Re(2): Re(2): Armed Clown -- homegrown terrorists
curtis j. erickson
>You oughta meet some of the Militia/Armed Clown set out there.
>
>They really do believe that, and they're perfectly happy to
>straightface you with it, if you show the slightest predisposition
>towards it.
Me:
Oh, I have, I have. I know they're for real. But they're so.. well..
"cute" isn't exactly the word. But it's close.
-Curt
Dave Thompson
"curtis j. erickson" <curtis_j....@pmug.org> wrote in message
news:fc.003d09410165d1963b...@pmug.org...
Maybe the word you're looking for is addled?
curtis j. erickson
........
>right is the Majesty of Justice. The male is clad in only a cloth
>draped over his essential parts; the female wears a sort of toga-style
>garment, but one breast is entirely exposed. She's been fondly
>referred to for years by at least some as "Minnie Lou."
>
>And she's the one the photographers seek out. The most famous pictures
>of all were shot when former U.S. Attorney General Edwin Meese proudly
>released the final report of his commission on pornography. No one in
>the Great Hall that day could ever forget the spectacle of the still
>photographers writhing on the floor, flat on their backs, in order to
>grab the shot of Meese holding up the porn report with Minnie Lou's
>breast over his shoulder.
.......
Me:
But didn't you say the statues were put there during the Clinton Admin?
What was Ed Meese doing there releasing porno reports then?
Or did I misunderstand you?
-Curt
Bob Tiernan
Ben Langlotz wrote:
> (curtis j. erickson) wrote:
> > But didn't you say the statues were put there during
> > the Clinton Admin?
> My error, already acknowledged.
And Ben, like me, Don-Don, Shatzer (sometimes) etc, is among the
many here who admit to errors. Baxter of course is not among
them.
Bob T.
Baxter
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Bob Tiernan" <zu...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
news:Pine.BSO.4.33.020609...@shell.pacifier.com...
Really? Did I miss when you admitted you were wrong about the Alaska Fish
Guts? Have you admitted that women are human yet? What about your claims
about Schiff, Social Security, or Wiley Post and his airplane?
Bill Shatzer
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Baxter wrote:
> "Bob Tiernan" <zu...@pacifier.com> wrote in message
> > And Ben, like me, Don-Don, Shatzer (sometimes) etc, is among the
> > many here who admit to errors. Baxter of course is not among
> > them.
> Really? Did I miss when you admitted you were wrong about the Alaska Fish
> Guts?
You did. BT owned up on that one and, to be fair, he did
read it in a real-live genu-wine consurrrvative book.
What was so frustrating is that it took so -long- to convince
BT of his (and his book's) error when the story was so plainly
ridiculous on its face. I mean somethings should just set off the
ol' common sense meter, even one as poorly calibrated as BT's.
> Have you admitted that women are human yet? What about your claims
> about Schiff, Social Security, or Wiley Post and his airplane?
Don't think he's fessed up on any of those yet - although, to
be fair, the Wiley Post one is of sufficiently marginal importance
than BT would not be out of line in just dropping the issue.
A public mea culpa hardly seems required on an issue merely
mentioned in passing.
Peace and justice,
Bob Tiernan
On Sun, 9 Jun 2002, Bill Shatzer wrote:
[second-hand text]:
> > Have you admitted that women are human yet? What about your claims
> > about Schiff, Social Security, or Wiley Post and his airplane?
> Don't think he's fessed up on any of those yet - although, to be fair,
> the Wiley Post one is of sufficiently marginal importance than BT
> would not be out of line in just dropping the issue. A public mea
> culpa hardly seems required on an issue merely mentioned in passing.
These are saved in a file for replies that are not
done on the fly. Stay tuned.
BT
Bill Shatzer
> [second-hand text]:
OK, but you've my permission to drop the Wiley Post thing.
That truly is of marginal significance and of no particular
interest to anyone save, perhaps, you and I.
And even I am not all that interested in further discussion.
But, if you want to try to prove that Wiley -didn't- warm up his
engine, drop me an e-mail and I'll take a look. Public
discussion should probably be on rec.aviation.civil or
some similar group.
I can't imagine that or.politics folks give a rip.
Peace and justice,
curtis j. erickson
>No. There were D officials who gave conferences there *without* the
>biased media striving to get shots with the official and the breast in
>the same embarrassing picture, as they have for R administrations.
Me:
You're a Public Figure. You're delivering a Grave and Important Speech.
Why would a picture of you with a sculpture in the background be
embarrassing? Even if there was a breast on the sculpture?
-Curt
curtis j. erickson
>"Baxter" <baxter.s...@baxcode.com> wrote:
>
>>How much trouble can
>>one breast cause?
>
>If the biased media stopped using it as a tool to attempt to embarrass
>conservative officials, then this would not be needed.
Me:
What a waste. $8000 to cover up a breast, and then they put this huge dick
behind the podium..
-Curt
curtis j. erickson
>>conference in front of such art, this would not be needed.
>
>Fine. The leftist administration can use the most grand public
>spaces, but the Conservatives must pick second choices, since the
>biased news media will exploit the statues to embarrass them.
Me:
Or..the Conservatives could just face the fact that there's art in the
room, and not worry about it.
-Curt
Dave Thompson
ROTFLMBHAO!
Dave Thompson
Art, to a conservative like Ashcroft, is a velvet Jesus painting, a 6 foot
carved Eagle over the front door, or the portrait of a president on
currency.
Bob Tiernan
Bill Shatzer wrote:
> Bob Tiernan wrote:
> > Bill Shatzer wrote:
> > > Don't think he's fessed up on any of those yet - although,
> > > to be fair, the Wiley Post one is of sufficiently marginal
> > > importance than BT would not be out of line in just dropping
> > > the issue.
[snip]
> > These are saved in a file for replies that are not
> > done on the fly. Stay tuned.
> OK, but you've my permission to drop the Wiley Post thing.
>
> That truly is of marginal significance and of no particular
> interest to anyone save, perhaps, you and I.....
>
> But, if you want to try to prove that Wiley -didn't- warm
> up his engine, drop me an e-mail and I'll take a look.
What difference does it make? While Post was known to
give hsi engines little warmup time, there was no other
point being made that by me that relied on whether Post
warmed up his engine in Barrow or not (unlike the Collins
bogosity you insist on because you need to believe in
it in order to devalue the incredible claim that one
strategy didn't work (happen) because a different
strategy didn't wok earlier. Duh!
Bob T