tech bubble (ie a phantom prosperity), untill th
> eproblems blew up in our faces and the bubble burst leaving a large
> recession?
>
> Yeah. They were bad, much like credit card debt is bad: you can go a long
> time not realizing how bad untill finally the credit runs out and biull
> comes due.
Sorta like the debt we're running up under President Herby?
Dana
Opus the Penguin
> Superbus!
See, you say this, and I automatically picture Hermione Grainger waving
her wand and turning someone excellent.
--
Opus the Penguin (that's my real email addy)
You snipped my sig!
Estron
> There is no love lost between me and the RNC particularly given
> that they're backing that santorum from Crawford but I'm not
> certain how much can be laid at their feet in this
> except for the fact that since it's their show, they're responsible.
Joe, I think it would be quite entertaining if you would tell us what
you mean when you describe Bush as a "santorum."
Literally.
--
All opinions expressed herein are only that, and are my own.
Pax vobiscum.
est...@tfs.net
Sugar Creek (really close to Kansas City), Missouri
Estron
> >>KITT. The Knight Rider car was named KITT.
> >So it was - thanks.
> Knight Industries Two Thousand
If "Knight Rider" were revived today, would the car be renamed?
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> > Yeah. They were bad, much like credit card debt is bad: you can go a long
> > comes due.
> Sorta like the debt we're running up under President Herby?
Nah. That's a very real debt brought on by the recession and blowup I
refered to previously: in short those follow directly from the failings of
the prior adminstration{1}. Belive you me, there's plenty of other things
I'd like to have spent that money on.
{1} with the exception of the growth of non-defence, non-HS related
spending, which allegedly is huge, but I've nott sen how those numbers
were gathered, and I find them suspect.
Dana Carpender
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
>>ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>>
>>>Yeah. They were bad, much like credit card debt is bad: you can go a long
>>>time not realizing how bad untill finally the credit runs out and bill
>>>comes due.
>
>
>>Sorta like the debt we're running up under President Herby?
>
>
> Nah. That's a very real debt brought on by the recession and blowup I
> refered to previously: in short those follow directly from the failings of
> the prior adminstration{1}. Belive you me, there's plenty of other things
> I'd like to have spent that money on.
>
> {1} with the exception of the growth of non-defence, non-HS related
> spending, which allegedly is huge, but I've nott sen how those numbers
> were gathered, and I find them suspect.
>
So it has nothing to do with waging war while cutting taxes, huh?
Dana
Patrick M Geahan
> If "Knight Rider" were revived today, would the car be renamed?
In the Knight Rider sequel TV-movie(made in 1991), they made a new car,
called the Knight Industries Four Thousand. However, they put the
original car's personality in it, so they also called it KITT.
I guess KIFT just didn't have the same ring
--
-------Patrick M Geahan---...@thepatcave.org---ICQ:3784715------
"You know, this is how the sum total of human knowledge is increased.
Not with idle speculation and meaningless chatter, but with a
medium-sized hammer and some free time." - spa...@pffcu.com, a.f.c-a
Jordan Abel
> Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Greg Goss wrote:
>
>
>>>>KITT. The Knight Rider car was named KITT.
>
>
>>>So it was - thanks.
>
>
>>Knight Industries Two Thousand
>
>
> If "Knight Rider" were revived today, would the car be renamed?
"Three Thousand", possibly?
ra...@westnet.poe.com
Really it doesn't. I know that that idea will fit on a bumper sticker and
so has great appeal, but look at the facts: the tax cut was massively end
loaded. Right now, the reduction in recipts is more primarilly due to the
tech bubble burst and subsequent slump of the stock market. Even if the
Bush tax cuts were repealed in their entirity, there'd still be a deficit.
Mean while, these wars we're waging, they're (pardon the pun) bush wars.
The US has done this sort of thing many times in the past. Not all wars
involve public rationing and hardship, new taxes and bond drives. Doing
that sort of thing makes sense if you're stressed to your limit: then you
pull out the stops and _really_ mortgage your future, since if you fail,
you're done for. That's a WWII sort of a war. These wars are more a
Spanish-American sort of a war: it's not total, life goes on at home, you
don't want to mortgage your future over it becuase you want to keep your
economy fueling the war effort.
I fact, since AQ seems to be specifically targeting our economy, hindering
economic growth with new taxes would only worsen that battle.
M C Hamster
news:MPG.1b7d8429e...@news.birch.net...
> Previously in alt.fan.cecil-adams, Joe Shimkus wrote:
>
> > There is no love lost between me and the RNC particularly given
> > that they're backing that santorum from Crawford but I'm not
> > certain how much can be laid at their feet in this
> > except for the fact that since it's their show, they're responsible.
>
> Joe, I think it would be quite entertaining if you would tell us what
> you mean when you describe Bush as a "santorum."
>
> Literally.
>
It's all at http://www.spreadingsantorum.com/ . It was the most popular
choice in a contest run by Dan Savage of Savage Love.
san-TOR-um: The frothy mix of lube and fecal matter that is sometimes the
byproduct of anal sex.
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek
Magical time? One scandal after another with Janet "Fire Fire Fire"
Reno either looking for crazy religious radical camps to shoot up or
cuban kids to snatch out of the arms of their family to ship back to Havana?
The only thing remarkably about those eight years is how their penchant
for scandals won't stop. Seriously, I shoudl start a collection to
raise money for Sandy Berger so he can buy Depends instead of lining his
underpants with documents.
Bill
uberConservative
> Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com> wrote in message news:<joe-B12905.0...@individual.net>...
> > In article <BiiQc.246686$Oq2.222367@attbi_s52>,> > > > In article <4ZhQc.246566$Oq2.63928@attbi_s52>,
> > > > Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >>Apparently Bush and Cheney have started making people sign loyalty oaths
> > > >>before they're allowed in to see any of the campaign speeches
> >
> >
> > > > I Want to Believe.....but I think I'm going to have to have a cite for
> > > > this one.
> > > >
> > >
> > > http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm
> >
> > Well, it's not Bush & Cheney or the RNC requiring it (at least as far as
> > the article reports)...
>
> Yes it is: "Yier Shi, a spokesman for the Republican National
> Committee, which is putting on Saturday's event, confirmed that those
> interested in seeing Cheney were asked to sign an endorsement form if
> they couldn't be verified as Bush-Cheney supporters."
>
> or volunteered for the campaign don't have to sign. That's certainly
> inspiring. But I have to give them points for pointing out that
> Republicans weren't invited to the Democratic Convention, and this
> apparently is pretty much the same thing...
>
> Richard R. Hershberger
You must sign allegience to the Buush Party!
uberConservative
> Dana Carpender wrote:
> > Joe Shimkus wrote:
> >
> >> In article <4ZhQc.246566$Oq2.63928@attbi_s52>,
> >> Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> Apparently Bush and Cheney have started making people sign loyalty
> >>> oaths before they're allowed in to see any of the campaign speeches
> >>> trying to make up your mind, you have to already be part of the
> >>> choir.
> >>>
> >>> Better yet, the wording of the oath is as follows: "I, (full name)
> >>> ... do herby (sic) endorse George W. Bush for reelection of the
> >>> United States." It later adds that, "In signing the above
> >>> endorsement you are consenting to use and release of your name by
> >>> Bush-Cheney as an endorser of President Bush.
> >>>
> >>> Herby? Reelection of the United States?
> >>>
> >>> Yeesh. And these are the most powerful people in the free world.
> >>
> >>
> >> I Want to Believe.....but I think I'm going to have to have a cite
> >> for this one.
> >>
> >
> > http://www.abqjournal.com/elex/204620elex07-30-04.htm
> >
> >
> > Dana
>
> That's just one rally for Cheney supporters - no suggestion it's a
> general thing for for the Republican ticket, no suggestion it applies to
> campaign speeches in general. If it's a rally for supporters I don't see
> why they can't restrict it if they want.
I can't remember, but isn't Cheney a public servant who works for
us and who cashes our tax-finded paycheck?
Never mind, I shouldn't be questioning authority.
I will declare allegence to the Buush Party like a good American.
Scott P
I thought you guys were smarter than this. Clinton and his staff
weren't perfect but they also had to suffer through the most hostile
congress in modern history. A congress that called for an
investigation at even the suggestion of impropriety. All to create
the illusion of corruption where there was none.
Just imagine if Bush had to deal with a democratic majority that was
just as hungry for blood. The investigations would not stop. The
Plame affair, The republican hacking into dem computers and stealing
files (not Bush admittedly), The obvious dog and pony show leading to
Iraq, Cheney's no bid giveaways to cronies, Bush's ties to Enron. All
of this would have been hung out for the public to see.
And this doesn't even cover the Right wing media machine that takes
the smallest issues and blows them out of proportion. The Democrats
would have to do without that.
Clinton wasn't perfect; he and his people made mistakes but when it
comes to secrecy and corruption, Bush has outdone them by far.
Scott
Scott P
>Richard Evans <inf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>> "Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek" <leret...@putaindencule.com>
>> wrote:
>> >
>> >We suffered through eight years of Zippy. Really, you ain't seen
>> >nothing yet.
>
>> Yeah, those eight years of peace and prosperity were sheer hell.
>
>You mean the years where we ignored problems and enjoyed a prosperity
>largely founded on the tech bubble (ie a phantom prosperity), untill th
>eproblems blew up in our faces and the bubble burst leaving a large
>recession?
So everyone who did well in the 90's worked for a .com or owned
stocks? That's not the way I remembered it. I seem to remember
record home ownership and record employment in every sector.
>
>Yeah. They were bad, much like credit card debt is bad: you can go a long
>time not realizing how bad untill finally the credit runs out and biull
>comes due.
>
This is true of course but has little to do with what happened.
Scott
Scott P
>Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>> > Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>> >>ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>Yeah. They were bad, much like credit card debt is bad: you can go a long
>> >>>time not realizing how bad untill finally the credit runs out and bill
>> >>>comes due.
>> >
>> >>Sorta like the debt we're running up under President Herby?
>> >
>> > Nah. That's a very real debt brought on by the recession and blowup I
>> > refered to previously: in short those follow directly from the failings of
>> > the prior adminstration{1}. Belive you me, there's plenty of other things
>> > I'd like to have spent that money on.
>> >
>> > {1} with the exception of the growth of non-defence, non-HS related
>> > spending, which allegedly is huge, but I've nott sen how those numbers
>> > were gathered, and I find them suspect.
>
>> So it has nothing to do with waging war while cutting taxes, huh?
>
>Really it doesn't. I know that that idea will fit on a bumper sticker and
>so has great appeal, but look at the facts: the tax cut was massively end
>loaded. Right now, the reduction in recipts is more primarilly due to the
>tech bubble burst and subsequent slump of the stock market. Even if the
>Bush tax cuts were repealed in their entirity, there'd still be a deficit.
But would there have been one if he hadn't cut taxes at all? Or cut
taxes more fairly so that people that actually buy things they
otherwise may not have saw more money back than people that can
already afford to buy whatever it is they wanted?
>
>Mean while, these wars we're waging, they're (pardon the pun) bush wars.
>The US has done this sort of thing many times in the past. Not all wars
>involve public rationing and hardship, new taxes and bond drives. Doing
>that sort of thing makes sense if you're stressed to your limit: then you
>pull out the stops and _really_ mortgage your future, since if you fail,
>you're done for. That's a WWII sort of a war. These wars are more a
>Spanish-American sort of a war: it's not total, life goes on at home, you
>don't want to mortgage your future over it becuase you want to keep your
>economy fueling the war effort.
Do you really believe that? By my count this war has already cost
over $200 Billion dollars. Our economy is large but that makes a
dent. If Bush had sacrificed even a handful of his tax cuts to pay
for his flashing lights and noisey things there would be more money to
spend for things that we can actually use.
>
>I fact, since AQ seems to be specifically targeting our economy, hindering
>economic growth with new taxes would only worsen that battle.
>
>
AQ isn't specifically targeting anything. You think their plan is to
bankrupt the US? Please. They blow up things that a lot of people go
to, nothing more.
Scott
Scott P
His talking points never told him where it came from so of course he
didn't know. Nor did he care.
Scott
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek
Let's see, until the fake bubble unemployment was what 5.5%? The dow
was at 1000?
Yeah. Things are so much worse than they were before the fake bubble
happened.
Bill
Jerry Bauer
(in article <cevma4...@news.gossg.org>):
> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
>> SoCalMike <mikein562...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>> We suffered through eight years of Zippy. Really, you ain't seen
>>>> nothing yet.
>>
>>> the 8 years of zippy seem like a magical long lost time, compared to the
>>> 4 years of hell weve been through.
>>
>> Sheesh, you've got that backwards. It's like you live through the looking
>> glass or in the bizzarro universe.
>
> Ditto.
>
>
Hedley: My mind is a-glow with whirling transient nodes of thought,
careening through a cosmic vapor of invention.
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 17:11:10 GMT, ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>
>
>>Richard Evans <inf...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>>>"Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek" <leret...@putaindencule.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>We suffered through eight years of Zippy. Really, you ain't seen
>>>>nothing yet.
>>
>>>Yeah, those eight years of peace and prosperity were sheer hell.
>>
>>You mean the years where we ignored problems and enjoyed a prosperity
>>largely founded on the tech bubble (ie a phantom prosperity), untill th
>>eproblems blew up in our faces and the bubble burst leaving a large
>>recession?
>
>
>
>
> So everyone who did well in the 90's worked for a .com or owned
> stocks? That's not the way I remembered it. I seem to remember
> record home ownership and record employment in every sector.
Until the fake bubble burst and it turned out there was massive fraud
across a number of very large companies. They collapsed, wrote off
their massive debts which cascaded down onto other comapnies that then
started laying off workers in a desparate bid for survival.
The whole boom from 1996 to 1999 was a bust and it began to finally
unravel after Congress stepped in and started mandating a litte bit more
integrity in corporate governance.
Bill
Mary Shafer
wrote:
> In article <arg4h09bbv3glm214...@4ax.com>,
> John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
> >
> > What is it with cars with personalities and thought-processes?
> > Herbie, Christine, Knight Rider - that's just off the top of my head.
> > There must be more.
>
> Superbus! Or whatever that ill-conceived thing was called.
My Mother, The Car
Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang
Mary
--
Mary Shafer Retired aerospace research engineer
mil...@qnet.com
Oliver Sampson
wrote:
"You use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore"
--
Oliver Sampson Buy my CDs!
ol...@quickaudio.com http://www.cdbaby.com/all/mrsampson
http://www.oliversampson.com
Oliver Sampson
<leret...@putaindencule.com> wrote:
>SoCalMike wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> We suffered through eight years of Zippy. Really, you ain't seen
>>> nothing yet.
>>
>>
>> the 8 years of zippy seem like a magical long lost time, compared to the
>> 4 years of hell weve been through.
>>
>> in fact, if zippy was running against chimpie, i bet the zip would win.
>
>
>Magical time? One scandal after another with Janet "Fire Fire Fire"
>Reno either looking for crazy religious radical camps to shoot up or
>cuban kids to snatch out of the arms of their family to ship back to Havana?
You mistyped "return him to his father."
Oliver Sampson
>Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>> ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
>> > Yeah. They were bad, much like credit card debt is bad: you can go a long
>> > time not realizing how bad untill finally the credit runs out and bill
>> > comes due.
>
>> Sorta like the debt we're running up under President Herby?
>
>Nah. That's a very real debt brought on by the recession
That's revisionism. The debt has been mostly caused by the tax cuts:
http://www.economist.com/agenda/displayStory.cfm?story_id=2402772
That article has some real gems:
"This is a poor return on tax cuts that cost the Treasury $195 billion
in the 2003 fiscal year. For that money, Mr Bush could have hired 2.5m
people to dig holes and another 2.5m to fill them, paying them all
America’s average annual wage."
and blowup I
>refered to previously: in short those follow directly from the failings of
>the prior adminstration{1}. Belive you me, there's plenty of other things
>I'd like to have spent that money on.
>
>{1} with the exception of the growth of non-defence, non-HS related
>spending, which allegedly is huge, but I've nott sen how those numbers
>were gathered, and I find them suspect.
>
>
>John
--
ra...@westnet.poe.com
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:41:56 GMT, ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> >> So it has nothing to do with waging war while cutting taxes, huh?
> >
> >Really it doesn't. I know that that idea will fit on a bumper sticker and
> >so has great appeal, but look at the facts: the tax cut was massively end
> >loaded. Right now, the reduction in recipts is more primarilly due to the
> >tech bubble burst and subsequent slump of the stock market. Even if the
> >Bush tax cuts were repealed in their entirity, there'd still be a deficit.
> But would there have been one if he hadn't cut taxes at all?
Yeah. I've seen some people arguing otherwise, but their numbers assume
that the economy would have kept growing at the same pace it was going at
during 2000. A recession was certanly coming.
> Or cut
> taxes more fairly so that people that actually buy things they
> otherwise may not have saw more money back than people that can
> already afford to buy whatever it is they wanted?
So giving the largest cut in percentage of taxes paid to the poorest
income tax payers was not the way to go? :)
Besides, what do you think wealthy people do with thier money: Big cash
bonfires?
> >Mean while, these wars we're waging, they're (pardon the pun) bush wars.
> >The US has done this sort of thing many times in the past. Not all wars
> >involve public rationing and hardship, new taxes and bond drives. Doing
> >that sort of thing makes sense if you're stressed to your limit: then you
> >pull out the stops and _really_ mortgage your future, since if you fail,
> >you're done for. That's a WWII sort of a war. These wars are more a
> >Spanish-American sort of a war: it's not total, life goes on at home, you
> >don't want to mortgage your future over it becuase you want to keep your
> >economy fueling the war effort.
> Do you really believe that? By my count this war has already cost
> over $200 Billion dollars. Our economy is large but that makes a
> dent. If Bush had sacrificed even a handful of his tax cuts to pay
> for his flashing lights and noisey things there would be more money to
> spend for things that we can actually use.
costofwar.com puts it at half of that. Your figure is for the entire
response to terror, and damn, it would have been nice to have avoided
that. Some quick googling shows that the cost of the Vietnam war was $500
billion in todays dollars. WWII on the otherhand cost two trillion (1990)
dollars.
> >I fact, since AQ seems to be specifically targeting our economy, hindering
> >economic growth with new taxes would only worsen that battle.
> AQ isn't specifically targeting anything. You think their plan is to
> bankrupt the US? Please. They blow up things that a lot of people go
> to, nothing more.
No, they're job is to inflict hurt by any means. Financial is just one of
many and it's one they know that we're going to keep on with.
Dana Carpender
Jerry Bauer wrote:
You use your tongue purtier than a $50 whore!
Dana
Dana Carpender
Gee, more business regulation a *good* thing? Who'd have thunk it?
Dana
Greg Goss
>>Hedley: My mind is a-glow with whirling transient nodes of thought,
>>careening through a cosmic vapor of invention.
>
Oliver Sampson <ol...@quickaudio.com> wrote:
>"You use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore"
>
Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>You use your tongue purtier than a $50 whore!
That's an interesting coincidence. Is it a movie quote or something?
--
Tomorrow is today already.
Greg Goss, 1989-01-27
Joe Shimkus
ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
> So giving the largest cut in percentage of taxes paid to the poorest
> income tax payers was not the way to go? :)
No, it wasn't. Tax percentages aren't like school grades.
--
PGP Key (DH/DSS): http://www.shimkus.com/public_key.asc
PGP Fingerprint: 89B4 52DA CF10 EE03 02AD 9134 21C6 2A68 CE52 EE1A
Windows has always aspired to be Mac-like without Microsoft ever really
understanding what that even means. - Robert Cringely
Bob Ward
>>On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:06:01 -0700, Jerry Bauer <use...@bauerstar.com>
>
>>>Hedley: My mind is a-glow with whirling transient nodes of thought,
>>>careening through a cosmic vapor of invention.
>>
>
>Oliver Sampson <ol...@quickaudio.com> wrote:
>>"You use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore"
>
>>
>Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>>You use your tongue purtier than a $50 whore!
>
>That's an interesting coincidence. Is it a movie quote or something?
Inflation.
Bob Ward
wrote:
>On Thu, 05 Aug 2004 10:42:32 -0400, Joe Shimkus <j...@shimkus.com>
>wrote:
>
>> In article <arg4h09bbv3glm214...@4ax.com>,
>> John Hatpin <nos...@brookview.karoo.co.uk> wrote:
>> >
>> > What is it with cars with personalities and thought-processes?
>> > Herbie, Christine, Knight Rider - that's just off the top of my head.
>> > There must be more.
>>
>> Superbus! Or whatever that ill-conceived thing was called.
>
>My Mother, The Car
>
>Chitty-Chitty Bang-Bang
>
>Mary
Wasn't the pr0n version "Nitty-Gritty Gang Bang"?
Scott P
>Scott P <qui...@remvoetihsix.netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:41:56 GMT, ra...@westnet.poe.com wrote:
><snip>
>> >> So it has nothing to do with waging war while cutting taxes, huh?
>> >
>> >Really it doesn't. I know that that idea will fit on a bumper sticker and
>> >so has great appeal, but look at the facts: the tax cut was massively end
>> >loaded. Right now, the reduction in recipts is more primarilly due to the
>> >tech bubble burst and subsequent slump of the stock market. Even if the
>> >Bush tax cuts were repealed in their entirity, there'd still be a deficit.
>
>> But would there have been one if he hadn't cut taxes at all?
>
>Yeah. I've seen some people arguing otherwise, but their numbers assume
>that the economy would have kept growing at the same pace it was going at
>during 2000. A recession was certanly coming.
Possibly. But to deny that cutting government revenues at a time when
spending was increasing didn't cause us to generate deficits is crazy.
>
>> Or cut
>> taxes more fairly so that people that actually buy things they
>> otherwise may not have saw more money back than people that can
>> already afford to buy whatever it is they wanted?
>
>So giving the largest cut in percentage of taxes paid to the poorest
>income tax payers was not the way to go? :)
Even if this is true of the actual cuts in income tax (I don't know if
it is), when you include the other cuts in dividends, estate taxes
etc., the plan sure looks like an inverted pyramid to me.
>
>Besides, what do you think wealthy people do with thier money: Big cash
>bonfires?
Sure they buy things but not the consumer goods that make our economy
hum along. A tax cut on the middle class means a family may buy a new
dishwasher or air conditioner or a second TV that they otherwise would
not have. Things that really do spread wealth into the rest of the
economy.
>
>> >Mean while, these wars we're waging, they're (pardon the pun) bush wars.
>> >The US has done this sort of thing many times in the past. Not all wars
>> >involve public rationing and hardship, new taxes and bond drives. Doing
>> >that sort of thing makes sense if you're stressed to your limit: then you
>> >pull out the stops and _really_ mortgage your future, since if you fail,
>> >you're done for. That's a WWII sort of a war. These wars are more a
>> >Spanish-American sort of a war: it's not total, life goes on at home, you
>> >don't want to mortgage your future over it becuase you want to keep your
>> >economy fueling the war effort.
>
>> Do you really believe that? By my count this war has already cost
>> over $200 Billion dollars. Our economy is large but that makes a
>> dent. If Bush had sacrificed even a handful of his tax cuts to pay
>> for his flashing lights and noisey things there would be more money to
>> spend for things that we can actually use.
>
>costofwar.com puts it at half of that.
Well frankly, cost of war is wrong. Just the last two supplemental
appropriations for the war equal $112 Billion. Add to that the
initial investment into the war in Iraq (just Iraq) and the funds that
Bush illegally diverted from Afghanistan (another scandal Bush got
away with that would have put a Democratic President in jail) and you
reach at least $200
>Your figure is for the entire
>response to terror, and damn, it would have been nice to have avoided
>that. Some quick googling shows that the cost of the Vietnam war was $500
>billion in todays dollars. WWII on the otherhand cost two trillion (1990)
>dollars.
I question those numbers because they probably include lost
productivity, reconstruction etc. (especially that WWII number).
>
>> >I fact, since AQ seems to be specifically targeting our economy, hindering
>> >economic growth with new taxes would only worsen that battle.
>
>> AQ isn't specifically targeting anything. You think their plan is to
>> bankrupt the US? Please. They blow up things that a lot of people go
>> to, nothing more.
>
>No, they're job is to inflict hurt by any means. Financial is just one of
>many and it's one they know that we're going to keep on with.
>
Not exactly. Their goal is to make us concede to their demands by
killing our civilians in spectacular ways.
Scott
(P.S. so there's not confusion I mean "spectacular" in the most
pejorative sense possible. Being liberal does not necessarily make me
a member of Al Qaeda.)
Russell Stewart
> Magical time? One scandal after another with Janet "Fire Fire Fire"
> Reno either looking for crazy religious radical camps to shoot up or
> cuban kids to snatch out of the arms of their family to ship back to
> Havana?
1) Sorry, but not all scandals are alike. Shady real-estate deals and
blowjobs under the desk are not in the same ballpark as presenting
false intelligence and deliberately misleading propaganda to justify
a war.
2) A significant part of that Cuban kid's family (specifically, his
father) *was* in Havana, and desparately wanted him back.
3) I'll grant you that the attack on the Waco compound was questionable
judgement, at best, though.
--
Russell Stewart | E-Mail: dia...@swcp.com
UNM CS Department | WWW: http://www.swcp.com/~diamond
"Democrats: Always ready to stand up for what they
later realize they should have believed in."
-Jon Stewart,
"The Daily Show"
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek
> On Fri, 06 Aug 2004 18:18:40 -0400, "Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek"
> <leret...@putaindencule.com> wrote:
>
>
>>SoCalMike wrote:
>>
>>>>We suffered through eight years of Zippy. Really, you ain't seen
>>>>nothing yet.
>>>
>>>
>>>the 8 years of zippy seem like a magical long lost time, compared to the
>>>4 years of hell weve been through.
>>>
>>>in fact, if zippy was running against chimpie, i bet the zip would win.
>>
>>
>>Magical time? One scandal after another with Janet "Fire Fire Fire"
>>Reno either looking for crazy religious radical camps to shoot up or
>>cuban kids to snatch out of the arms of their family to ship back to Havana?
>
>
> You mistyped "return him to his father."
>
Who hadn't seen him in how many years? Who didn't have legal custody?
Send him back to become a stooge for propagandists and the communist party?
How long till that poor kid gets dumped for his no longer being useful
and spends his days at Isla de las Jovenes?
Bill
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek
>
>
> Gee, more business regulation a *good* thing? Who'd have thunk it?
>
> Dana
Yeah, funny. It's not so much a matter of regulating business as it was
in making sure it's a lot harder to cook the books. The price for
deregulation should have been absolute clarity with respect to public
records, including financial reporting.
Investor fraud, very bad stuff. Raiding pension plans. Unforgivable.
Employees stringing up their bosses from the roof of the building?
Priceless.
Bill
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek
> Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek wrote:
>
>> Magical time? One scandal after another with Janet "Fire Fire Fire"
>> Reno either looking for crazy religious radical camps to shoot up or
>> cuban kids to snatch out of the arms of their family to ship back to
>> Havana?
>
>
> 1) Sorry, but not all scandals are alike. Shady real-estate deals and
> blowjobs under the desk are not in the same ballpark as presenting
> false intelligence and deliberately misleading propaganda to justify
> a war.
I don't know anybody except Clinton supporters who gave a damn about
what led up to witness tampering, interfering with an investigation and
suborning perjury. Whether it was a botched break in at a hotel complex
or lying to block an investigation over previous harassment of Arkansas
state employees, it's almost never the actual incident that warrants the
impeachment. It's the behavior of the principles during the
investigation that leads to impeachment.
For your to support a claim it was false intelligence and deliberately
misleading, you'll have to demonstrate that it was known to be false
inforamtion and used in that fashion. Since it's the same information
the previous administration developed, you'll have to establish a
context in which two administrations collaborated to contrive a false
pretext for war.
That might be a bit beyond your skills.
>
> 2) A significant part of that Cuban kid's family (specifically, his
> father) *was* in Havana, and desparately wanted him back.
A significant portion of his mother's family, said mother having died
trying to get her son away from his father and his father's family, were
right there in Miami.
>
> 3) I'll grant you that the attack on the Waco compound was questionable
> judgement, at best, though.
Yeah. It certainly was.
Bill
M C Hamster
news:gr3ah092qs4o34o25...@4ax.com...
Google is your friend, Greg. Blazing Saddles.
M C Hamster "Big Wheel Keep on Turnin'" -- Creedence Clearwater Revival
Dana Carpender
Greg Goss wrote:
>>On Fri, 6 Aug 2004 21:06:01 -0700, Jerry Bauer <use...@bauerstar.com>
>
>
>>>Hedley: My mind is a-glow with whirling transient nodes of thought,
>>>careening through a cosmic vapor of invention.
>>
>
> Oliver Sampson <ol...@quickaudio.com> wrote:
>
>>"You use your tongue prettier than a twenty dollar whore"
>
>
> Dana Carpender <dcarpen...@kiva.net> wrote:
>
>>You use your tongue purtier than a $50 whore!
>
>
> That's an interesting coincidence. Is it a movie quote or something?
Uh, yuh. Blazing Saddles.
Dana
Peter Boulding
Geek" <leret...@putaindencule.com> wrote:
>For your to support a claim it was false intelligence and deliberately
>misleading, you'll have to demonstrate that it was known to be false
>inforamtion and used in that fashion. Since it's the same information
>the previous administration developed, you'll have to establish a
>context in which two administrations collaborated to contrive a false
>pretext for war.
>
>That might be a bit beyond your skills.
So it might, but we opponents of the invasion of Iraq saw - and see
- no requirement to provide "proof" on your terms.
We can add together a whole series of factors such as (but not
limited to) the PNAC's September 2000 report ("... the need for a
substantial American force presence in the Gulf transcends the issue
of the regime of Saddam Hussein..."), the imposition of a neocon
filter between the intelligence services and the executive, the
fatuousness of some of the claims made re WMD, Blair's record of
bellicosity, the neocons' determination to sideline the UN, and the
political imperative to make *someone* pay for 9/11, and conclude
that Bush and Blair were unlikely to draw wise conclusions from the
available evidence; it was painfully obvious that they would believe
what they wanted to believe in order to justify action they'd
decided to take for reasons unrelated to WMD.
In these circumstances the question of whether they actually
persuaded themselves of the uranium from Niger, the mobile weapons
labs, and so on, doesn't seem that important. Those of us who choose
to assume that it was not an honest mistake are crediting them with
more intelligence than are their supporters, but either way they
misjudged the predictable, and widely predicted, results of their
"response" so badly as to demonstrate their unfitness for office
beyond all argument.
--
Regards Peter Boulding
p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk (to e-mail, remove "UNSPAM")
Fractal gallery: http://www.pboulding.co.uk/
Fractal music: http://www.pjbmusic2.freeserve.co.uk/
Russell Stewart
> Russell Stewart wrote:
>
>> Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek wrote:
>>
>>> Magical time? One scandal after another with Janet "Fire Fire Fire"
>>> Reno either looking for crazy religious radical camps to shoot up or
>>> cuban kids to snatch out of the arms of their family to ship back to
>>> Havana?
>>
>>
>>
>> 1) Sorry, but not all scandals are alike. Shady real-estate deals and
>> blowjobs under the desk are not in the same ballpark as presenting
>> false intelligence and deliberately misleading propaganda to justify
>> a war.
>
>
> I don't know anybody except Clinton supporters who gave a damn about
> what led up to witness tampering, interfering with an investigation and
> suborning perjury. Whether it was a botched break in at a hotel complex
> or lying to block an investigation over previous harassment of Arkansas
> state employees, it's almost never the actual incident that warrants the
> impeachment. It's the behavior of the principles during the
> investigation that leads to impeachment.
Look, man, I'm not defending Clinton's behavior by any means. I didn't
vote for him, I wasn't a fan of his when he was in office, and that
hasn't changed now. There is no doubt in my mind that you can find
plenty of sleazy, corrupt shit that he personally and his administration
in general was responsible for. I'm just saying that what has been
uncovered on him so far (in fact, just about any presidential scandal
I can think of, including Watergate and Iran-Contra) pales in comparison
to what is going on right now.
> For your to support a claim it was false intelligence and deliberately
> misleading, you'll have to demonstrate that it was known to be false
> inforamtion and used in that fashion.
No, of course I cannot prove that, because those in charge have
carefully covered their bases.
That doesn't mean, however, that those of us paying attention aren't
aware of what really went on.
>> 2) A significant part of that Cuban kid's family (specifically, his
>> father) *was* in Havana, and desparately wanted him back.
>
> A significant portion of his mother's family, said mother having died
> trying to get her son away from his father and his father's family, were
> right there in Miami.
Why? Why was she trying to get him away from his father? Was there
evidence of abuse or neglect? Did she just choose to risk her little
boy's life because she wanted him to "live the American Dream"? Was
she completely unstable? We DO NOT KNOW. That is the freakin' point.
It was a petty custody battle projected onto the stage of international
politics, and what the Clinton administration did is exactly what any
thinking judge would have done: absent any evidence of mistreatment
or danger to his well-being, returned the boy to his only living parent.
How the hell would you feel if your wife decided one day to take off
to Cuba with your son, and the Cuban government was unwilling to return
him?
Russell Stewart
> Nah. That's a very real debt brought on by the recession and blowup I
> refered to previously: in short those follow directly from the failings of
> the prior adminstration{1}.
Ah. The insane deficit and rapidly ballooning debt of today
has nothing to do with the money being spent on the Iraq
war; it's the fault of the Clinton administration.
That's what I love about presidential politics. If you
ever fuck up, you can always find a way to blame it on
the last president who belonged to the other party.
Joe Shimkus
Peter Boulding <p...@UNSPAMpboulding.co.uk> wrote:
> the
> fatuousness of some of the claims made re WMD,
> it was painfully obvious that they would believe
> what they wanted to believe in order to justify action they'd
> decided to take for reasons unrelated to WMD.
On the way out to do some shopping this evening I was listening to NPR.
They were doing a story about the battleground states for the upcoming
presidential election. One guy (an ardent supporter of the current
president) in the Florida panhandle said (paraphrased):
Saddam didn't have WsMD but he (Saddam) thought he did and if
he did have them he could have easily attacked the USofA with them.
So, what President Bush did was the right thing.
You really had to hear his statement to realize that he was saying that
attacking Iraq because Saddam thought he had WsMD was the right thing to
do. And he didn't elaborate on how Iraq was going to easily attack the
US.
Joe Shimkus
Russell Stewart <us...@nospam.net> wrote:
> That's what I love about presidential politics. If you
> ever fuck up, you can always find a way to blame it on
> the last president who belonged to the other party.
I'm waiting for the day my Republican sister gives credit for any
turnaround in the economy to Bush. If that day comes, I plan on asking
her to explain how, according to a Republican I know, the good times of
the Clinton administration were due to the actions of Bush I & Reagan.
Such having been implied by said Republican claiming that any impact on
the economy of a President's policies doesn't show up during that
President's term but only in subsequent terms.
After I hear her explain the discrepancy between her statement regarding
Bush and that of this Republican I know concerning Clinton, I will
inform her that *she* was the Republican who made those claims about the
Clinton administration.
Blinky the Shark
> That's what I love about presidential politics. If you ever fuck up,
> you can always find a way to blame it on the last president who
> belonged to the other party.
I'll bet you'd like that if *you* were president. :)
(But is that really about "presidential politics", or about partisan
politics? Must be the latter, eh? I mean, it works at lower levels,
too.)
--
Blinky Linux Registered User 297263
An Important Health Reminder http://snipurl.com/healthyshark
Peter Boulding
<qui...@REMVOETIHSix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>> AQ isn't specifically targeting anything. You think their plan is to
>>> bankrupt the US? Please. They blow up things that a lot of people go
>>> to, nothing more.
>>No, they're job is to inflict hurt by any means. Financial is just one of
>>many and it's one they know that we're going to keep on with.
>Not exactly. Their goal is to make us concede to their demands by
>killing our civilians in spectacular ways.
I don't imagine Al Qaeda (which seems nowadays to be an umbrella
term for Muslim fundamentalist anti-west terrorist organisations)
seriously expect the US to concede to any of their demands; such
demands are made for the benefit of the home audience, not the
enemy.
The purpose of their outrages is to make the US (and some other
"enemy" nations) behave in ways which will further their aims, which
is not quite the same thing.
John Hatpin
>On Sat, 07 Aug 2004 17:39:57 GMT, Scott P
><qui...@REMVOETIHSix.netcom.com> wrote:
>
>>>> AQ isn't specifically targeting anything. You think their plan is to
>>>> bankrupt the US? Please. They blow up things that a lot of people go
>>>> to, nothing more.
>
>>>No, they're job is to inflict hurt by any means. Financial is just one of
>>>many and it's one they know that we're going to keep on with.
>
>>Not exactly. Their goal is to make us concede to their demands by
>>killing our civilians in spectacular ways.
>
>I don't imagine Al Qaeda (which seems nowadays to be an umbrella
>term for Muslim fundamentalist anti-west terrorist organisations)
>seriously expect the US to concede to any of their demands; such
>demands are made for the benefit of the home audience, not the
>enemy.
>
>The purpose of their outrages is to make the US (and some other
>"enemy" nations) behave in ways which will further their aims, which
>is not quite the same thing.
The main trouble is, their aims are kept pretty secret by western
media and governments, even though they've been overtly stated.
The Israel thing is big, of course, and also they're worried about the
links between the Bush family and the Saudi rulers. Those are the two
biggies on the AQ wishlist, as far as I can tell.
What I haven't got to grips with yet is the links between the Bush
clan and ObL's family in the USA. Can anyone explain why they were
flown out so quickly after the 9/11 attacks, when most US planes were
grounded?
And no, I haven't been reading Michael Moore's books, or watching his
film, though I know enough of him to see he raises the same question.
--
John Hatpin
Bill, the Peripatetic Linux Geek
>
> Look, man, I'm not defending Clinton's behavior by any means. I didn't
> vote for him, I wasn't a fan of his when he was in office, and that
> hasn't changed now. There is no doubt in my mind that you can find
> plenty of sleazy, corrupt shit that he personally and his administration
> in general was responsible for. I'm just saying that what has been
> uncovered on him so far (in fact, just about any presidential scandal
> I can think of, including Watergate and Iran-Contra) pales in comparison
> to what is going on right now.
Again, I completely disagree. What certain groups today call corruption
and other terms has to do with their political disagreement with the
administration It has nothing to do with actual corruption. Were there
actual corruption, Congress and the Democratic Party would have moved
forward quite rapidly with an investigation into the President, referred
charges and initiated impeachment.
What Watergate and the various Clinton scandals had in common was their
desparate attempt to block investigations into malfeasance and
misbehavior by elected or appointed officials in government. While
there's no shortage of winging by the left, there's also been no
evidence there was corruption in the current administration in the run
up to the war. The evidence they used was the same evidence the
previous administration cited. The conclusions and decision were
different, but that doesn't amke the process corrupted nor the those
party to the decision corrupt.
It's the inappropriate flinging of words, like intellectual feces that
drives me up a wall.
>
>> For your to support a claim it was false intelligence and
>> deliberately misleading, you'll have to demonstrate that it was known
>> to be false inforamtion and used in that fashion.
>
>
> No, of course I cannot prove that, because those in charge have
> carefully covered their bases.
You do realize the intense level of logical fallacy in that statement.
I can also believe the Easter Bunny was a space alien who's made us
promise to worship him every Spring or there'll be hell to pay. I can
then argue the government knows this and has cut a secret deal with the
Easter Bunny. Of course, there's a giant cover up otherwise everyone
woudl know.
>
> That doesn't mean, however, that those of us paying attention aren't
> aware of what really went on.
You might think you're paying attention, but your understanding of
intelligence matters is a bit thinner than you realize. That's not a
slam; it's just an observation from soemone who spent a number of years
in intelligence world.
>
>>> 2) A significant part of that Cuban kid's family (specifically, his
>>> father) *was* in Havana, and desparately wanted him back.
>>
>>
>> A significant portion of his mother's family, said mother having died
>> trying to get her son away from his father and his father's family,
>> were right there in Miami.
>
>
> Why? Why was she trying to get him away from his father? Was there
> evidence of abuse or neglect? Did she just choose to risk her little
> boy's life because she wanted him to "live the American Dream"? Was
> she completely unstable? We DO NOT KNOW. That is the freakin' point.
> It was a petty custody battle projected onto the stage of international
> politics, and what the Clinton administration did is exactly what any
> thinking judge would have done: absent any evidence of mistreatment
> or danger to his well-being, returned the boy to his only living parent.
> How the hell would you feel if your wife decided one day to take off
> to Cuba with your son, and the Cuban government was unwilling to return
> him?
>
Let's see. Because Cuba's an authoritarian nightmare? That her husband
was so demosntrably a poor father by Cuba's own standards that even
though he was a Party member, she still got custody?
Persnally, I think anyone willing to float 90 miles across shark
infested waters to get away from Cuba should be hailed for their
courage, not vilified because they failed to appreciate all the wonders
of the dictatorship they fled.
How many children has the Cuban government returned to the custody of
foreign parents?
Bill
Jerry Bauer
(in article <wfbRc.106485$eM2.44368@attbi_s51>):
"Ditto!"