Media Playing Pied Piper For A Obama Presidency?
The National Association Of Airport Full-Body X-ray Examiners
Sandy Grey
Examiners <johnwlsn...@aol.com> wrote:
> David Gergen on CNN could see the defeat on Chelsie face...Ah ...Right
Interesting. All I see are massive teeth and a vacant stare when I
look at her.
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
same thing Bill saw looking down at Monica.
The National Association Of Airport Full-Body X-ray Examiners
know" the race is over. "Just watching Chelsea there on the replay,
you could see the anguish in her face. I think the Clinton people know
the game is almost up."
RichL
Chelsea's expression aside, most of the political columnists that I've
read yesterday and today who covered the subject also said that the game
is over.
Bernie Woodham
"RichL" <rple...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:5BKUj.15670$sp.13984@trnddc02...
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/group/BobDylanFansforObama
Were there ever any Dylan fans for Hillary?
Bernie Woodham
"Bernie Woodham" <birnh...@insightbb.com> wrote in message
news:rLSdnWoRcfDeTb7V...@insightbb.com...
Whoops. Sorry, wrong forum. But, here, I'll make it up to you:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a8lvc-azCXY
The National Association Of Airport Full-Body X-ray Examiners
against Obama but Hillary's stuck like glue to Bill's negitives yet
can't rightly take credit for any of Bill's positives(after all she
was just first lady).
*Hillary's supporters(less educated and/or older) are less disirable
to advertisers(media bread and butter) than Obama's(young-affuent-
educated)
*The media likes to train Presidents and see them come of age under
their stewardship. Hillary's already wise to the media heavy-
handedness; they want the new guy to kick around and have fun with.
*If Obama is the nominee but loses in the general election to McCain
its Hillary's fault.
*If Obama wins against McCain in the general then Hillary was wrong(ha
ha ha)
*The media doesn't want to be hard(racist) on the first viable black
canidate, but Hillary..well...look at her negitive polling numbers.
I will be voting for McCain in protest to the high-minded press-I
refuse to be played by elitist press-and since Obama is for the
exclusion of Fl. and MI. in order to win-that's a new kind of politics
I can't go along with.
I've got more but later...chow
RichL
<johnw...@aol.com> wrote:
> I will be voting for McCain in protest to the high-minded press-I
> refuse to be played by elitist press-and since Obama is for the
> exclusion of Fl. and MI. in order to win-that's a new kind of politics
> I can't go along with.
>
> I've got more but later...chow
I would hope that the vast majority of people vote in accordance with
their beliefs as to who would do a better job of making needed changes.
If you want to carry out a vendetta against the press through the ballot
box, it's your choice, of course. Lots of people find creative ways to
waste their vote.
Sandy Grey
> If you want to carry out a vendetta against the press through the ballot
> box, it's your choice, of course. Lots of people find creative ways to
> waste their vote.
I actually *know* someone who swapped registration from Rep to Dem to
vote for Clinton (closed primaries in PA), because Rush told him to.
He was quite gleeful about it.
This man is an Oberlin grad, believe it or not.
O'Leary III
> I actually *know* someone who swapped registration from Rep to Dem to
> vote for Clinton (closed primaries in PA), because Rush told him to.
> He was quite gleeful about it.
>
> This man is an Oberlin grad, believe it or not.
I know several people who did the opposite several years ago to make
sure Specter got the nomination, instead of his right wing opponent.
Then, they switched back.
RichL
Oh yeah, there was an article about this in the Washington Post. It's a
manifestation of the O'Leary theory in reverse. Apparently Limbaugh
told the dittobrainiacs to vote for Hillary. He calls it "Operation
Chaos". Based on exit polling, apparently either not many took the
bait, or Limbaugh's audience is dwindling fast.
Sandy Grey
I just can't see anyone with intelligence prostituting their vote on
the say-so of a talk show host/comedian. Call me a purist.
Bernie Woodham
"Sandy Grey" <jimmyca...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:770e942f-496d-45cd...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
This really is not a new strategy. I've heard of it before from someone
advocating a way to dilute the "base" voters of either party. The idea is
that primary candidates, (this is mainly house of rep candidates - where
gerrymandering really comes into play), those candidates will appeal to the
more extreme elements of their base because those are the most politically
active voters. The result is that in democratic districts you get the more
leftist candidates and in republican districts you get the most right-wing.
So in the end only a minority of voters are being represented by the
candidate that gets elected. Plus we get grid-lock in Congress.
To counter this in the republican districts democrats should register
republican to vote for the republican candidate more to the center.
Likewise for republicans in democrat districts.
Of course, this would be hell to organize, and so in truth is impractical.
I only say it to point out that Rush is not the originator. He is at best
just a hack.
fatt...@yahoo.com
LOL! I had assumed his eyes were closed by that point . . . . . . .
O'Leary III
> Oh yeah, there was an article about this in the Washington Post. It's a
> manifestation of the O'Leary theory in reverse. Apparently Limbaugh
> told the dittobrainiacs to vote for Hillary. He calls it "Operation
> Chaos". Based on exit polling, apparently either not many took the
> bait, or Limbaugh's audience is dwindling fast.
I see it as the theory, but not in reverse, in that it's Republicans
voting for someone other than their intended, to create a result that is
intended.
That said, I agree with Al Franken: Rush is a big fat idiot.
O'Leary III
> I just can't see anyone with intelligence prostituting their vote on
> the say-so of a talk show host/comedian. Call me a purist.
McCain's got th nomination already. What do they have to lose, except a
few ounces for getting off the couch?
O'Leary III
> LOL! I had assumed his eyes were closed by that point . . . . . . .
I'd look.
The National Association Of Airport Full-Body X-ray Examiners
this many. After I posted I got a little guilty. I actually like
Obama. I just think he jumped the gun-he should've let Hillary run and
win; then run the next time. Him getting in is what started the
deision. But I don't like the media having as much influence over the
American vote. After all, I think they are more guilty than Hillary
for the Iraqi War. If I was a journalist I'd ask Obama when he thinks
his Healthcare program will get passed-in his first year of his
presidency; second year; third, before his re-election? And how does
he see it unfolding.etc. That's the role of the press- hold his feet
to the fire. But no-they seem to think their job is to make hay about
Bill standing in the background of Hillary's speech. I have contempt
for the press. Obama knows Florida would vote more for Hillary-MI.
too. The way he caved to thowing Rev Wrihgt under the bus is telling
in as much as he'll cave on healthcare. The big wigs know they can
deal with him. I wanted Hillary because I'm not proud of my country in
regards to our healthcare. Hillary is more detail oriented and
focused. Obama will falter. But the press doesn't care-it's all about
the impression and the cover of the book-not the inards.
Dale Houstman
Certainly he is that. But he is several things more besides: a failed
standup comedian who found an outlet that was more forgiving of wretched
joke-making, a drug addict (ladled with hypocrisy), what one pundit
called a "male hysteric," a narcissist, a man of vast intellectual
vacuity, a rich man pretending to the throne of "Main Commoner" who
oversees a sea of under-educated malcontents, mostly white and afraid of
losing their majority and privilege, a "stealth racist," a hugely
ignorant man (for example, his ignorance of Parkinson's Disease which
led him to say things about Michael Fox that any less-deluded man would
have felt profound embarassment over). He is also only passably
literate: I have listened to his radio "routines": they are frequently
beset with language errors, and always riddled with corrupted logic. But
he is only a radio entertainer with pretensions to something more
important. Actually (and he might be just bright enough to realize this)
he would benefit from the election of a Democrat. McCain would be a poor
target.
dmh
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
I wonder what he thinks of Yoko....
Cardinal Puff
> I wonder what he thinks of Yoko....
He probably doesn't . Not everyone does, you know.
Dale Houstman
Obviously she's one of his "feminazis," but also (perhaps) she could be
a pseudo intellectual (well - even I think she's THAT!), and he might
conjecture that she should take her peacenik schtick back to the land of
the rising yen. There's no doubt that if she came within his crosshairs,
it wouldn't be pretty. I've heard him use racism (albeit a certain
subtle brand of it), so her race would probably inspire some "clever"
routine, equating her with Hirohito perhaps. Nothing's really beneath him.
dmh
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
Yes, he will benefit from President Obama....his job is secure, as is
Coulter's and Hannity's
BLACKPOOLJIMMY
Quotable Coulter
On 9/11
'If Chicago had been hit, I assure you New Yorkers would not have
cared. New Yorkers would have been like, "It's tough for them, now
let's go back to our Calvin Klein fashion shows. "'
On Muslims
'The question is not, 'Are all Muslims terrorists?' The question is,
'Are all terrorists Muslims?' The answer is yes .'
On her Muslim ex-boyfriend
'The relationship was complicated by his interest in committing jihad.
I took away his box cutters. '
To a Vietnam veteran
'People like you caused us to lose the war.'
On Princess Diana
'Her children knew she was sleeping with all these men. That just
seems the definition of "not a good mother".'
On women
'America would be a much better country if women did not vote.'
On the French
'A bunch of faggots.'
On her critics
'The more vicious they are, the happier I am.'
Manfred Noland
Dale Houstman
BLACKPOOLJIMMY wrote:
>
> Quotable Coulter
>
> On Muslims
>
> 'The question is not, 'Are all Muslims terrorists?' The question is,
> 'Are all terrorists Muslims?' The answer is yes .'
Actually the answer is no. She even got that wrong. But I expect even
less veracity and clear thought from Ann: she's the conservative version
of a carnival geek show. I suspect she doesn't believe in anything very
firmly, excpet profit and attention.
dmh
rwalker
>>
>> Quotable Coulter
>
>>
>> On Muslims
>>
>> 'The question is not, 'Are all Muslims terrorists?' The question is,
>> 'Are all terrorists Muslims?' The answer is yes .'
>
>
That must come as a surprise to the IRA and their victims, and to Timothy
McVeigh, among others.
O'Leary III
>> That said, I agree with Al Franken: Rush is a big fat idiot.
>
> Certainly he is that. But he is several things more besides: a failed
> standup comedian who found an outlet that was more forgiving of wretched
> joke-making, a drug addict (ladled with hypocrisy)
Howard Stern said that Rush had been the group ticket sales person for
the Kansas City Royals before he got onto radio.
Once a huckster, always a huckster.
O'Leary III
>>> 'The question is not, 'Are all Muslims terrorists?' The question is,
>>> 'Are all terrorists Muslims?' The answer is yes .'
>>
>
> That must come as a surprise to the IRA and their victims, and to Timothy
> McVeigh, among others.
Not to mention RMB readers.
Cardinal Puff
I told you not to mention RMB readers!
Manfred Noland
urinating on him which was a favorite past time of his that no one talks
about.
Bernie Woodham
"Manfred Noland" <RockN...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:2096-4829...@storefull-3231.bay.webtv.net...
>I imagine Ghandi would vote for hillary because he'd imagine her
> urinating on him which was a favorite past time of his that no one talks
> about.
>
Ghandi probably stole that from Hitler. Without giving him any credit!!!
Why would Hillary want to waste her piss on him?
The National Association Of Airport Full-Body X-ray Examiners
supporters are more reasonable and open to Hillary. Here are two
examples:
1. In general election match-ups with John McCain, Obama's voters are
the more accepting of either situation - 69 percent would support
Clinton against McCain. In contrast, only 52 percent of Clinton's
Pennsylvania supporters report they would support Obama against McCain
in the general election. Again, Pennsylvania's voters represent the
polarization, possibly increasing, that we have seen this primary
season.
Source: CBS
2. A higher proportion of her supporters than of Obama supporters say
they'll bolt if their candidate loses the nomination. (In exit polls
in Pennsylvania, 15 percent of Clinton supporters said they'd vote for
Sen. John McCain; 10 percent said they'd stay home. Ten percent of
Obama supporters said they'd vote for Mr. McCain; 7 percent said
they'd stay home.)
Source:Pennsylvania exit polls
But then at the same time we’re told hell will be paid if Hillary get
the nomination:
1.By raising this weakness in Obama's campaign, Clinton hopes to
persuade undecided superdelegates to hand her the nomination. That's
not likely to happen. The cost Democrats would pay for such a reversal
would be nothing short of a political civil war.
Source USAToday Editorial
Bernie Woodham
"The National Association Of Airport Full-Body X-ray Examiners"
news:961e17bd-8b9c-4dc7...@p39g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> The cost Democrats would pay for such a reversal
> would be nothing short of a political civil war.
> Source USAToday Editorial
I think Hill's strategy at this point is to finish strong in the remaining
states. After that, she either concedes or lets the Superdelegates decide
for Obama. But, she's pinning her hopes on a McCain victory and a chance
at 2012.
The National Association Of Airport Full-Body X-ray Examiners
wrote:
> I think Hill's strategy at this point is to finish strong in the remaining
> states. After that, she either concedes or lets the Superdelegates decide
> for Obama. But, she's pinning her hopes on a McCain victory and a chance
> at 2012.
From what I see, the press will shoot her down just as solidly as they
did this time. You know one thing that troubles me is in the old days
when a news organization gave an opinion piece it was noted as such.
But today with the cable news competition we see a person like David
Gergen with the title "senior political analist". With the exception
of him backing up Hillary's claims of having reservations about NAFTA,
he has satisfied the Obama leaning viewers-the kind of demographics
more valuable to advertisers(18-39 year old). Another thing I must
give credit to Obama for is his huge fundraising advantage-the press
amplifies that.
Bernie Woodham
=============================================
The election coverage is making me sick. 24/7 it goes on and on and on --
so many statistics, so many polls, so many angles, so much speculation. And
they're making this all pass for news. They're not even discussing the
issues or analyzing if the issues are really addressing the problems.
Today we see the Senate voting to suspend oil going to the reserve -- As if
that's going to do one goddamn thing for anybody but the oil companies. The
problem is not supply, the problem is market speculation and refinery
capacity -- which is all related to government deregulation. But do you
hear anything at all about this on news stations? How are the candidates
addressing these issues? I can't recall them ever talking much about it.
They talk about the gas tax. Another non-issue.
How about the telecoms? A few weeks ago we heard all about the Protect
America Act expiring over the dispute about lawsuit immunity for the
telecoms. Seems then it was touted as a victory over the Bush
administration. But there's a lot of speculation that Congress is allowing
to the telecoms to help craft new legislation to allow them those very same
protections. I do not hear this being discussed.
The media has turned the entire political process into a game of smoke and
mirrors. It gets really difficult to see through all the nonsense and find
what are the real issues.
Manfred Noland
"Manfred Noland" <RockN...@webtv.net>
I imagine Ghandi would vote for hillary because he'd imagine her
urinating on him which was a favorite past time of his that no one talks
about.
Ghandi probably stole that from Hitler. Without giving him any credit!!!
Why would Hillary want to waste her piss on him?
***********************************************
Because she's just a darn nice lady who enjoys bathing certain lucky men
with her hot rivulets of steaming golden froth.
The National Association Of Airport Full-Body X-ray Examiners
wrote:
> Today we see the Senate voting to suspend oil going to the reserve -- As if
> that's going to do one goddamn thing for anybody but the oil companies. The
> problem is not supply, the problem is market speculation and refinery
> capacity -- which is all related to government deregulation. But do you
> hear anything at all about this on news stations?
What if all city, county, state, and federal government required its
employees to gradually switch to off-peak office hours. In other
words, any government worker without good reason to work 9 to 5 would
be required to work from from anywhere from 5pm to 9am. They could
ramp up to it gradually-say within 5 years. This would reduce traffic
congestion, idle gas wasting and unproductive travel time. This is
just one example of change that people could do if they wanted to.
There is lots of commercial services that could work off-peak time.
But people get a glazed look in their eyes when you speak about what
has never been done.
Dale Houstman
True, but the nature of our rather decadent culture is such that to
demand real sacrifice or radical changes from the populace is to risk
almost certain dismissal as a loon job or a commie. All the solutions to
most problems now being faced are superficial and sometimes (as in the
ethanol fiasco) actually more destructive than the problem they are
supposed to address. Truth is, America is too hopped up on the ideals of
"progress" to assent to true sustainability, and have immense pipedreams
about technology coming in like a White Knight to save our asses at the
last moment. Unfortunately, most technological solutions produce worse
situations than the problems they supplant, and I don't think we are
going to be able to - finally - "science" our way out of a set of
problems we were initially "scienced" into.
dmh
The National Association Of Airport Full-Body X-ray Examiners
>Truth is, America is too hopped up on the ideals of
> "progress" to assent to true sustainability,
Why can't I pick lettuce during my fifteen minute break at work.
Imagine employers allowing a employee volunteer garden on their
premises instead of wastefull lawn grass. Apple, peach, plum trees on
workplace property?
Dale Houstman
The National Association Of Airport Full-Body X-ray Examiners wrote:
> On May 14, 3:49 pm, Dale Houstman <d...@skypoint.com> wrote:
>
>>Truth is, America is too hopped up on the ideals of
>>"progress" to assent to true sustainability,
>
>
> Why can't I pick lettuce during my fifteen minute break at work.
Might as well ask "why do I do most of the actual labor and receive much
less recompense than that glorified nanny with a corner office?" or
"what the hell AM I working for anyway?" or "does this work actually
mean anything to anyone?" or "could I imagine a world in which empty
labor that takes up much of my time and gives so little reward is merely
a bad dream?" You can't because you don't own the means of production
but are instead owned as another interchangeable bit of office
machinery, only slightly less valued than the lunchroom microwave.
> Imagine employers allowing a employee volunteer garden on their
> premises instead of wastefull lawn grass. Apple, peach, plum trees on
> workplace property?
Sure. Go ahead. Seems like a nice idea to me. But Charles Xavier Fourier
got there before you, and he died broke also. He didn't quite forsee the
rise of industrialism and the pernicious mestastasizing of capital.
The future is full of cogs...
dmh
Lookingglass
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote
>
> The future is full of cogs...
>
> dmh
...we need more axles (or axels...I like both)...not to mention grease.
Bernie Woodham
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
news:482B6C62...@skypoint.com...
>
> True, but the nature of our rather decadent culture is such that to demand
> real sacrifice or radical changes from the populace is to risk almost
> certain dismissal as a loon job or a commie. All the solutions to most
> problems now being faced are superficial and sometimes (as in the ethanol
> fiasco) actually more destructive than the problem they are supposed to
> address. Truth is, America is too hopped up on the ideals of "progress" to
> assent to true sustainability, and have immense pipedreams about
> technology coming in like a White Knight to save our asses at the last
> moment. Unfortunately, most technological solutions produce worse
> situations than the problems they supplant, and I don't think we are going
> to be able to - finally - "science" our way out of a set of problems we
> were initially "scienced" into.
>
>
Nah. The technology is already there. The problem is the existing power
structure. The oil and coal comapanies are definitely trying to stop
progress. And now, like you said, the corn ethanol people have a stake in
holding everything back. As are the car companies. Even toyota.
So, the real problem is in leadership. Two butt holes in particular, but
most all politicians in both parties.
I still say nationalize the damn oil companies. The profit motive and the
self interest of that industry is really causing a crisis. We don't call
the country the United States of Capitalism and the Constitution does not
institute capitalism.
Nationalizing it would send a clear warning to all the other industries
getting in the way.
Face it, these people could care less about anybody else's life. They care
about theirs. Period. Global warming? Why should they give a fuck? They'll
have enough money to build the nicest places are the most inhabitable spots
on earth. Fuck the rest. That's capitalism.
Take it away from them and tell them "That's life."
Dale Houstman
Lookingglass wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote
>
>>The future is full of cogs...
>>
>>dmh
>
>
>
> ...we need more axles (or axels...I like both)...not to mention grease.
>
This Perfect Again - The Unashamed Arugulas
There's a car in my future that is full of boys
Cruising down the coast highway
Taking me to heaven or at least to hell
I kinda like it either way
And the radio is humming something I recall
From a golden age that never was
Suspend me in the amber of memory
This road is so ambiguous
Going down
Coming in
All the towns
All the sin
I don't know
I don't care
Drive this car
Anywhere
And it's never gonna be
And it's never gonna be
And it's never gonna be
This perfect again
dmh
Dale Houstman
Bernie Woodham wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote in message
> news:482B6C62...@skypoint.com...
>
>>True, but the nature of our rather decadent culture is such that to demand
>>real sacrifice or radical changes from the populace is to risk almost
>>certain dismissal as a loon job or a commie. All the solutions to most
>>problems now being faced are superficial and sometimes (as in the ethanol
>>fiasco) actually more destructive than the problem they are supposed to
>>address. Truth is, America is too hopped up on the ideals of "progress" to
>>assent to true sustainability, and have immense pipedreams about
>>technology coming in like a White Knight to save our asses at the last
>>moment. Unfortunately, most technological solutions produce worse
>>situations than the problems they supplant, and I don't think we are going
>>to be able to - finally - "science" our way out of a set of problems we
>>were initially "scienced" into.
>>
>>
>
>
> Nah. The technology is already there. The problem is the existing power
> structure. The oil and coal comapanies are definitely trying to stop
> progress. And now, like you said, the corn ethanol people have a stake in
> holding everything back. As are the car companies. Even toyota.
What I meant is not that there are not green technologies that address
the problems - there are, although most (to be truly effective and less
delusional) are going to have to be coupled with dramatic cultural and
corporate changes), but that there are no technologies out there that
will allow us to act as if nothing had changed: and this is what is
being promised, and what Americans seem to expect: we will replace oil
with a new "pseudo-oil" and go on driving our SUVs as if nothing had
happened. This is - as you say - the real problem, and I frankly don't
see the U.S. addressing it, because the "government by graft" is not
willing to buck both the decandence of its populace, or (in particular)
the hysterical desires of corporations to suck every last penny of
profit out of their old processes, and to avoid by all means the social
changes that would result from these new technologies.
>
> So, the real problem is in leadership. Two butt holes in particular, but
> most all politicians in both parties.
>
> I still say nationalize the damn oil companies. The profit motive and the
> self interest of that industry is really causing a crisis. We don't call
> the country the United States of Capitalism and the Constitution does not
> institute capitalism.
In some ways it does.
>
> Nationalizing it would send a clear warning to all the other industries
> getting in the way.
>
> Face it, these people could care less about anybody else's life. They care
> about theirs. Period. Global warming? Why should they give a fuck? They'll
> have enough money to build the nicest places are the most inhabitable spots
> on earth. Fuck the rest. That's capitalism.
>
> Take it away from them and tell them "That's life."
Although I don't mind this scenario (and although I don't see it
happening in this political climate), we don't need to take them over,
only to muster enough political will to go on despite them, to mandate
changes that would - more and more - render them and their products more
and more irrelevant to the discourse, until they are just one product
amongst many, instead of the whole boat.
dmh
Sean Carroll
> I still say nationalize the damn oil companies. The profit motive and the
> self interest of that industry is really causing a crisis. We don't call
> the country the United States of Capitalism and the Constitution does not
> institute capitalism.
No, but the Constitution was written by capitalists, and the specific
political structure it sets up is designed to keep the power in the hands of
capitalists while neutralising dissent by making the people feel like they
have a 'voice' because they get to come in every four years and decide which
specific capitalist puppets they want to exploit them.
I really don't see any possible way that the radical changes in our economic
system that will be needed for our survival in the next hundred years could
be made within the carefully controlled political arena set up by the
Constitution. The entire power structure of professional politicians that
are connected to that document by an umbilical cord of electoral colleges
and party primaries is fundamentally incapable of making those changes,
because they have too much material stake in the status quo. The only way we
can save this country is for an entirely new governmental structure to be
built up alongside the old by independent working-class institutions of
power, and to eventually seize control from it, because power concedes
nothing without a struggle.
I say we must not only change but replace the Constitution, because freeing
our minds is not enough when all the force of all the wealth and power of
the ruling class is invested in the system of government that is based on
it. John Lennon was a great man and I respect him very much, but one thing I
think he never really understood was how the facts of material social
reality trump abstract ideas and philosophies every time, no matter how
noble and beautiful the latter are.
--
--Sean
http://spclsd223.livejournal.com
Kutner: But why did he test positive for syphilis?
House: Oh, wait, I know this!
Kutner: Either one, he has syphilis ...
House: I was gonna say that!
Lookingglass
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote
> This Perfect Again - The Unashamed Arugulas
>
> There's a car in my future that is full of boys
> Cruising down the coast highway
> Taking me to heaven or at least to hell
> I kinda like it either way
> And the radio is humming something I recall
> From a golden age that never was
> Suspend me in the amber of memory
> This road is so ambiguous
>
> Going down
> Coming in
> All the towns
> All the sin
> I don't know
> I don't care
> Drive this car
> Anywhere
> And it's never gonna be
> And it's never gonna be
> And it's never gonna be
> This perfect again
>
> dmh
Did I miss the publication of your book? Gee, you coulda let me know!
Dale Houstman
557 rubber pages with seventeen marble sculptures and a searchable ibex.
dmh
Lookingglass
"Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote
> and a searchable ibex.
...voluntarily? No ifs, ands, or butts!?!
Dale Houstman
Lookingglass wrote:
> "Dale Houstman" <dm...@skypoint.com> wrote
>
>
>>and a searchable ibex.
>
>
>
>
> ...voluntarily? No ifs, ands, or butts!?!
>
...nor golden asses will sway me from my chosen tusk. The quail SHALL be
delivered.
dmh