Takes a licking, keeps on ticking ...
Cameron Kaszas
because of its "lack of flaming republicans" :), but I've got to get
this off my chest.....flame suit on, here goes ... :) :) :)
You have to admit that with all the negative press he gets, Dan
Quayle hasn't become negative himself, hasn't whiiiined about unfair
treatment, hasn't lost his self-respect. He believes in himself and
his convictions, and for what conservatism is all about, and
for this I give him credit. I can't think of
too many people who are in the public eye (for example, members of
Congress, celebities in Hollywood) that could take the day to day picture
painted by the biased liberal media (which has a disproportionate
amount of power totally out of step with the majority of people
in this country) as well as he has. His boss should take a lesson -
I'm getting sick of the pathetic figure Bush has become. :(
Digression here (Lib. vs. Cons., I'm on a roll) ...
Yes, this letter is for real :) :) I know a lot of you have trouble
believing that the majority of people in this country have rejected
Liberalism, but it is true. More people than you can imagine know
exactly what JDQ meant by family values, and know that the
Conservatives are the ones who will uphold them. Well, YOU`LL
SEE IN NOVEMBER! Just too bad we don't have a candidate we like,
but that's another matter :( We'll win anyway, because the alternative
is soooo much worse :) :) Oh, I know we're behind in the polls, but they
really have very little to do with how people actually vote. The
biggest danger is that Bush seems to care a great deal about them,
and may feel he has to give in some to the "popular" opinion of the day.
:) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
I`m putting all these smileys in so you'll know that this is not
meant as a mean spirited letter, or to put anyone down - just
an alternative view, sadly lacking in
this group. Meant to spark discussion. I mean, really, JDQ
doesn't look at all rattled for the pounding he has had to take
for four years - much greater scrutiny than has sent many
running for cover. :) :) Yes, I've already considered and rejected
the thought that he's too stupid to care :) :) I don't think he is.
If we all agreed, this wouldn't be any fun, would it?
In the spirit (politically, anyway) of David Hanson and GRANT CUNNINGHAM,
Cam Kaszas
Cameron Kaszas
for four years - much greater scrutiny than has sent many a liberal
running for cover. :) :) I've already considered and rejected
the thought that he's too stupid to care :) :)
If we all agreed, this wouldn't be any fun, would it?
Don Coolidge
|> I can't think of
|> too many people who are in the public eye (for example, members of
|> Congress, celebities in Hollywood) that could take the day to day picture
|> painted by the biased liberal media (which has a disproportionate
|> amount of power totally out of step with the majority of people
|> in this country) as well as he has.
Response to Urban Myth #1 - there is no such thing as the "Liberal Media".
Take a close look. USA Today? The New Yourk Daily News? The San Francisco
Examiner? The (heaven forbid!) Boston Herald-American (if that's what it
still calls itself these days)? The Manchester Union Leader? TIME?
Or, Nightline w/Ted ? Brokaw? Rather?
C'mon!
On the other hand, the Washington Post. The NY Times. The MacNeil-
Lehrer News Hour. Even sometimes the Boston Globe. Bill Moyers.
It's not the (news)media in this country that is liberal. If you
go by sales, circulation, income, influence, whatever, the vast
majority of news providers in this country are conservative at best,
and screaming reactionary sensationalists at worst.
It's only the *respected* media that are liberal. Think about it.
:^)
|> His boss should take a lesson -
|> I'm getting sick of the pathetic figure Bush has become. :(
Somebody give that man $100! He said the Secret Word! :^)
|> Digression here (Lib. vs. Cons., I'm on a roll) ...
|> Yes, this letter is for real :) :) I know a lot of you have trouble
|> believing that the majority of people in this country have rejected
|> Liberalism, but it is true.
No, they've rejected what the reactionaries define as liberalism.
There's a big difference between the two.
|> More people than you can imagine know
|> exactly what JDQ meant by family values,
Even *I* know what he meant. He meant white male uneducated
Christian agitprop. Of course, if he really believed in
families in general (not just the male-dominated white upper-
middle-class heterosexual nuclear Republican Christian family)
[gee..."nuclear Republican" has a nice ring to it! :^) ]
he might actually try to do something to help them out of his
administration's recession. But noooooo...
|> :) :) :) :) :) :) :) :)
|>
|> I mean, really, JDQ
|> doesn't look at all rattled for the pounding he has had to take
|> for four years
The rattle is definitely there - it's his poor dried-up brains
banging about in the vast empty desert inside his skull...:^)
|>
|> In the spirit (politically, anyway) of David Hanson and GRANT CUNNINGHAM,
|>
|> Cam Kaszas
Thanks, Cam, for a pleasantly-stated diverging view. I just happen
to disagree completely with everything you said, but, hey! - that's
what friends are for!
:^)
Don Coolidge
cool...@speaker.wpd.sgi.com
Alex Orenshteyn
Dan Quayle indeed does not seem "rattled" by criticism he receives, but the
reason why Quayle has such elephantine skin is much more mundane than you
think. He is an insensitive, pampered, self-satisfied individual who basks
in the rays of his own ignorance and obtuseness. He is one of those people
who smile sheepishly when they hear insults about their personas for it
totally escapes their understanding what is being said.
Secondly, how can Clinton be possibly worse than Bush when Clinton is
substantially to the right of Bush in almost every policy issue?
Bush would waste our taxpayer's money for enforcement of anti-abortion
laws; a futile and stupid attempt to stop people from doing what they
have been doing for centuries and will continue doing for centuries yet.
Bush, supposedly a free marketeer, would deregulate the banking industry
but still allow the banks to suck the government's tit by providing
Federal Deposit Insurance. One cannot have it both ways. In Germany
for example there no such thing as Federal Insurance and their banks
do very well because they do not have a license to steal from the taxpayer.
Ethan Bradford
Quayle hasn't become negative himself, hasn't whiiiined about unfair
treatment, hasn't lost his self-respect.
I certainly don't. I don't feel that the press has a liberal bias,
and I don't think that they have been unfair to Dan Quayle. If
anybody else, liberal or conservative, spoke such idiocy, they would
(and should) be widely quoted and ridiculed in the press. Quayle's
complaints about the coverage sound like whining to my ears.
--
-- Ethan (eth...@u.washington.edu)
Frederick A. Ringwald
> You have to admit that with all the negative press he gets, Dan
> Quayle hasn't become negative himself, hasn't whiiiined about unfair
> treatment, hasn't lost his self-respect.
Maybe it's because Dan Quayle is just too STUPID to realize what's
going on. Reminiscent of Monty Python's "Upper Class Twit of the Year":
"he doesn't know when he's beaten...he doesn't know when he's winning,
either - he has no sort of sensory apparatus..." Just like, maybe it's
because Dan is just too STUPID to understand the difference between
pro-choice and his own party line.
Yes, indeed, we all shall see in November. Your post might not be
mean-spirited, but the policies of the past twelve years of
conservative greed, corruption, and abdication of responsibility
certainly were!
s5202734
>
>for this I give him credit. I can't think of
>too many people who are in the public eye (for example, members of
>Congress, celebities in Hollywood) that could take the day to day picture
>painted by the biased liberal media ...as well as he has.
Being able to handle smears and insults *is* a commendable
quality in anyone, from school children to celebrities. It's
something we should all strive for . It does *not* however,
qualify someone to run this country, or to be next in line to run
it if the president dies.
> More people than you can imagine know
>exactly what JDQ meant by family values, and know that the
>Conservatives are the ones who will uphold them.
Call me an ignorant liberal, but I'm afraid I, for one, have no
idea what JDQ meant by family values. If it's what the republicans have
been upholding so far, it seems to mean that the government will do ANYTHING
for a child, until it is born. After that, the gov't will cut back on
education, child-care, WIC, etc. Maybe this is meant to make the family
unit stronger by putting it through so much hardhip that the individual
members are forced to cling to each other for dear life & therefore, become
a closer family. However, judging from the number of absentee fathers, abused
children, alcoholic mother, babies in trash cans, etc., it doesn't seem to
be working. If Danny meant some other type of family values & I missed it,
I would be grateful if you would enlighten me.
>The biggest danger is that Bush seems to care a great deal about them,
> [The polls] and may feel he has to give in some to the "popular"
>opinion of the day.
I wouldn't be too concerned about any popular issue Bush would seem
to embrace *just* to get elected. After all, he made all those promises
about no new taxes, education, environment, etc., just to get elected
in '88, and so far he hasn't much bothered to uphold them. So even if
he decides to, oh, I don't know, thake a pro-choice stance, to get votes,
he probably won't feel obligated to respect any promises he makes. After
all, he knows it's just politics, and noone expects him to mean anything he
says
> :) :) Yes, I've already considered and rejected
>the thought that he's too stupid to care :) :) I don't think he is.
>
Again, even if he's not that stupid, simply NOT being a dithering idiot
does NOT make one a suitable vice president, any more than NOT sexually
harassing one's assistants qualifies one for the Supreme Court. I saw
Goldie Hawn on Arsenio last night. She was saying what a nice guy Danny
was & what a good sense of humor George has. So fine, invite 'em to a
dinner partt -but *don't* say that they are qualified to run the most
powerful country in the world just 'cause they're good people and can take
a joke. Goldie also said Dan made the "potatoe" gaffe because he was under
pressure. If he's under that much pressure from a spelling be - and not
even a bee he's competing in - I can only imagine how stressed he'd
be if there was any type of national crisis. And he might make a mistake
with graver consequences than a little ribbing from the press.
>If we all agreed, this wouldn't be any fun, would it?
>
Nah, I gues it wouldn't. Don't let the flack yer getting bring ya down.
Keep writing; it gives us all a little exercise.
-Jenny Gutbezahl
P.S. I must've missed the news one day - what is all this going on with
Danny's daughter? I take it she had an abortion, or contemplated one, or
was given info on one by a Dr. who still believes in the first amendment.
Please advise.
Joe Francis
cool...@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
> On the other hand, the Washington Post. The NY Times. The MacNeil-
> Lehrer News Hour. Even sometimes the Boston Globe. Bill Moyers.
^^^^^^^^^^^^
> It's only the *respected* media that are liberal. Think about it.
Well, 4 out of 5 isn't bad.
Alex Bunker
>In article <o9r...@twilight.wpd.sgi.com>
>cool...@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
>
>> On the other hand, the Washington Post. The NY Times. The MacNeil-
>> Lehrer News Hour. Even sometimes the Boston Globe. Bill Moyers.
>> It's only the *respected* media that are liberal. Think about it.
>
>Well, 4 out of 5 isn't bad.
The Macneil Lehr news hour and NYT LIBERAL????!!!!!! now this is scary.
I did not know the USA was THAT right wing. These are what we in Canada
read/watch when we want to get a CONSERVATIVE perspective. The National/
Journal is a seachange to the left of the Macneil Lehr news hour and it
is considered middle of the road here. I wonder what You Americans near
the border think of the National/Journal ? Communist?
Harpers,The Nation,the New Village Voice These are what come to my mind
when I think of liberal american magazines.
ALEX
Frederick A. Ringwald
s520...@titan.ucc.umass.edu (s5202734) writes:
> Call me an ignorant liberal, but I'm afraid I, for one, have no
> idea what JDQ meant by family values. If it's what the republicans have
> been upholding so far, it seems to mean that the government will do
> ANYTHING for a child, until it is born.
Except provide ANY sort of prenatal care, short of making sure its
mother takes it to term (or has a miscarriage).
> Again, even if he's not that stupid, simply NOT being a dithering idiot
> does NOT make one a suitable vice president,
But it should be OBVIOUS to ANYONE that he is INDEED a dithering idiot.
If for some reason you can't be convinced by the six pages of vapid,
STUPID quotes, just look at the utterly EMPTY look in those beady
little eyes!
Michael Glass
> You have to admit that with all the negative press he gets, Dan
> Quayle hasn't become negative himself....
A sad fact about George Bush is that he is unable to speak more than
six consecutive sentences on ANY topic before he turns to criticizing
liberals, Democrats, or previous Democratic administrations.
George Bush's auto-blame mode is a ritual. It's formula is as fixed
as "now I lay me down to sleep." If Mr. Bush is toasting the consul
from, say, Iceland, on the occasion of the signing of a new tele-
communications protocol, he will be sure to fault the old treaty
signed thirty years ago by one of his Democratic predecessors. After
helicoptering over a volcano which swallowed up a major U.S. city, he
will complain that liberal Democrat leaders of Congress have stifled
his (heretofore nonexistant) plan to privatize Federal disaster
relief.
Liberals, such as myself, have difficulty listening to such language
from our president. We listen to the first few sentences of the
press conference--the relevant bit is never longer--and we switch it
off as soon as the Democrat-bashing starts. It's not the _content_
which is so irritating, it's that the man who holds the office of
President of the United States of America sees himself instead as
president of only one-half of the country, leading an us-and-them
battle against the other half.
Dan Quayle is the Spiro Agnew of this administration. George Bush's
attack starts at sentence number seven, Quayle's leads right off with
sentence number one. There is no relevant bit whatsoever.
I think the ritual aspect of our leaders' whines renders them
invisible to much of the public. We _expect_ them to say such
things, there are no new thoughts involved, and those who do not feel
directly attacked no longer notice.
Perhaps this explains how Cameron Kaszas can write the lunatic hokum
quoted above. To end on a comic note, I quote further from later in
his missive:
> I mean, really, JDQ doesn't look at all rattled for the pounding he
> has had to take for four years....
-- Michael Glass | Imagine a "smiley" here. That makes
gl...@adcalc.fnal.gov | everything O.K., doesn't it?
Joe Francis
gl...@devl.fnal.gov (Michael Glass) writes:
> A sad fact about George Bush is that he is unable to speak more than
> six consecutive sentences on ANY topic before he turns to criticizing
> liberals, Democrats, or previous Democratic administrations.
In my experience, this is just as true for Dan the Man. I saw him
tonight on C-Span. It's amazing how prominently Bill Clinton figured
into his answer to the question: "What are the President's plans for
U.S. involvement in the Yugoslovian crisis?" [This is paraphrased -
actually the reporter asked about the "Balkans", Dan misheard her as
saying the "Baltics", then corrected her by saying that the Baltics
were in Lithuania, etc - he missed a major opportunity to goof up here;
I was waiting for the Baltics to end up in Jersey somewhere. Of
course, maybe what this means is that he doesn't yet know about the
Balkans - after all, if someone asked you about old Yugoslovia, and you
heard them say something like "Balkans", would you assume they said
"Baltics"?]
Another prominent theme in Quayle's comments are "Well, I'm from
Indiana, a state where [farming/steel/etc] is very important. I've
worked closely with [farmers/steelworkers/etc] and
Pick one:
1) We're not going to have another Jimmy Carter grain embargo (Jimmy,
Jimmy Carter grain embargo, Jimmy Carter grain embargo, etc)
2) Bill Clinton wants to tax coal. That's going to put a lot of coal
miners out of work. [this was paired with steelworkers, above, in Dan's
comments today]
3) etc...
Joshua M. Sabloff
keeps .. Don Cool...@speaker.wpd (2834)
> Response to Urban Myth #1 - there is no such thing as the "Liberal Media".
> Take a close look. USA Today? The New Yourk Daily News? The San Francisco
> Examiner? The (heaven forbid!) Boston Herald-American (if that's what it
> still calls itself these days)? The Manchester Union Leader? TIME?
... The Wall Street Journal? Any Scripps-Howard paper? The list just
keeps going and going and going.
An interesting aside: I read an op-ed piece on the NY Times this
morning by an incredibly conservative democrat who is whining because
his anti-abortion stance is not "allowed" in the Democratic Party.
This, of course, isn't new, but (lemme relate this to JDQ.... :-) ) he
calls the whole pro-choice movement "anti-intellectual" and then
describes the movement as being made up of "highly educated"
suburbanites and other such descriptive terms (VERY much like JDQ's
"liberal elite"; the author just didn't use that exact word).
Dontcha just love conservatives? :-)
-Josh Sabloff (js...@andrew.cmu.edu)
"Research physicists need Porsches too!" -- Oliver Wendell Jones
Jim Puccio
> Take a close look. USA Today? The New Yourk Daily News? The San Francisco
> Examiner? The (heaven forbid!) Boston Herald-American (if that's what it
> still calls itself these days)? The Manchester Union Leader? TIME?
The Boston Herald, though still a lowbrow tabloid like the New York Post,
has been actively bashing away at Bush and Quayle in recent weeks. Some
of their stuff has been really entertaining. I find myself actually
purchasing this paper now, from time to time. Sometimes life holds
pleasant surprises.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| "He's not, like, smart. I'm not trying to bag in him or anything, but |
| he has the same mentality I have -- and I'm in the eighth grade." |
| -- A student in South Central LA, after Quayle's visit defending |
| his attack on "Murphy Brown." |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Don Coolidge
|> In article <1992Aug8.2...@dartvax.dartmouth.edu> Joe.F...@dartmouth.edu (Joe Francis) writes:
|> >In article <o9r...@twilight.wpd.sgi.com>
|> >cool...@speaker.wpd.sgi.com (Don Coolidge) writes:
|> >
|> >> On the other hand, the Washington Post. The NY Times. The MacNeil- ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >> Lehrer News Hour. Even sometimes the Boston Globe. Bill Moyers.
|> > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ ^^^^^^^^^^^^
|> >> It's only the *respected* media that are liberal. Think about it.
|> >
|> >Well, 4 out of 5 isn't bad.
|>
|> The Macneil Lehr news hour and NYT LIBERAL????!!!!!! now this is scary.
Well, comparatively speaking, they are. Which is to say, they're
occasionally capable of - though not always inclined to - taking
exception with the Holy Word from the White House. Why, I've even
heard David Gergen say nice things about Bill Clinton! Not too many,
mind you, but a few.
Actually, one could probably be more correct referring to them as
more open-minded than most other American newsmedia. Not totally
so, mind you, but moreso than the majority.
All of which reinforces your next statement...:^)
|> I did not know the USA was THAT right wing. These are what we in Canada
|> read/watch when we want to get a CONSERVATIVE perspective.
Yes, well, you can't expect us to have the same political perspective
as all you commie socialist expatriate monarchist hosers North of
The Border, now, can you? I mean, fer chrissakes, you even have
National Health! How's a good PAC-supporting doctor supposed to
extort enough money to buy the government he wants under such
barbarous circumstances? Really, you Canadians are entirely
UnAmerican (tm)!
:^) :^) :^)
|> The National/
|> Journal is a seachange to the left of the Macneil Lehr news hour and it
|> is considered middle of the road here. I wonder what You Americans near
|> the border think of the National/Journal ? Communist?
|> Harpers,The Nation,the New Village Voice These are what come to my mind
|> when I think of liberal american magazines.
|> ALEX
There aren't too many, are there? I wish there were more,
but the L-word has been coopted, redefined, and banished
to the deepest pits of hell by the real right-wingers,
while they continue to plunder and despoil what used to be
the richest nation in history...
Don Coolidge
cool...@speaker.wpd.sgi.com
Don Coolidge
Ahem. "...Even sometimes...". Paul Szep won a Pulitzer for
The Globe for his editorial cartoons. Their Watergate and
Pentagon Papers coverage was fair. And compare them with
the local competition, both for political slant and for
respectability...yeah, I sometimes call it "The Glob", too.
But I won't tell you what I call The Herald...:^)
Don Coolidge
cool...@speaker.wpd.sgi.com
Mitch Sako
>In article <1992Aug7.2...@medtron.medtronic.com>, ck1...@china.medtronic.com (Cameron Kaszas) writes:
>|> I can't think of
>|> too many people who are in the public eye (for example, members of
>|> Congress, celebities in Hollywood) that could take the day to day picture
>|> painted by the biased liberal media (which has a disproportionate
>|> amount of power totally out of step with the majority of people
>|> in this country) as well as he has.
>Response to Urban Myth #1 - there is no such thing as the "Liberal Media".
>Take a close look. USA Today? The New Yourk Daily News? The San Francisco
>Examiner? The (heaven forbid!) Boston Herald-American (if that's what it
>still calls itself these days)? The Manchester Union Leader? TIME?
>Or, Nightline w/Ted ? Brokaw? Rather?
>C'mon!
>On the other hand, the Washington Post. The NY Times. The MacNeil-
>Lehrer News Hour. Even sometimes the Boston Globe. Bill Moyers.
>It's not the (news)media in this country that is liberal. If you
>go by sales, circulation, income, influence, whatever, the vast
>majority of news providers in this country are conservative at best,
>and screaming reactionary sensationalists at worst.
>It's only the *respected* media that are liberal. Think about it.
You left out Capital Cities and General Electric, more stellar examples
of the liberal management that owns the TV networks.
---
Mitch Sako LSI Logic Corp. Phone 408-433-4187
internet: ms...@lsil.com FAX 408-433-8796
uucp: lsil!msako
RIME: ->REDBARON, conference=POLITICS
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed are mine and only mine
Mitch Sako
>Dan Quayle is the Spiro Agnew of this administration. George Bush's
>attack starts at sentence number seven, Quayle's leads right off with
>sentence number one. There is no relevant bit whatsoever.
Close, but there is a difference. Quayl can play a pretty good game of golf.
I know that. He came out here to California a few months back to play at
Pebble Beach. Air Force 2 was parked at San Jose Airport during that trip.
>
>I think the ritual aspect of our leaders' whines renders them
>invisible to much of the public. We _expect_ them to say such
>things, there are no new thoughts involved, and those who do not feel
>directly attacked no longer notice.
Bush's whining is getting a bit old, isn't it?
Tom Warner
>I can't think of
>too many people who are in the public eye (for example, members of
>Congress, celebities in Hollywood) that could take the day to day picture
>painted by the biased liberal media (which has a disproportionate
>amount of power totally out of step with the majority of people
>in this country) as well as he has.
Oh yes, the biased liberal media. Hence all the open debate leading up to
the Gulf War (I'm sure I saw at least one editorial against the war somewhere)
when obviously, at the time, 100% of the American people were for the war.
If the New York Times, Washington Post, L.A. Times are your idea of liberal,
I don't even want to know what your idea of conservative is. Yeeeeeech.
Tom Warner
4 out of 5?!?! Try one out of five (Bill Moyers). Just because the Washington
Post is the most aggressive doesn't make it the most liberal. *No* major
newspaper in America is "liberal." Some are just a little less conservative.
The NY Times, liberal?? McNeil-Lehrer, liberal??? McNeil-Lehrer's idea of
balance is a moderate democrat and a far-right conservative. Liberals,
if they appear on the show at all, are strictly antagonistic guests.
God, I'd sure hate to see your idea of conservative media!
dks
The only thing liberal about the U. S. mass media
is the appearance of the left wing on Julia Child's
cooking show. Watch closely or you'll miss it.
Dhanesh
Joe Francis
cor...@milton.u.washington.edu (Tom Warner) writes:
>>> On the other hand, the Washington Post. The NY Times. The MacNeil-
>>> Lehrer News Hour. Even sometimes the Boston Globe. Bill Moyers.
>> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
>>> It's only the *respected* media that are liberal. Think about it.
>>
>>Well, 4 out of 5 isn't bad.
> 4 out of 5?!?! Try one out of five (Bill Moyers). Just because the Washington
> Post is the most aggressive doesn't make it the most liberal. *No* major
> newspaper in America is "liberal." Some are just a little less conservative.
I never said anything about the "liberality" of these media sources.
The original poster, Don Coolidge, correctly surmised my meaning in his
reply.
eric smith
gl...@devl.fnal.gov (Michael Glass) writes:
>Liberals, such as myself, have difficulty listening to such language
>from our president. We listen to the first few sentences of the
>press conference--the relevant bit is never longer--and we switch it
>off as soon as the Democrat-bashing starts. It's not the _content_
>which is so irritating, it's that the man who holds the office of
>President of the United States of America sees himself instead as
>president of only one-half of the country, leading an us-and-them
>battle against the other half.
I think you've hit on the key to George Bush here. Listen to him on any
subject at any time and it's clear that the man regards every situation
as a battle and every issue as a battleground. He has no concept of a
"win-win" situation. He has no clue that he has a responsibility to the
entire country. He believes that every situation is one in which
someone's ass must get kicked. To me, this is attitude is incredible for
any person over the age of nine, let alone the President of the U.S.
-----
Eric Smith er...@sco.com er...@infoserv.com CI$: 70262,3610
DQ: "... I know who they are, they know who they are,
the American People [God Bless 'em!] know who they are."
Robin McNeil: "Yes, Mr. Vice President, but who are they, exactly?"
DQ: "Well, they know who they are, and the American People know who they are."
- Dan Quayle, on the "cultural elite"
QUOTE OF THE YEAR
>
>gl...@devl.fnal.gov (Michael Glass) writes:
>"win-win" situation. He has no clue that he has a responsibility to the
>entire country. He believes that every situation is one in which
>someone's ass must get kicked. To me, this is attitude is incredible for
>any person over the age of nine, let alone the President of the U.S.
>
Are you new to this country? Granted it's sad, but hardly suprising.
eric smith
gar...@Ingres.COM (QUOTE OF THE YEAR) writes:
>er...@sco.COM (eric smith) writes:
>>He has no concept of a
>>"win-win" situation. He has no clue that he has a responsibility to the
>>entire country. He believes that every situation is one in which
>>someone's ass must get kicked. To me, this is attitude is incredible for
>>any person over the age of nine, let alone the President of the U.S.
>Are you new to this country? Granted it's sad, but hardly suprising.
I have lived in this country for going on 42 years. I've also been employed
in the "private sector" that the Bush/Quayle ilk like to brag about for
over 15 years, and I have very rarely come across a person with this
kind of attitude. (I can think of one.) The great majority of people that
I have known in my personal and business connections recognize that the
best way to achieve success in any endeavor is also the way in which the
greatest number of people succeed.
-----
Eric Smith | "If a frog had wings, he wouldn't hit his tail
er...@sco.com | on the ground. 'If.' Too hypothetical."
er...@infoserv.com | - George Bush, on extending unemployment benefits
CI$: 70262,3610 |
