Irony God Strikes Limbaugh
Kip Williams
Luckily, it's not something that will affect his ability to
not-listen to callers.
What's next? Clarence Thomas getting beat up by a racist? John
Ashcroft imprisoned without due process? Doug Gilmore hit for back
taxes?
Truly, we are living in interesting times.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at http://members.home.net/kipw/
"I was once falsely accused of perjury, and had to perjure myself to
avoid arrest." --Dashiell Hammett
Joshua Hesse
[snip]
Never will I accuse Kip of being a class act.
--
"I have also mastered pomposity, even if I do say so myself." -Kryten
UNL Anime Club: http://www.unl.edu/otaku
"I'd be proud to vote for tax increases... You bet I would." -Dick Gephardt
Mark Atwood
> The Rushmeister is going deaf. Partial sound in the right ear.
> Luckily, it's not something that will affect his ability to
> not-listen to callers.
> What's next? Clarence Thomas getting beat up by a racist? John
> Ashcroft imprisoned without due process? Doug Gilmore hit for back
> taxes?
Kip, thank you so very very much.
You just won me a bet, I get a free dinner from a friend of mine.
Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die* already?", but I cant
find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
liberal icons?
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Kip Williams
>
> Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> writes:
>
> > The Rushmeister is going deaf. Partial sound in the right ear.
> > Luckily, it's not something that will affect his ability to
> > not-listen to callers.
> > What's next? Clarence Thomas getting beat up by a racist? John
> > Ashcroft imprisoned without due process? Doug Gilmore hit for back
> > taxes?
>
> Kip, thank you so very very much.
>
> You just won me a bet, I get a free dinner from a friend of mine.
>
> Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
> like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die* already?", but I cant
> find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
> liberal icons?
I don't know. Where did I say that? Where did I wish death or
injury? You've apparently quoted my whole post. Where's the part
you're criticizing? I said "what's next" not "here's what I'm hoping
for."
But of course, we liberals always mean more than we say, and
perceptive souls like you always manage to prize out the most
deplorable things in what we don't say.
Did your friend see the post, or is he taking your word for it that
I'm sitting here, wishing death and worse on our society's real
heroes?
Kip Williams
>
> Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
> [snip]
>
> Never will I accuse Kip of being a class act.
I'll just exhale, then.
Janice Gelb
>
> Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> writes:
>
> > The Rushmeister is going deaf. Partial sound in the right ear.
> > Luckily, it's not something that will affect his ability to
> > not-listen to callers.
> > What's next? Clarence Thomas getting beat up by a racist? John
> > Ashcroft imprisoned without due process? Doug Gilmore hit for back
> > taxes?
>
>
> Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
> like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die* already?",
>
Kip didn't wish death or injury on anyone. The "What's next"
paragraph is clearly an extension of the irony of Rush Limbaugh
going deaf, not of any serious wish for these things to occur.
>
> but I cant
> find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
> liberal icons?
>
Where were you during the latter years of the Clinton administration,
asleep in a cave?
*******************************************************************
Janice Gelb | The only connection Sun has with
janic...@eng.sun.com | this message is the return address.
http://www.geocities.com/Area51/8018/index.html
"The first Halloween prank ever, played by a group of Druid
teenagers, was Stonehenge. (`HEY! You kids get those rocks
OFF my LAWN!')" -- Dave Barry
Kris Hasson-Jones
>
> Mark Atwood wrote:
> >
> > Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> writes:
> >
> > > The Rushmeister is going deaf. Partial sound in the right ear.
> > > Luckily, it's not something that will affect his ability to
> > > not-listen to callers.
> > > What's next? Clarence Thomas getting beat up by a racist?
> > > John Ashcroft imprisoned without due process? Doug Gilmore
> > > hit for back taxes?
> >
> > Kip, thank you so very very much.
> >
> > You just won me a bet, I get a free dinner from a friend of
> > mine.
> >
> > Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in
> > public things like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die*
> > already?", but I cant find mainstream conservatives who
> > publicly wish death and injury onto liberal icons?
>
> I don't know. Where did I say that? Where did I wish death or
> injury? You've apparently quoted my whole post. Where's the part
> you're criticizing? I said "what's next" not "here's what I'm
> hoping for."
I was talking with my husband about this over lunch (we both
work downtown, about 4 blocks apart).
Mark Atwood first decides that you, an individual posting to Usenet,
are functionally equivalent to "mainstream conservatives," an
undefined term with connotations of public figures (reporters or
official representatives of a conservative party), then draws a
false equivalency between ironic musings and death wishes.
He also overlooks the "mainstream conservatives" who have, in fact,
publicly advocated or wished for the death of the Clintons,
including their minor child.
Intentionally conflating terms this way is a propaganda tactic
that is sometimes successful, but to me it just makes the
user look insulting. Does he really think I can't tell the
difference?
--
Kris Hasson-Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Mark Atwood
> >
> > but I cant
> > find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
> > liberal icons?
>
> Where were you during the latter years of the Clinton administration,
> asleep in a cave?
No, I was reading the news?
Do you have any quotes or citations.
I will reiterate. Kip crowing about RushL going deaf would be about
as tasteless (in the alt.tasteless sense, not the "tacky" sense)
as someone here was to crow about me, or you, or Jordin, or Lucy,
or Pete, or Graydon, going blind and losing our hands.
Kip Williams
>
> jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com (Janice Gelb) writes:
> > >
> > > but I cant
> > > find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
> > > liberal icons?
> >
> > Where were you during the latter years of the Clinton administration,
> > asleep in a cave?
>
> No, I was reading the news?
> Do you have any quotes or citations.
>
> I will reiterate. Kip crowing about RushL going deaf would be about
> as tasteless (in the alt.tasteless sense, not the "tacky" sense)
> as someone here was to crow about me, or you, or Jordin, or Lucy,
> or Pete, or Graydon, going blind and losing our hands.
And you screaming obscenities at the Queen would get you a stern
look of reproof. Not that I'm saying you did it, of course.
Similarly, you responding to what was actually said would be
astonishing.
Huh huh; I said 'wood.'
Mark Atwood
> > injury? You've apparently quoted my whole post. Where's the part
> > you're criticizing? I said "what's next" not "here's what I'm
> > hoping for."
To take a hypothetical. Say, ferex, Jim Hightower[1] suddenly suffers
some crippling disability that will severely impact his ability to
fulfill his self-appointed political public role as a liberal pundit.
Then to further the hypothetical, say I was to make a post exactly
like yours, snerking about Mister Hightower's bad luck, and then
gleefully invoking the "what next"s of similar misfortune befalling
Ralph Nader and Senator Clinton.
I can tell you what would happen next. Half the newsgroup that read
my words would plonk me, dogpile me, or both.
But it's different when it's you and it's a conservative.
Do you disagree?
[1] I picked him because I read his rag.
Kip Williams
>
> > > I don't know. Where did I say that? Where did I wish death or
> > > injury? You've apparently quoted my whole post. Where's the part
> > > you're criticizing? I said "what's next" not "here's what I'm
> > > hoping for."
>
> To take a hypothetical. Say, ferex, Jim Hightower[1] suddenly suffers
> some crippling disability that will severely impact his ability to
> fulfill his self-appointed political public role as a liberal pundit.
>
> Then to further the hypothetical, say I was to make a post exactly
> like yours, snerking about Mister Hightower's bad luck, and then
> gleefully invoking the "what next"s of similar misfortune befalling
> Ralph Nader and Senator Clinton.
>
> I can tell you what would happen next. Half the newsgroup that read
> my words would plonk me, dogpile me, or both.
>
> But it's different when it's you and it's a conservative.
>
> Do you disagree?
>
> [1] I picked him because I read his rag.
I have a hard time picturing you putting it is mildly as I did. The
way I wrote it, it was open for you to read all that sneering into
it, but it wasn't in my words. I wrote it with some thought to how
others might react.
What sort of crippling disability are you pondering for Mr.
Hightower? Will it be something as symmetrical as the
one-who-doesn't-listen going deaf? Or someone who gets out of work
by claiming a sore foot getting his foot broken? Or someone who gets
out of a murder rap on a technicality being executed for a crime he
didn't commit? The liar lied to? The seducer seduced? Or just "I
hope a truck hits 'um, huh huh?"
We saw plenty of the latter during the last decade. You seemed
inclined to give it a pass then, or didn't notice. Your ears started
perking up when your ox got gored, didn't they?
I've never heard Jim Hightower make up far-fetched lies about the
opposing viewpoint and then laugh at his refutations of these
imaginary views. I've never seen him host 'comedy' sketches that
went over the line of decency in trashing unoffending relatives of
the President. So it's hard for me to see your scenario as valid in
this case.
Avedon Carol
>Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> writes:
>
>> The Rushmeister is going deaf. Partial sound in the right ear.
>> Luckily, it's not something that will affect his ability to
>> not-listen to callers.
>> What's next? Clarence Thomas getting beat up by a racist? John
>> Ashcroft imprisoned without due process? Doug Gilmore hit for back
>> taxes?
>
>Kip, thank you so very very much.
>
>You just won me a bet, I get a free dinner from a friend of mine.
>
>Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
>like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die* already?", but I cant
>find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
>liberal icons?
1. Who are these "mainstream conservatives" you speak of?
2. Even people who might wish a few Republicans would croak don't
actually try to facilitate it. Like, for example, suddenly voting to
restrict Secret Service protection for ex-presidents to a mere ten
years.
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
mike weber
>Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
>like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die* already?", but I cant
>find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
>liberal icons?
>
Because centrists and mainstream liberals haven't got loonies like The
Fat Man to say things like that *for* them on National Radio.
--
"Life's a game where they're bound to beat you, and time's a
trick they can turn to cheat you -- and we only waste it
anyway, that's the hell of it..." -- Paul Williams
<mike weber> kras...@mindspring.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Joshua Hesse
:He also overlooks the "mainstream conservatives" who have, in fact,
:publicly advocated or wished for the death of the Clintons,
:including their minor child.
Name names, please.
:Intentionally conflating terms this way is a propaganda tactic
:that is sometimes successful, but to me it just makes the
:user look insulting. Does he really think I can't tell the
:difference?
Hypocricy God strikes RASFF. Film at 11.
-Josh
Forrest
>But it's different when it's you and it's a conservative.
Shucks, things would be different if things were different.
Imagine if candy-coated-poison leftists were popular. Then they'd be
hated by the minority.
Wow. How would you get Alexander Cockburn to sit still for the
application of a candy coating?
"Well, it's another day in the useless life of George W. BuMRGFFFF!
MFFGL! NRRGHH!"
[thumping noises]
*dip* *spray*
"o/~ I feel pretty..."
("Beautiful! There's something special about the green ones!")
--
"Back off, man. I'm Beethoven." -- Beethoven
Joshua Hesse
:>Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
:>like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die* already?", but I cant
:>find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
:>liberal icons?
:1. Who are these "mainstream conservatives" you speak of?
He can't find them. Can't you read?
*I* can't find them. Who indeed are these so-called "mainstream
conservatives"? It would be national news, and we'd never hear the
end of it.
:"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
:their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
:joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Robert Parry? You accuse Limbaugh, et al, of making things up, and you
quote /Robert Parry/? Pshaw.
Free clue: Parry couldn't get invited to a holiday party even if people
knew who he was.
Joshua Hesse
: ...The Fat Man...
Come on, Mike, you're holding out on us.
Tell us what you *really* think.
-Josh (and you forgot "Public" between "National" and "Radio"...)
Kevin J. Maroney
wrote:
>2. Even people who might wish a few Republicans would croak don't
>actually try to facilitate it.
This is not an urban legend. My best friend in college was, for his
freshman semester, roommates with a conservative Christian named Mark.
(My friend was also Christian, but an anarcho-syndicalist one.) Mark
was a very decent, likable fellow; in fact, he loaned me money with no
explanation or expectation of return a few years later. Mark went to a
Campus Crusade for Christ meeting shortly after matriculation,
figuring that he would enjoy the company of other Christians. He did
not return to further meetings, however, after being asked to join in
a prayer for the speedy death of Supreme Court justices who would not
vote to overturn _Roe v. Wade_.
I never heard of a meeting of any other group at Duke which publically
beseeched God for the death of its political enemies. Perhaps I'm just
naive.
>Like, for example, suddenly voting to
>restrict Secret Service protection for ex-presidents to a mere ten
>years.
Is this referring to something I missed?
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Hal O'Brien
>
> Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
> like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die* already?", but I cant
> find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
> liberal icons?
So... Is the senior Senator from North Carolina a member of the
Republican mainstream? (Certainly we've seen many eulogies
proclaiming such this past year) Or have you forgotten Mr.
Helms' intimation that Mr. Clinton, then Commander-in-Chief,
shouldn't visit troops under his command based in North Carolina,
for fear of his life?
(Had I been President at the time, I'd've been at Ft. Bragg within
the day, asking my troops if they *believed* the chutzpah of a guy
who thought they were banana republic garrison soldiers instead of
the best fighting force the world had ever seen, soldiers in whom
I was very proud... But hey, that's just me.)
But, speaking as a conservative, I worry just a bit that this or
any other examples cited will be deemed by you to be "not
mainstream". A tactic which I don't think would reflect well on
conservatism.
-- Hal
--
They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little
temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. - B. Franklin
Mark Atwood
>
> (Had I been President at the time, I'd've been at Ft. Bragg within
> the day, asking my troops if they *believed* the chutzpah of a guy
> who thought they were banana republic garrison soldiers instead of
> the best fighting force the world had ever seen, soldiers in whom
> I was very proud... But hey, that's just me.)
That *is* the POTUS who dismissed his Marine guard...
I dont think he was *afraid* of them. But I often sometimes wonder
why he did.
Dan Kimmel
"mike weber" <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:3bc4f200.6715286@localhost...
> On 10 Oct 2001 12:03:40 -0700, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> typed
>
>
> >Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
> >like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die* already?", but I cant
> >find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
> >liberal icons?
> >
> Because centrists and mainstream liberals haven't got loonies like The
> Fat Man to say things like that *for* them on National Radio.
And let's not forget Pat Robertson *publicly* praying on TV that a hurricane
would strike Disney World when the park was open to a celebration keyed to
gays and lesbians.
Dan Kimmel
"Mark Atwood" <m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
news:m3sncrx...@flash.localdomain...
> jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com (Janice Gelb) writes:
> > >
> > > but I cant
> > > find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
> > > liberal icons?
> >
> > Where were you during the latter years of the Clinton administration,
> > asleep in a cave?
>
> No, I was reading the news?
> Do you have any quotes or citations.
>
We might start with Jesse Helms suggesting that it might be too dangerous
for then-President Clinton to visit American military installations in North
Carolina.
mike weber
typed
>mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> : ...The Fat Man...
>
>Come on, Mike, you're holding out on us.
>Tell us what you *really* think.
>
Okay -- the Fat Liar.
Documented.
Avedon Carol
wrote:
>
> :>Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
> :>like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die* already?", but I cant
> :>find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
> :>liberal icons?
>
> :1. Who are these "mainstream conservatives" you speak of?
>
>He can't find them. Can't you read?
>*I* can't find them. Who indeed are these so-called "mainstream
>conservatives"? It would be national news, and we'd never hear the
>end of it.
You misunderstand me. I'm asking who "mainstream conservatives" are.
What we see are a lot of wild-eyed right-wing nuts, and yes, they do
indeed openly wish for (and even encourage) death or other harm to
well-known liberals.
The only thing we "never hear the end of" these days are minor
missteps - or alleged missteps - by liberals (or alleged liberals), or
at least Democrats (anyone who thinks Gary Condit is a liberal is too
far out to talk to).
>Robert Parry? You accuse Limbaugh, et al, of making things up, and you
>quote /Robert Parry/? Pshaw.
>
>Free clue: Parry couldn't get invited to a holiday party even if people
>knew who he was.
Robert Parry is a good journalist. Good journalists have a lot of
trouble getting hired these days. Of course, in a world where people
actually believe the Fox News claim to be "fair and balanced", I'm not
surprised there are a lot of people who don't understand that.
--
Avedon
Jay Denebeim
Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>The only thing we "never hear the end of" these days are minor
>missteps - or alleged missteps - by liberals (or alleged liberals), or
>at least Democrats (anyone who thinks Gary Condit is a liberal is too
>far out to talk to).
Hey his penis still works therefore he must be liberal. Get with the
program *furrfu*.
Jay
--
* Jay Denebeim Moderator rec.arts.sf.tv.babylon5.moderated *
* newsgroup submission address: b5...@deepthot.org *
* moderator contact address: b5mod-...@deepthot.org *
* personal contact address: dene...@deepthot.org *
Arthur D. Hlavaty
weber) wrote:
>On 11 Oct 2001 02:55:43 GMT, Joshua Hesse <0009...@bigred.unl.edu>
>typed
>
>>mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>
>> : ...The Fat Man...
>>
>>Come on, Mike, you're holding out on us.
>>Tell us what you *really* think.
>>
>Okay -- the Fat Liar.
>
>Documented.
I have got to say that picking on Limbaugh for his fatness seems
pointless and annoying, especially when there are so many other flaws
(such as "liar") one can go after.
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
E-zine available on request
Marty Helgesen
>
>The Rushmeister is going deaf. Partial sound in the right ear.
>
>Luckily, it's not something that will affect his ability to
>not-listen to callers.
Whenever I've heard him he did listen to callers, and, as I mentioned
recently, his instructions to his call screener is to put people who
disagree with him on the top of the list and he frequently gives them
a lot of time, holding them over commercial breaks and even over news
breaks at the top of the hour.
Are you saying he misunderstands callers? Since everyone misunderstands
other people sometimes -- it even happens here -- that would imply a
claim that he does so frequently. I don't recall ever hearing him
misunderstand a caller, although it's conceivable that I did hear it
and didn't consider it a big thing. I have occasionally noticed him
misunderstanding public statements. Once I wrote him a letter about one
instance of him doing so and in a recent discussion I acknowledged his
misunderstanding of the attack on cell phones, which someone had mentioned,
and elaborated on it, saying that it bothered me.
Incidentally, anyone who would like to hear or read his broadcast
announcement of his hearing loss or read the press release he sent out
afterwards can do so at http://www.rushlimbaugh.com.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"It is so stupid of modern civilization to have given up
believing in the devil, when he is the only explanation of it."
R.A.K.
Help outlaw spam. For further information see http://www.cauce.org/
Michael J. Lowrey
> I have got to say that picking on Limbaugh for his fatness seems
> pointless and annoying, especially when there are so many other flaws
> (such as "liar") one can go after.
An excellent point. Such ad-hominem attacks weaken the
attacker's moral high ground; more to the point, they are
not ethical.
--
Orange Mike
not exactly svelte himself
mike weber
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> typed
We might then follow on with wossname's column suggesting we kill
Chewlsea Clinton merely because she is a Clinton and will continue the
taint.
mike weber
<oran...@uwm.edu> typed
>"Arthur D. Hlavaty" wrote:
>
>> I have got to say that picking on Limbaugh for his fatness seems
>> pointless and annoying, especially when there are so many other flaws
>> (such as "liar") one can go after.
>
>An excellent point. Such ad-hominem attacks weaken the
>attacker's moral high ground; more to the point, they are
>not ethical.
>
Sorry -- "The Fat Man" is how a lot of his fellow right-wing radical
radio loonies refer to him.
I thought it must be a right-wing compliment.
Michael J. Lowrey
>
> "Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> typed
> >"Arthur D. Hlavaty" wrote:
> >> I have got to say that picking on Limbaugh for his fatness seems
> >> pointless and annoying, especially when there are so many other flaws
> >> (such as "liar") one can go after.
> >
> >An excellent point. Such ad-hominem attacks weaken the
> >attacker's moral high ground; more to the point, they are
> >not ethical.
> >
> Sorry -- "The Fat Man" is how a lot of his fellow right-wing radical
> radio loonies refer to him.
>
> I thought it must be a right-wing compliment.
Maybeso, but I refuse to follow the lead of his fellow
right-wing radical radio loonies on this or anything else.
I was thinking of Al Franken's book, whose title is _ad
hominem_ at its most obnoxious, even if he is right.
--
Orange Mike
horizontally-challenged
Jo Walton
dene...@deepthot.org "Jay Denebeim" writes:
> Hey his penis still works therefore he must be liberal. Get with the
> program *furrfu*.
I know what "furrfu" means, but doesn't it look like a Kzinti epithet?
--
Jo J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk
I kissed a kif at Kefk
*THE KING'S PEACE* out now *THE KING'S NAME* out in November from Tor.
Sample Chapters, Map, Poems, & stuff at http://www.bluejo.demon.co.uk
Kip Williams
>
> In article <3BC38DCE...@home.com>, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> says:
> >
> >The Rushmeister is going deaf. Partial sound in the right ear.
> >
> >Luckily, it's not something that will affect his ability to
> >not-listen to callers.
>
> What is the basis of your claim that he does not listen to callers?
Hearing (from others, having had my fill of the man quite early on)
that he cuts people off, plays the sound of a flushing toilet and
then crows about it. Since this was entirely consistent with the
image I had formed of him from hearing him, seeing him, and so
forth.
By the way, today's word is that his hearing loss may be treatable,
at least partly.
Arthur D. Hlavaty
Exactly. I never got past the fat jokes in the early part of the book.
You're down at the level where the pig likes it.
Joshua Hesse
:Hearing (from others, having had my fill of the man quite early on)
:that he cuts people off, plays the sound of a flushing toilet and
:then crows about it. Since this was entirely consistent with the
:image I had formed of him from hearing him, seeing him, and so
:forth.
In my analysis, he cuts people far less than 'moderate/liberal'
Jim Bohannon or 'aliens-kidnapped-bigfoot' Art Bell. (and far far
less than Art Bell's stand in, Ian Punnet.)
I have _never_ heard the flushing toilet sound you speak of, but it
sounds like his infamous 'caller abortions' that he did for
two weeks back in 1989. (It seemed to be... uncomfortable for some listeners..)
(Rush discusses this in "The Way Things Ought To Be". Here is a site that
ripped most of the text from his book on that:
http://www.knightsite.com/kc9496/unborn10.htm
-Josh
Dave Locke
> Michael J. Lowrey wrote:
>> I was thinking of Al Franken's book, whose title is _ad hominem_
>> at its most obnoxious, even if he is right.
>
> Exactly. I never got past the fat jokes in the early part of the
> book. You're down at the level where the pig likes it.
That's unfortunate. It's really quite an excellent book. It
carries facts but meanders in undisciplined fashion through irony,
farce, black humor, slapstick until, finally, you realize that the
real humor isn't at the edges after all. It's at the center, and
its name is Rush Limbaugh.
I read it not long after it came out. What remains with me the most
is the section on what kind of a circus it is for the people whose
job is to do fact-checking on Limbaugh's numerous and almost
invariably wrong statements.
It's a tour de force, and it's unfortunate you got put off by the
early material.
--
Dave Locke | dave...@fan.com | "Now I don't agree with Al Franken
that Rush Limbaugh is a big, fat idiot. He is merely a morally
impoverished ignoramus. A little learning is indeed a dangerous
thing. Limbaugh is increasingly becoming a living warning to young
kids of the perils of dropping out of college."
-- Arianna Huffington, April 24, 1997
Kip Williams
>
> Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
>
> :Hearing (from others, having had my fill of the man quite early on)
> :that he cuts people off, plays the sound of a flushing toilet and
> :then crows about it. Since this was entirely consistent with the
> :image I had formed of him from hearing him, seeing him, and so
> :forth.
>
> In my analysis, he cuts people far less than 'moderate/liberal'
> Jim Bohannon or 'aliens-kidnapped-bigfoot' Art Bell. (and far far
> less than Art Bell's stand in, Ian Punnet.)
> I have _never_ heard the flushing toilet sound you speak of, but it
> sounds like his infamous 'caller abortions' that he did for
> two weeks back in 1989. (It seemed to be... uncomfortable for some listeners..)
It sounds as if you are better acquainted with the principals than I
am, so your impressions are probably more accurate than mine.
mumblemumble ("What's that, Kip?") I said, Thank you.
Lucy Kemnitzer
wrote:
>In article <9q4fj2$6id$4...@dent.deepthot.org>
> dene...@deepthot.org "Jay Denebeim" writes:
>
>> Hey his penis still works therefore he must be liberal. Get with the
>> program *furrfu*.
>
>I know what "furrfu" means, but doesn't it look like a Kzinti epithet?
>
I don't knoiw what furrfu means.
It looks cute.
Lucy Kemnitzer
Marilee J. Layman
<hla...@panix.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 11:18:26 GMT, kras...@mindspring.com (mike
>weber) wrote:
>
>>On 11 Oct 2001 02:55:43 GMT, Joshua Hesse <0009...@bigred.unl.edu>
>>typed
>>
>>>mike weber <kras...@mindspring.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> : ...The Fat Man...
>>>
>>>Come on, Mike, you're holding out on us.
>>>Tell us what you *really* think.
>>>
>>Okay -- the Fat Liar.
>>
>>Documented.
>
>I have got to say that picking on Limbaugh for his fatness seems
>pointless and annoying, especially when there are so many other flaws
>(such as "liar") one can go after.
Well, and he lost a lot of weight a couple years ago, too, so he's no
longer fat.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Josh Kaderlan
Try ROT-13'ing it.
-Josh
Pete McCutchen
weber) wrote:
>On 10 Oct 2001 12:03:40 -0700, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> typed
>
>
>>Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
>>like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die* already?", but I cant
>>find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
>>liberal icons?
>>
>Because centrists and mainstream liberals haven't got loonies like The
>Fat Man to say things like that *for* them on National Radio.
Did the Fat Man wish death on Justices Brennan or Marshall?
Honestly, I don't deny that there are mean-spirited people across the
political spectrum, but, while he's often opinionated and sometimes
obnoxious, Rush Limbaugh isn't particularly mean, in general. No
doubt he's said a couple of mean things in his life, but, in general,
that's not his style.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>2. Even people who might wish a few Republicans would croak don't
>actually try to facilitate it. Like, for example, suddenly voting to
>restrict Secret Service protection for ex-presidents to a mere ten
>years.
If my count is correct, there are five living ex-presidents: Ford,
Carter, Reagan, Bush 41, and Clinton. Three of them are Republicans.
A bill which restricted secret service protection to ten years, if
passed today, would immediately expose two Republican ex-Presidents
and one Democratic ex-President. Bush 41 would be exposed in about a
year, though I don't honestly know if parents of Presidents get Secret
Service protection. I suspect not, but if he did, I guess he'd get
protection until W. is out of office. Clinton would still have
protection until 2011.
If this is some sort of nefarious Republican plot to get Democratic
ex-Presidents assassinated, it's sure not a very good one.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>He also overlooks the "mainstream conservatives" who have, in fact,
>publicly advocated or wished for the death of the Clintons,
>including their minor child.
If "mainstream conservatives" did that -- and I don't know that they
did, but that's not really particularly relevant -- they were wrong to
do so. Particularly with respect to Chelsae, who was, as you say, a
minor child.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
wrote:
>In article <sb4bstgofjocsigh5...@4ax.com>,
>Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>The only thing we "never hear the end of" these days are minor
>>missteps - or alleged missteps - by liberals (or alleged liberals), or
>>at least Democrats (anyone who thinks Gary Condit is a liberal is too
>>far out to talk to).
>
>Hey his penis still works therefore he must be liberal. Get with the
>program *furrfu*.
Bob Dole's penis still works, at least with a bit of pharmaceutical
assistance. Does that make him a liberal?
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>>I have got to say that picking on Limbaugh for his fatness seems
>>pointless and annoying, especially when there are so many other flaws
>>(such as "liar") one can go after.
>
>Well, and he lost a lot of weight a couple years ago, too, so he's no
>longer fat.
If it makes Mike and Kip feel better, his medication is apparently
causing him to gain weight, again. So he may well become fat again.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> Because centrists and mainstream liberals haven't got loonies like The
>> Fat Man to say things like that *for* them on National Radio.
>
>And let's not forget Pat Robertson *publicly* praying on TV that a hurricane
>would strike Disney World when the park was open to a celebration keyed to
>gays and lesbians.
Yes, that was idiotic. Particularly since anybody who wants to can
attend Disney World on any day they want, and "gay days" aren't
actually sponsored by the park.
Though, I have to say that, as a coaster enthusiast, I'd much rather
have the hurricane hit Disney World than Universal Studios Islands of
Adventure or Busch Gardens.
--
Pete McCutchen
Pete McCutchen
weber) wrote:
>>We might start with Jesse Helms suggesting that it might be too dangerous
>>for then-President Clinton to visit American military installations in North
>>Carolina.
>>
>We might then follow on with wossname's column suggesting we kill
>Chewlsea Clinton merely because she is a Clinton and will continue the
>taint.
John Derbyshire. And that column was, indeed, objectionable.
--
Pete McCutchen
Rick Keir
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
It was published by the National Review -- how much more mainstream
conservative can you get?
Rick Keir
wrote:
> That *is* the POTUS who dismissed his Marine guard...
>
> I dont think he was *afraid* of them. But I often sometimes wonder
> why he did.
Perhaps, having been elected with a comfortable majority twice,
and being wildly popular with the people of his country, he was
comfortable without guards around him, unlike some people who, as
you know Bob, did not actually win the election to the office
they are occupying.
Matthew G. Saroff
>John Derbyshire. And that column was, indeed, objectionable.
hatred that in a just world would have required them to exit the
human race, "That's it, out of the gene pool."
It was also plain unAmerican, which shouldn't bother
Derbyshire, a Brit, but should concern his editors.
--
--Matthew Saroff
_____ * For a succesful technology, *
/ o o \ * reality must take precedence over *
______|_____|_____ * public relations, for Nature *
uuu U uuu * cannot be fooled." *
* - Richard P. Feynman *
Mark Atwood
>
> Particularly since anybody who wants to can
> attend Disney World on any day they want, and "gay days" aren't
> actually sponsored by the park.
I used to work for a regional amusement park. And they did, indeed,
have a "Gay Day". Which wasn't sponsored by the park. In fact, the
park management didn't know what day "Gay Day" was going to be until
it actually happened.
It was "organized" by the local Stonewall Center, who would act as an
umbrella to dozen smaller orgs who would each reserve a pavilion and
block of day passes under an array of innocuous names.
The park's owners *loved* Gay Day, because it resulted in having
several hundred well-mannered guests who had money and were willing to
spend it, and they apprecated being kept "out of the loop", because it
gave them a measure of useful plausable denyability that meant that by
the local Reverand Phelps types could scramble out to protest and make
a scene, the "damage" was done and the day was over.
As employees, we were given the understanding that one homophobic
remark, action, or snub; and we would be out on our ass, and without
the season bonus either.
This was in the mid 80s. In Utah.
--
Mark Atwood | I'm wearing black only until I find something darker.
m...@pobox.com | http://www.pobox.com/~mra
Mark Atwood
>
> Perhaps, having been elected with a comfortable majority twice,
> and being wildly popular with the people of his country, he was
> comfortable without guards around him, unlike some people who, as
> you know Bob, did not actually win the election to the office
> they are occupying.
Like Bush I? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? etc etc etc.
I find your post almost as idiocly insulting as as the original
"Clinton better not come to North Carolina" thing.
Mark Atwood
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> >John Derbyshire. And that column was, indeed, objectionable.
> No his column was repugnant. It reflects a depth of
> hatred that in a just world would have required them to exit the
> human race, "That's it, out of the gene pool."
> It was also plain unAmerican, which shouldn't bother
> Derbyshire, a Brit, but should concern his editors.
Has he been allowed any column inches without a leash since?
Avram Grumer
rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu (Rick Keir) wrote:
Except there were a bunch of attempts on Clinton's life in his first
term, weren't there? I remember some guy with a gun, and wasn't there a
small plane that crashed into the White House?
--
Avram Grumer | av...@grumer.org | http://www.PigsAndFishes.org
Vs lbh pna ernq guvf, lbh'er va ivbyngvba bs gur Qvtvgny Zvyyraavhz
Pbclevtug Npg.
Bob Webber
> Joshua Hesse wrote:
>>
>> Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> wrote:
>>
>> :Hearing (from others, having had my fill of the man quite early on)
>> :that he cuts people off, plays the sound of a flushing toilet and
>> :then crows about it. Since this was entirely consistent with the
>> :image I had formed of him from hearing him, seeing him, and so
>> :forth.
>>
>> In my analysis, he cuts people far less than 'moderate/liberal'
>> Jim Bohannon or 'aliens-kidnapped-bigfoot' Art Bell. (and far far
>> less than Art Bell's stand in, Ian Punnet.)
>> I have _never_ heard the flushing toilet sound you speak of, but it
>> sounds like his infamous 'caller abortions' that he did for
>> two weeks back in 1989. (It seemed to be... uncomfortable for some listeners..)
> It sounds as if you are better acquainted with the principals than I
> am, so your impressions are probably more accurate than mine.
> mumblemumble ("What's that, Kip?") I said, Thank you.
That's, "Thank you, SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER," as you well know.
--
They say that Heaven is like TV: a perfect little world that doesn't
really need you.
-- Laurie Anderson
mike weber
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> typed
Actually, i have so carefully avoided anything to do with Limbaugh
that i neither knew that he had lost weight, nor that he was gaining
it back. ((I prolly weigh more than he does))
OTOH, i had heard another right-wing type refer to him by that term
withing the year.
--
"Life's a game where they're bound to beat you, and time's a
trick they can turn to cheat you -- and we only waste it
anyway, that's the hell of it..." -- Paul Williams
<mike weber> kras...@mindspring.com>
Book Reviews & More -- http://electronictiger.com
Avedon Carol
<MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
>In article <3BC38DCE...@home.com>, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> says:
>>
>>The Rushmeister is going deaf. Partial sound in the right ear.
>>
>>Luckily, it's not something that will affect his ability to
>>not-listen to callers.
>
>What is the basis of your claim that he does not listen to callers?
>Whenever I've heard him he did listen to callers, and, as I mentioned
>recently, his instructions to his call screener is to put people who
>disagree with him on the top of the list and he frequently gives them
>a lot of time, holding them over commercial breaks and even over news
>breaks at the top of the hour.
If you read the liberal boards at all, you'll find lots of people
discovered that the mere admission that they intended to disagree with
Rush kept them off the air.
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Dan Kimmel
"Pete McCutchen" <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote in message
news:oht9st8kohitcmf15...@4ax.com...
I'm sorry, but I have to ask: what alternate universe are you writing from?
In this one, Limbaugh has raged and insulted everyone who dares deviate from
the party line. You might start by asking the nearest "Feminazi" [sic]
if they think "Limbaugh isn't particularly mean."
Dan Kimmel
Given that commercial where he's drooling over Brittney Spears, I'd say it
makes him a dirty old man.
Dan Kimmel
"Avram Grumer" <av...@grumer.org> wrote in message
news:avram-AB2112....@news1.panix.com...
> In article <rdkeir-1110...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
> rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu (Rick Keir) wrote:
>
> > In article <m3k7y21...@flash.localdomain>, Mark Atwood
<m...@pobox.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > > That *is* the POTUS who dismissed his Marine guard...
> > >
> > > I dont think he was *afraid* of them. But I often sometimes wonder
> > > why he did.
> >
> > Perhaps, having been elected with a comfortable majority twice, and
> > being wildly popular with the people of his country, he was
> > comfortable without guards around him, unlike some people who, as you
> > know Bob, did not actually win the election to the office they are
> > occupying.
>
> Except there were a bunch of attempts on Clinton's life in his first
> term, weren't there? I remember some guy with a gun, and wasn't there a
> small plane that crashed into the White House?
There were no credible threats on his life. Clinton wasn't anywhere near
either loon. It's not like the actual attempts against Ford (twice) and
Reagan.
Dan Kimmel
I look forward to Robertson (and Falwell) being treated like the pariahs
they are, rather than watch rightwing politicians seek their blessings.
John McCain dared to criticize them and it cost him the North Carolina
primary and the nomination.
It's interesting that when Falwell and Robertson blamed the attacks on the
ACLU, People for the American Way, gays and lesbians, and people who are
pro-choice, the most Bush could do was call the remarks "inappropriate."
When Ariel Sharon noted that Israel was not going to be sacrificed to the
Arabs the way Czechoslovakia was carved up and handed to the Nazis, Bush
called *those* remarks "unacceptable." The hate spewed by Falwell,
Robertson -- yes, and Limbaugh -- is still largely *acceptable* the
mainstream conservatives.
Cally Soukup
> In my analysis, he cuts people far less than 'moderate/liberal'
> Jim Bohannon or 'aliens-kidnapped-bigfoot' Art Bell. (and far far
> less than Art Bell's stand in, Ian Punnet.)
Good lord. Ian Punnet? I remember when he was on WGN for a year or
two about five years back. He wasn't a frothing idiot then, though he
really wasn't entirely my cup of tea. I wonder what happened?
--
"I may disagree with what you have to say, but I will defend
to the death your right to say it." -- Beatrice Hall
Cally Soukup sou...@pobox.com
Kip Williams
>
> rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu (Rick Keir) writes:
> >
> > Perhaps, having been elected with a comfortable majority twice,
> > and being wildly popular with the people of his country, he was
> > comfortable without guards around him, unlike some people who, as
> > you know Bob, did not actually win the election to the office
> > they are occupying.
>
> Like Bush I? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? etc etc etc.
Note the use of the present tense in the sentence to which you are
responding.
--
--Kip (Williams) ...at http://members.home.net/kipw/
"I was once falsely accused of perjury, and had to perjure myself to
avoid arrest." --Dashiell Hammett
Kip Williams
>
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 12:34:46 EDT, Marty Helgesen
> <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote:
>
> >In article <3BC38DCE...@home.com>, Kip Williams <ki...@home.com> says:
> >>
> >>The Rushmeister is going deaf. Partial sound in the right ear.
> >>
> >>Luckily, it's not something that will affect his ability to
> >>not-listen to callers.
> >
> >What is the basis of your claim that he does not listen to callers?
> >Whenever I've heard him he did listen to callers, and, as I mentioned
> >recently, his instructions to his call screener is to put people who
> >disagree with him on the top of the list and he frequently gives them
> >a lot of time, holding them over commercial breaks and even over news
> >breaks at the top of the hour.
>
> If you read the liberal boards at all, you'll find lots of people
> discovered that the mere admission that they intended to disagree with
> Rush kept them off the air.
I'm sure he was happy to talk with any liberals who were
inarticulate, easily upset, or who started with a mistaken fact.
(-"Haw haw haw; is that the best you guys can offer?"-)
Marty Helgesen
>
>On 10 Oct 2001 12:03:40 -0700, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com> typed
>
>>Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
>>like "why dont Helms and Thurgood just *die* already?", but I cant
>>find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
>>liberal icons?
>>
>Fat Man to say things like that *for* them on National Radio.
eggs and butter and he dies early like many black men do, of heart
disease. Well, that's how I feel. He is an absolutely reprehensible
person." -- Julianne Malveaux, USA Today columnist and Pacifica
Radio talk show host, discussing Supreme Court Justice Clarence
Thomas on the PBS program To the Contrary on November 4, 1994.
"Maybe we need to reopen Pennsylvania Avenue." - Rep. Sherrod Brown
(D-Ohio), in response to President Clinton's balanced budget proposal
in June 1995. Brown later issued a statement saying it was "inappro-
priate" and "meant as a joke." You will recall that Pennsylvania
Avenue was closed to prevent terrorists from getting a truck bomb
close to the White House, which was the point of Rep. Brown's merry
jape.
In December, 1998, while the impeachment of President Clinton was
being debated, Alec Baldwin appeared on Late Night with Conan O'Bri-
en. Here is an account of the appearance:
On the December 11 NBC show host Conan O'Brien wrapped up his
interview with Baldwin by asking Baldwin about Clinton's plight.
Baldwin answers but as he proceeds his voice rises as he jumps up
from his chair and is screaming and flailing his arms by the time
he's finished. Cutting to the punch line, O'Brien then jumps up and
puts an air mask over Baldwin's mouth to calm him down. Funny politi-
cal satire or, even if meant in jest, mean-spirited and violence-
inciting words that would be condemned if uttered by a conservative?
Here's the exchange as transcribed by MRC news analyst Paul
Smith.
Conan O'Brien: "Before we leave, I gotta ask you. It's no secret
that you are very political. You are a very political person. It's
no secret that you have actually had some associations with the Clin-
tons. That you're a liberal man and I thought you know today, this is
a historic day and you're one of the most politically active
actors out there. What do you think?"
Alec Baldwin: "I was in Africa. I go to Africa. I mean ladies
and gentlemen I am in Africa. For three months I am in the bush and I
come back. I come back here and I come back to what? I mean what is
happening right now as we speak? Right now the Judiciary Committee,
the President has an approval rating of 68 percent. The President is
very popular and things are going pretty good and they are voting to
impeach the President. They voted on one article of impeachment
already. And I come back from Africa to stained dresses and cigars
and this and impeachment. I am thinking to myself in other countries
they are laughing at us twenty four hours a day and I'm thinking to
myself if we were in other countries, we would all right now, all of
us together, <starts to shout> all of us together would go down to
Washington and we would stone Henry Hyde to death! We would stone him
to death! <crowd cheers> Wait! Shut up! Shut up! No shut up! I'm not
finished. We would stone Henry Hyde to death and we would go to their
homes and we'd kill their wives and their children. We would kill
their families. <stands up screaming> What is happening in this
country? What is happening? UGHHH UGHHH!!!!"
Now, in your mind substitute the name Al Gore or Hillary Clinton
for Henry Hyde and the name of a conservative for Baldwin. What kind
of reaction would the media establishment be expressing?
To see this exchange, go to the MRC home page where MRC Webmas-
ter Sean Henry has posted a RealPlayer clip of what is transcribed
above. Unfortunately, we taped the show on a bad VCR so, Sean re-
ports, the sound level is rather low but if you turn your volume way
up you should be able to hear it. After all, Baldwin is yelling.
--Brent Baker
http://www.mediaresearch.org/news/cyberalert/1998/cyb19981215.html#5
has the link to the RealPlayer clip of Baldwin's remarks.
Incidentally, the taunt, "The Fat Man", is out of date. He's been on
a diet for several years and has lost weight. I heard a few minutes
of his program on the web Thursday when he was talking about his
hearing loss and the treatment he's receiving and he mentioned that
he had lost 120-130 pounds over the last several years. Some years
ago, possibly before I discovered RASFF, I glanced occasionally at
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, and even posted there a few times. Anti-Rush
posters frequently used terms such as "The Rotund One" or "The Obese
One" to refer to him. I used to reflect that that was what the
politically correct call "sizism" and that if a conservative referred
to a liberal "person of size" (?) with terms like that he would be
roundly denounced for this irrelevant ad hominem argument.
-------
Marty Helgesen
Bitnet: mnhcc@cunyvm Internet: mn...@cunyvm.cuny.edu
"It is so stupid of modern civilization to have given up
believing in the devil, when he is the only explanation of it."
R.A.K.
Help outlaw spam. For further information see http://www.cauce.org/
Marty Helgesen
>
>"Mark Atwood" <m...@pobox.com> wrote in message
>news:m3sncrx...@flash.localdomain...
>> jan...@marvin.eng.sun.com (Janice Gelb) writes:
>> > >
>> > > but I cant
>> > > find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
>> > > liberal icons?
>> >
>> > asleep in a cave?
>>
>> No, I was reading the news?
>> Do you have any quotes or citations.
>>
>
>We might start with Jesse Helms suggesting that it might be too dangerous
>for then-President Clinton to visit American military installations in North
>Carolina.
News and Observer in November, 1994 he said that Clinton was so
unpopular that "he'd better have a bodyguard" if he visited military
bases in North Carolina. When I first read the remark I recognized
it was hyperbole. Everyone knows that the President has a Secret
Service bodyguard wherever he goes.
After politicians and the media made a big thing of it, Mike Yopp,
the paper's deputy managing editor, said, "Our reporter, Jim Rosen,
having some knowledge of Helms and how he expresses himself, didn't
really attach the same importance to the quote as was seized on
afterward."
Helms issued a statement saying he made a mistake is saying what he
did. He also said, "In an informal telephone interview with a local
reporter, I made an offhand remark in an attempt to emphasize how
strongly the American people feel about the nation's declining de-
fense capability and other issues in which the president has been
involved and for which he is responsible. Of course, I did not
expect to be taken literally when, to emphasize the constant concerns
I am hearing, I far too casually suggested that the president might
need a bodyguard or words to that effect."
However, Democratic politicians and their allies in the media chose
to make a big thing out of it, and even to claim that Helms was
making a threat against the President, which was even more obviously
nonsense. If we took his words literally, which everyone should have
recognized immediately was not his intention, they would be a warn-
ing, not a threat. However, the fabricated legend lives on. By way
of contrast, when then Senator Al Gore told an offensive joke in a
speech, saying that the Secret Service had orders that if then Presi-
dent Bush were killed they were to shoot Vice President Quayle, it
was mentioned briefly in the media and dropped completely.
Andrew Plotkin
> On Thu, 11 Oct 2001 17:47:21 GMT, J...@bluejo.demon.co.uk (Jo Walton)
> wrote:
>>
>>I know what "furrfu" means, but doesn't it look like a Kzinti epithet?
>
> I don't knoiw what furrfu means.
Rot13 for "Sheesh!"
> It looks cute.
Further, deponent knoweth not what "deponent" means.
--Z
"And Aholibamah bare Jeush, and Jaalam, and Korah: these were the borogoves..."
*
* Make your vote count. Get your vote counted.
Kris Hasson-Jones
into the river and bubbled:
>Matthew G. Saroff <msa...@pobox.com> writes:
>> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >John Derbyshire. And that column was, indeed, objectionable.
>> No his column was repugnant. It reflects a depth of
>> hatred that in a just world would have required them to exit the
>> human race, "That's it, out of the gene pool."
>> It was also plain unAmerican, which shouldn't bother
>> Derbyshire, a Brit, but should concern his editors.
>
>Has he been allowed any column inches without a leash since?
Irrelevant--he wasn't edited in the first place. The entire piece
should have been pulled before publication.
--
Kris Hasson Jones sni...@pacifier.com
Dan Kimmel
"Marty Helgesen" <MN...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU> wrote in message
news:01285.09...@CUNYVM.CUNY.EDU...
Translation: "Our reporter, knowing Helms had nothing but contempt for the
president, thought that threatening his life was simply par for the course."
The rationalizations get more and more bizarre.
> Helms issued a statement saying he made a mistake is saying what he
> did. He also said, "In an informal telephone interview with a local
> reporter, I made an offhand remark in an attempt to emphasize how
> strongly the American people feel about the nation's declining de-
> fense capability and other issues in which the president has been
> involved and for which he is responsible. Of course, I did not
> expect to be taken literally when, to emphasize the constant concerns
> I am hearing, I far too casually suggested that the president might
> need a bodyguard or words to that effect."
And Dick Armey "misspoke" when he referred to my congressman as "Barney
Fag."
> However, Democratic politicians and their allies in the media chose
> to make a big thing out of it, and even to claim that Helms was
> making a threat against the President, which was even more obviously
> nonsense. If we took his words literally, which everyone should have
> recognized immediately was not his intention, they would be a warn-
> ing, not a threat. However, the fabricated legend lives on. By way
> of contrast, when then Senator Al Gore told an offensive joke in a
> speech, saying that the Secret Service had orders that if then Presi-
> dent Bush were killed they were to shoot Vice President Quayle, it
> was mentioned briefly in the media and dropped completely.
And when Jerry Falwell said that the World Trade Center bombings were the
fault of the ACLU, gays and lesbians, People for the American Way, and
people who are pro-choice, he claimed he was quoted out of context.
There's plenty of idiocy to go around, but the rightwingers just can't see
it on their side.
Mark Atwood
>
> Except there were a bunch of attempts on Clinton's life in his first
> term, weren't there? I remember some guy with a gun, and wasn't there a
> small plane that crashed into the White House?
One of the interesting infobits I learned a few years ago, is that
there is a serious credible threat to the POTUS's life about once a
month. Typically what it is is someone who makes it almost to the
inner cordon of bodyguards with a loaded handgun.
Most of the time, you never hear about them.
(Also, apparently, it doesn't stop with the POTUS becomes an
ex-POTUS. It just slows down to about once a year.)
I somehow doubt that the frequency of attempted assassinations changes
with the political party of the President.
Mark Atwood
>
> That's, "Thank you, SIR, MAY I HAVE ANOTHER," as you well know.
Uh oh. He's seen thru the Vast Conservative Conspiracy!
Arthur D. Hlavaty
<p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>On 11 Oct 2001 15:58:26 GMT, dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim)
>wrote:
>
>>In article <sb4bstgofjocsigh5...@4ax.com>,
>>Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>The only thing we "never hear the end of" these days are minor
>>>missteps - or alleged missteps - by liberals (or alleged liberals), or
>>>at least Democrats (anyone who thinks Gary Condit is a liberal is too
>>>far out to talk to).
>>
>>Hey his penis still works therefore he must be liberal. Get with the
>>program *furrfu*.
>
>Bob Dole's penis still works, at least with a bit of pharmaceutical
>assistance. Does that make him a liberal?
Maybe there's something in the little fine-print thing that comes with
Viagra: May cause sleeplessness, heart palpitations, and a desire to
increase the Welfare budget.
--
Arthur D.Hlavaty hla...@panix.com
Church of the SuperGenius in Wile E. we trust
E-zine available on request
Rick Keir
wrote:
> rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu (Rick Keir) writes:
> >
> > Perhaps, having been elected with a comfortable majority twice,
> > and being wildly popular with the people of his country, he was
> > comfortable without guards around him, unlike some people who, as
> > you know Bob, did not actually win the election to the office
> > they are occupying.
>
> Like Bush I? Reagan? Carter? Ford? Nixon? etc etc etc.
>
> I find your post almost as idiocly insulting as as the original
> "Clinton better not come to North Carolina" thing.
- I am not surprised that you find it insulting to have someone
point out that Clinton was popular, and actually won the
election, unlike Bush
- My post, if you bothered to read it at all, was referring to
George W. Bush, our current unelected president. I have no idea
why you are mentioning a bunch of people who actually won their
elections.
- If conservatives are going to bring up Clinton's dismissal of
his Marine bodyguard, they must expect to have comparisons made
to George "No, really, the terrorists were after me" Bush. He
reminds me of the character in Zelazny's "The DreamMaster" who
longs to be the target of assassination plots, because that would
mean that he was important. Ari Fleischer's spin doctoring about
September 11th is of a piece with his usual shameful performances
as Bush's mouthpiece.
Pete McCutchen
<msa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>John Derbyshire. And that column was, indeed, objectionable.
> No his column was repugnant. It reflects a depth of
>hatred that in a just world would have required them to exit the
>human race, "That's it, out of the gene pool."
> It was also plain unAmerican, which shouldn't bother
>Derbyshire, a Brit, but should concern his editors.
I agree that it was repugnant, and, had I been an editor of the
National Review Online, I'd have refrained from publishing it. I do
think that he was engaging in some measure of rhetorical hyperbole,
and that he didn't literally want Chelsae Clinton killed. But it was
still a very obnoxious column.
--
Pete McCutchen
Kevin J. Maroney
>Funny political satire or, even if meant in jest, mean-spirited and violence-
>inciting words that would be condemned if uttered by a conservative?
Vaguely funny attempt at political satire expressing outrage at
Hydewho was using the powers of the United States government to ruin
the public and private life of a political enemy (Clinton) for
misdeeds significantly less severe than Hyde himself had performed but
for which Hyde would never be held accountable, let alone be brought
to trial.
--
Kevin Maroney | k...@panix.com
Kitchen Staff Supervisor, The New York Review of Science Fiction
<http://www.nyrsf.com>
Avram Grumer
Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Bob Dole's penis still works, at least with a bit of pharmaceutical
> assistance. Does that make him a liberal?
I can just hear this as something Dole might actually say, thanks to
that habit he had of talking about himself in the third person.
"Bob Dole's penis still works. Bob Dole's penis is very important to
Americans. Bob Dole's penis will continue to fight for reform that
guarantees the choice and quality in pharmaceuticals that Americans have
come to expect."
Rick Keir
<0009...@bigred.unl.edu> wrote:
> Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
>
> :He also overlooks the "mainstream conservatives" who have, in fact,
> :publicly advocated or wished for the death of the Clintons,
> :including their minor child.
>
> Name names, please.
"Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in
law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be ignored. All the great
despotisms of the past ‹ I'm not arguing for despotism as a principle, but
they sure knew how to deal with potential trouble ‹ recognized that the
families of objectionable citizens were a continuing threat. In Stalin's
penal code it was a crime to be the wife or child of an "enemy of the
people". The Nazis used the same principle, which they called Sippenhaft,
"clan liability". In Imperial China, enemies of the state were punished
"to the ninth degree": that is, everyone in the offender's own generation
would be killed, and everyone related via four generations up, to the
great-great-grandparents, and four generations down, to the
great-great-grandchildren, would also be killed. (This sounds complicated,
but in practice what usually happened was that a battalion of soldiers was
sent to the offender's home town, where they killed everyone they could
find, on the principle neca eos omnes, deus suos agnoscet ‹ "let God sort
'em out".)
-- Mr. Derbyshire is also an NR contributing editor
"
--John Derbyshire, National Review, February 15th, 2001
Marilee J. Layman
wrote:
>In article <rdkeir-1110...@news.doit.wisc.edu>,
> rdk...@facstaff.wisc.edu (Rick Keir) wrote:
>
>> In article <m3k7y21...@flash.localdomain>, Mark Atwood <m...@pobox.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> > That *is* the POTUS who dismissed his Marine guard...
>> >
>> > I dont think he was *afraid* of them. But I often sometimes wonder
>> > why he did.
>>
>> Perhaps, having been elected with a comfortable majority twice, and
>> being wildly popular with the people of his country, he was
>> comfortable without guards around him, unlike some people who, as you
>> know Bob, did not actually win the election to the office they are
>> occupying.
>
>Except there were a bunch of attempts on Clinton's life in his first
>term, weren't there? I remember some guy with a gun, and wasn't there a
>small plane that crashed into the White House?
Those are pretty standard, all presidents get nuts trying to go over
the fence. We hear about it on the local news, and the nut usually
ends up in a mental hospital.
--
Marilee J. Layman
Bali Sterling Beads at Wholesale
http://www.basicbali.com
Keith Thompson
As I recall, he later claimed that he was being satirical.
Conceivably that would have been clear to someone who had read his
previous columns; it wasn't to me.
Either he did a damned poor job of making it clear that he was just
kidding, or he was lying about it. Either way, it was indeed
repugnant.
--
Keith Thompson (The_Other_Keith) k...@cts.com <http://www.ghoti.net/~kst>
San Diego Supercomputer Center <*> <http://www.sdsc.edu/~kst>
Cxiuj via bazo apartenas ni.
Joel Rosenberg
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:25:53 -0400, Matthew G. Saroff
> > <msa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> >
> > >Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > >>John Derbyshire. And that column was, indeed, objectionable.
> > > No his column was repugnant. It reflects a depth of
> > >hatred that in a just world would have required them to exit the
> > >human race, "That's it, out of the gene pool."
> > > It was also plain unAmerican, which shouldn't bother
> > >Derbyshire, a Brit, but should concern his editors.
> >
> > I agree that it was repugnant, and, had I been an editor of the
> > National Review Online, I'd have refrained from publishing it. I do
> > think that he was engaging in some measure of rhetorical hyperbole,
> > and that he didn't literally want Chelsae Clinton killed. But it was
> > still a very obnoxious column.
>
> As I recall, he later claimed that he was being satirical.
> Conceivably that would have been clear to someone who had read his
> previous columns; it wasn't to me.
>
> Either he did a damned poor job of making it clear that he was just
> kidding, or he was lying about it. Either way, it was indeed
> repugnant.
>
> --
I think he was kidding, but his form of kidding involves, it seems to
me, cruelty directed at people who don't deserve it, by way of getting
at people who have stepped up and volunteered to be critical
dartboards. Bill and Hillary are certainly fair game, based on their
career choices alone; the only thing that Chelsea Clinton did to draw
Limbaugh's darts was to be born their daughter.
Compare that with the jokes about the Bush girls, J&B, which were
based on their behavior. (Not terribly bad behavior, mind -- although
their Dad might have thought a bit more about it when he criminalized
it, as governor -- but their behavior, nevertheless.)
Kevin J. Maroney
<mjla...@erols.com> wrote:
>Avram Grumer <av...@grumer.org> wrote:
>>Except there were a bunch of attempts on Clinton's life in his first
>>term, weren't there? I remember some guy with a gun, and wasn't there a
>>small plane that crashed into the White House?
>
>Those are pretty standard, all presidents get nuts trying to go over
>the fence. We hear about it on the local news, and the nut usually
>ends up in a mental hospital.
Frank Eugene Corder committed suicide by crashing his Piper into the
South Lawn of the White House on September 11, 1994, coming to a stop
immediately below the presidential bedroom. That is not standard.
Somewhat more typical were the other two:
Francisco Martin Duran fired at least 29 rifle shots across the North
Lawn at the White House on October 29, 1994.
On May 23, 1995, Leland W. Modjeski climbed the White House fence
while carrying an unloaded handgun.
Another unidentified person, never caught, fired four shots at the
White House in December 1994.
--
Kevin J. Maroney | k...@panix.com
Games are my entire waking life.
Joel Rosenberg
Yeah, but he held the gun too close to his left ear, and it led to deafness.
Keith Thompson
> Keith Thompson <k...@cts.com> writes:
>
> > Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
> > > On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:25:53 -0400, Matthew G. Saroff
> > > <msa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > >Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> > > >>John Derbyshire. And that column was, indeed, objectionable.
> > > > No his column was repugnant. It reflects a depth of
> > > >hatred that in a just world would have required them to exit the
> > > >human race, "That's it, out of the gene pool."
> > > > It was also plain unAmerican, which shouldn't bother
> > > >Derbyshire, a Brit, but should concern his editors.
> > >
> > > I agree that it was repugnant, and, had I been an editor of the
> > > National Review Online, I'd have refrained from publishing it. I do
> > > think that he was engaging in some measure of rhetorical hyperbole,
> > > and that he didn't literally want Chelsae Clinton killed. But it was
> > > still a very obnoxious column.
> >
> > As I recall, he later claimed that he was being satirical.
> > Conceivably that would have been clear to someone who had read his
> > previous columns; it wasn't to me.
> >
> > Either he did a damned poor job of making it clear that he was just
> > kidding, or he was lying about it. Either way, it was indeed
> > repugnant.
>
> me, cruelty directed at people who don't deserve it, by way of getting
> at people who have stepped up and volunteered to be critical
> dartboards. Bill and Hillary are certainly fair game, based on their
> career choices alone; the only thing that Chelsea Clinton did to draw
> Limbaugh's darts was to be born their daughter.
Um, I thought we were flaming John Derbyshire, not Rush Limbaugh.
Arthur D. Hlavaty
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:25:53 -0400, Matthew G. Saroff
>> <msa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>John Derbyshire. And that column was, indeed, objectionable.
>> > No his column was repugnant. It reflects a depth of
>> >hatred that in a just world would have required them to exit the
>> >human race, "That's it, out of the gene pool."
>> > It was also plain unAmerican, which shouldn't bother
>> >Derbyshire, a Brit, but should concern his editors.
>>
>> I agree that it was repugnant, and, had I been an editor of the
>> National Review Online, I'd have refrained from publishing it. I do
>> think that he was engaging in some measure of rhetorical hyperbole,
>> and that he didn't literally want Chelsae Clinton killed. But it was
>> still a very obnoxious column.
>
>As I recall, he later claimed that he was being satirical.
>Conceivably that would have been clear to someone who had read his
>previous columns; it wasn't to me.
>
>Either he did a damned poor job of making it clear that he was just
>kidding, or he was lying about it. Either way, it was indeed
>repugnant.
You don't understand. Liberals show what scum they are by calling for
bad things to happen to people. Conservatives engage in rhetorical
excess.
TKarney
<m3het7w...@flash.localdomain>, m...@pobox.com
>
> > The Rushmeister is going deaf. Partial sound in the right ear.
> > Luckily, it's not something that will affect his ability to
> > not-listen to callers.
> > Ashcroft imprisoned without due process? Doug Gilmore hit for back
> > taxes?
>
> Kip, thank you so very very much.
>
> You just won me a bet, I get a free dinner from a friend of mine.
>
> Why is that I can so easily find people who will say in public things
> find mainstream conservatives who publicly wish death and injury onto
> liberal icons?
>
>
I don't see that he wished ill on them, merely commented that in the
rolls of (by some lights) poetic justice, these would count.
And no, the extreme right does not say such things, but there are
those who actually say they understand the motive behind those who
walk into abortion clinics and kill random people.
Who say that web sites with wanted posters picturing the names and
address of physician who perform abortins, and then say this is not
meant to incite people to think that **actually** killing them would
be justified, oh no.
Terry
--
"Turning and turning in the widening gyre,
The falcon cannot hear the falconer
Things fall apart
The center cannot hold."
TKarney
<3BC5ED5A...@uwm.edu>, oran...@uwm.edu
> mike weber wrote:
> >
> > "Michael J. Lowrey" <oran...@uwm.edu> typed
> > >"Arthur D. Hlavaty" wrote:
> > >> I have got to say that picking on Limbaugh for his fatness seems
> > >> pointless and annoying, especially when there are so many other flaws
> > >> (such as "liar") one can go after.
> > >
> > >An excellent point. Such ad-hominem attacks weaken the
> > >attacker's moral high ground; more to the point, they are
> > >not ethical.
> > >
> > Sorry -- "The Fat Man" is how a lot of his fellow right-wing radical
> > radio loonies refer to him.
> >
> > I thought it must be a right-wing compliment.
>
> Maybeso, but I refuse to follow the lead of his fellow
> right-wing radical radio loonies on this or anything else.
> I was thinking of Al Franken's book, whose title is _ad
> hominem_ at its most obnoxious, even if he is right.
>
And suffers for it. While Franken makes (and supports) some very
good claims against Limbaugh the tone is such that only one who is
already in accord with Franken (or finds such insults to be humorous,
in and of themselves) will be able to finish it.
Which means it was useless for persuading those who are the fence
about Limbaugh.
Kathy Routliffe
>
> In article <d8u9stkblucj3c1pm...@4ax.com>,
> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> > Bob Dole's penis still works, at least with a bit of pharmaceutical
> > assistance. Does that make him a liberal?
>
> I can just hear this as something Dole might actually say, thanks to
> that habit he had of talking about himself in the third person.
>
> "Bob Dole's penis still works. Bob Dole's penis is very important to
> Americans. Bob Dole's penis will continue to fight for reform that
> guarantees the choice and quality in pharmaceuticals that Americans have
> come to expect."
>
*snrt*
Thanks. I needed that.
--
Kathy R.
---------------------------
If a human disagrees with you, let him live. In a hundred billion
galaxies, you will not find another.
-- Carl Sagan
Bob Webber
> On 11 Oct 2001 15:58:26 GMT, dene...@deepthot.org (Jay Denebeim)
> wrote:
>>In article <sb4bstgofjocsigh5...@4ax.com>,
>>Avedon Carol <ave...@cix.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>>>The only thing we "never hear the end of" these days are minor
>>>missteps - or alleged missteps - by liberals (or alleged liberals), or
>>>at least Democrats (anyone who thinks Gary Condit is a liberal is too
>>>far out to talk to).
>>
>>Hey his penis still works therefore he must be liberal. Get with the
>>program *furrfu*.
> Bob Dole's penis still works, at least with a bit of pharmaceutical
> assistance. Does that make him a liberal?
Bob Dole's penis is named "*furrfu*"? I thought the deal was that
his name _means_ "penis" in Baghdad headlines.
--
They say that Heaven is like TV: a perfect little world that doesn't
really need you.
-- Laurie Anderson
Kathy Routliffe
>
> In article <9q301u$pib$1...@unlnews.unl.edu>, Joshua Hesse
> <0009...@bigred.unl.edu> wrote:
>
> > Kris Hasson-Jones <sni...@pacifier.com> wrote:
> >
> > :He also overlooks the "mainstream conservatives" who have, in fact,
> > :publicly advocated or wished for the death of the Clintons,
> > :including their minor child.
> >
> > Name names, please.
>
> "Chelsea is a Clinton. She bears the taint; and though not prosecutable in
> law, in custom and nature the taint cannot be
<snip>
> --John Derbyshire, National Review, February 15th, 2001
In or out of context, that is pretty vile. What an unpleasant man he
sounds, although I can't believe he was doing anything but indulging in
some kind of miserable mental exercise.
Avedon Carol
>Matthew G. Saroff <msa...@pobox.com> writes:
>> Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >John Derbyshire. And that column was, indeed, objectionable.
>> No his column was repugnant. It reflects a depth of
>> hatred that in a just world would have required them to exit the
>> human race, "That's it, out of the gene pool."
>> It was also plain unAmerican, which shouldn't bother
>> Derbyshire, a Brit, but should concern his editors.
>
>Has he been allowed any column inches without a leash since?
Yes, he had at least one more column - a follow-up in which he tried
to justify himself.
--
Avedon
"At holiday parties, Republican political operatives boasted freely about
their success in snaring the White House. A common refrain, told in a
joking style, was: 'We stole the election fair and square.'" (Robert Parry)
Avedon Carol
>Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> writes:
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 00:25:53 -0400, Matthew G. Saroff
>> <msa...@pobox.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Pete McCutchen <p.mcc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>> >>John Derbyshire. And that column was, indeed, objectionable.
>> > No his column was repugnant. It reflects a depth of
>> >hatred that in a just world would have required them to exit the
>> >human race, "That's it, out of the gene pool."
>> > It was also plain unAmerican, which shouldn't bother
>> >Derbyshire, a Brit, but should concern his editors.
>>
>> I agree that it was repugnant, and, had I been an editor of the
>> National Review Online, I'd have refrained from publishing it. I do
>> think that he was engaging in some measure of rhetorical hyperbole,
>> and that he didn't literally want Chelsae Clinton killed. But it was
>> still a very obnoxious column.
>
>As I recall, he later claimed that he was being satirical.
>Conceivably that would have been clear to someone who had read his
>previous columns; it wasn't to me.
>
>Either he did a damned poor job of making it clear that he was just
>kidding, or he was lying about it. Either way, it was indeed
>repugnant.
I thought he was being facetious, but I also thought it didn't matter.
These are the kinds of remarks you might make to close friends over
drinks in a private environment; they are not the sort of things that
civilized people say in professional articles.
Avedon Carol
<dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>And Dick Armey "misspoke" when he referred to my congressman as "Barney
>Fag."
Has the White House explained that Dick Cheney "misspoke" when
referring to the Pakistani leadership (on television!) as "the Paks"?
Or doesn't the illiberal media even consider that one worth remarking
on?
Alison Hopkins
Avedon Carol wrote in message ...
>On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:32:52 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
><dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
>>And Dick Armey "misspoke" when he referred to my congressman as "Barney
>>Fag."
>
>Has the White House explained that Dick Cheney "misspoke" when
>referring to the Pakistani leadership (on television!) as "the Paks"?
>Or doesn't the illiberal media even consider that one worth remarking
>on?
>
Tell me that isn't true. <blink>
Ali
Joel Rosenberg
He said it, and it was widely reported; I saw at least three or four
references to it as a gaffe.
Which it was. Still, as it was explained to my by an ex-soldier of my
acquaintance, in the US military -- with which Cheney has some
familiarity and to which he has some exposure -- the term "Pak" isn't
considered derogatory, and is the common euphemism for the Pakistani
government/military.
(The similar, derogatory term, "Paki", apparently isn't as common in
the US as it is in the UK. This may be because of greater
enlightenment, but my guess is that it had more to do with the
relatively small proportion of Pakistani
immigrants/nationals-of-Pakistani origin.)
Avram Grumer
ave...@cix.co.uk (Avedon Carol) wrote:
> Has the White House explained that Dick Cheney "misspoke" when
> referring to the Pakistani leadership (on television!) as "the Paks"?
> Or doesn't the illiberal media even consider that one worth remarking
> on?
Do they have a Tree-of-Life breeding program going?
Dan Kimmel
"Avedon Carol" <ave...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
news:htijst4fkt7bjodms...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:32:52 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>
> >And Dick Armey "misspoke" when he referred to my congressman as "Barney
> >Fag."
>
> Has the White House explained that Dick Cheney "misspoke" when
> referring to the Pakistani leadership (on television!) as "the Paks"?
> Or doesn't the illiberal media even consider that one worth remarking
> on?
It wouldn't be the White House's job. He's majority leader in the House, a
position I fervently hope that he will be relieved of in the next election.
In one of the late Herblock's last cartoons, he showed the dark side of
cloning by positing extra dupes of Armey and vile majority whip Tom DeLay.
Matthew G. Saroff
>I thought he was being facetious, but I also thought it didn't matter.
>These are the kinds of remarks you might make to close friends over
>drinks in a private environment; they are not the sort of things that
>civilized people say in professional articles.
It's like the joke that John McCain told. He said that
following a thorough investigation, Janet Reno was the father of
Chelsea Clinton.
I laughed so hard that I nearly plotzed, but it was
classless to tell it in a public venue.
--
Matthew Saroff
Does anyone else out there strongly feel that the folks at the TV
Networks who have censored out Daffy's beak getting blown off (Shoot
Me NOW!) deserve to be stripped naked, tied face down over a chair,
covered with moose musk, and set in the migratory path of a large
moose herd?
Comments to msa...@123456.pobox.com (remove the numbers to reply)
Check http://www.pobox.com/~msaroff, including The Bad Hair Web Page
Alan Winston - SSRL Admin Cmptg Mgr
>
>"Avedon Carol" <ave...@cix.co.uk> wrote in message
>news:htijst4fkt7bjodms...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 12 Oct 2001 14:32:52 GMT, "Dan Kimmel"
>> <dan.k...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
>>
>> >And Dick Armey "misspoke" when he referred to my congressman as "Barney
>> >Fag."
>>
>> Has the White House explained that Dick Cheney "misspoke" when
>> referring to the Pakistani leadership (on television!) as "the Paks"?
>> Or doesn't the illiberal media even consider that one worth remarking
>> on?
>
>It wouldn't be the White House's job. He's majority leader in the House, a
>position I fervently hope that he will be relieved of in the next election.
Dan: They may all be a bunch of Dicks, but "Cheney" ne "Armey". Avedon was
referring to the v-p, so it owuld be the White House's job to remark on it
if it needs remarking on.
-- Alan
===============================================================================
Alan Winston --- WIN...@SSRL.SLAC.STANFORD.EDU
Disclaimer: I speak only for myself, not SLAC or SSRL Phone: 650/926-3056
Physical mail to: SSRL -- SLAC BIN 69, PO BOX 4349, STANFORD, CA 94309-0210
===============================================================================
Lucy Kemnitzer
<msa...@pobox.com> wrote:
> It's like the joke that John McCain told. He said that
>following a thorough investigation, Janet Reno was the father of
>Chelsea Clinton.
> I laughed so hard that I nearly plotzed, but it was
>classless to tell it in a public venue.
I dn't see how it's a joke. What's the hook? What funny thing is
being said here?
Lucy Kemnitzer
Avram Grumer
rit...@cruzio.com (Lucy Kemnitzer) wrote:
Janet Reno is supposed to be masculine. Also, Chelsea is supposed to be
ugly. I think it's a two-for-one.
There's a whole lot of right-wing humor revolving around Reno being
mannish, or a lesbian, or something along those lines.