Re: RepubliDixieLibCons Want To *DESTROY" SpongeBob~!
Zodiac69 864, M.B.A.
"Mark van Pelt" <mark...@newsguy.com> wrote in message
news:csrld...@drn.newsguy.com...
>
> http://www.sun-sentinel.com/features/lifestyle/sfl-121spongebob,0,5262800.story
>
> Christian critics say Spongebob video is `pro-homosexual'
I always thought Spongebob was pro female contraception, but hey if some
dudes get turned on by Spongebob then it's all good I guess.
Zodiac69
the future of RSPW
864's most promising blue chipper
toor...@gmail.com
Mark van Pelt wrote:
<snip>
I know that you use your new "RepubliDixieLibCons" catchphrase as a
silly attempt to group everyone whose viewpoint differs from yours
together in one easy-to-hate bundle, but you really should reconsider
grouping the Libertarians in when you comment on things regarding
religion, censorship, or social issues.
I mean, it kinda makes you look like you have no clue what the
philosophy encompasses.
-Froggy
Just here to help.
toor...@gmail.com
Mark van Pelt wrote:
> *SMACK TO THE LEFT* *SMACK TO THE RIGHT* But toor...@gmail.com still
managed to
> say:
> >Mark van Pelt wrote:
> ><snip>
> >
> >I know that you use your new "RepubliDixieLibCons" catchphrase as a
> >silly attempt to group everyone whose viewpoint differs from yours
> >together in one easy-to-hate bundle,
>
> your own misconceptions to the people you attack.
And there *you* go, doing the same.
Didn't you used to have a sense of humor? I thought you might be able
to wrap your head around the fact that I was purposefully being crass
in that statement, and might not completely flip out on me for it.
> >but you really should reconsider
> >grouping the Libertarians in when you comment on things regarding
> >religion, censorship, or social issues.
>
> Y'know, Slater's comments about you being knowledgeable in areas
> outside of politics notwithstanding, you really are one of the
dumbest
> guys I've ever had the misfortune to interact with. See, what you
> should have done here is asked the question "What do you mean when
> you use the term 'RepubliDixieLibCon'?", to which I would have
replied:
>
> "It refers to Bush supporters, as evidenced by the people who
> voted him into a second term of office."
>
> I don't see any hate in that statement, I don't seen any confusion
> of positions -- these were all people who, regardless of their
beliefs,
> engaged in the same action.
Okay, then. I'll bite, since you brought it up.
When you include the "Lib" portion in that statement, does that indeed
signify Libertarians? If not, then what does it encompass? If so, then
where do you get the assumption that Libertarians voted for George
Bush?
I mean, I know several Libertarians who strongly support George Bush,
although I myself am most certainly not a member of that population.
However, I've yet to meet one that could bring himself to actually vote
for George Bush.
The floor goes back to you, Mr. VP. You're more than welcome to act
like a child again and make a bunch of strawman accusations and ad
hominem attacks, but I think you might be able to be civil about it if
you give it a shot.
-Froggy
Squad
> ><snip>
> >
>
> outside of politics notwithstanding, you really are one of the dumbest
> guys I've ever had the misfortune to interact with.
HEY! What about ME?!?!?!?!!
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
> >I know that you use your new "RepubliDixieLibCons" catchphrase as a
> >silly attempt to group everyone whose viewpoint differs from yours
> >together in one easy-to-hate bundle,
> >but you really should reconsider
> >grouping the Libertarians in when you comment on things regarding
> >religion, censorship, or social issues.
>
> Y'know, Slater's comments about you being knowledgeable in areas
> outside of politics notwithstanding, you really are one of the
dumbest
> guys I've ever had the misfortune to interact with. See, what you
> should have done here is asked the question "What do you mean when
> you use the term 'RepubliDixieLibCon'?", to which I would have
replied:
>
> "It refers to Bush supporters, as evidenced by the people who
> voted him into a second term of office."
Hey, since you've invoked my name .... One, my politics are almost
certainly closer to MVP's than Froggy's. BUT I never said or implied
Froggy wasn't "knowlegeable" about politics, merely that he and I often
disagree (which is what adds the spice to our imaginary tag-team). And
in this particular case, I think Froggy is correct that Libertarians
are not going to be sympathetic to the "SpongeBob is gay!" crowd.
Having said all that, can't we all agree that the "SpongeBob is gay!"
crowd are a bunch of scary morons that have too much influence with the
current President?--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
Allan J. Benson
Mark van Pelt (mark...@newsguy.com) writes:
> *SMACK TO THE LEFT* *SMACK TO THE RIGHT* But toor...@gmail.com still managed to
> say:
>>
>>
>>When you include the "Lib" portion in that statement, does that indeed
>>signify Libertarians? If not, then what does it encompass? If so, then
>>where do you get the assumption that Libertarians voted for George
>>Bush?
>
> the election, people who identified themselves as Libertarian or
> libertarian-leaning here in RSPW and elsewhere said that they just
> couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat and didn't want to
> waste their vote on someone who didn't have a chance to win.
Since when should RSPW be considered a good sample
of the "normal" population? This newsgroup has more
extremists, kooks, trolls, usenet performance artists
and weirdos posting opinions than I've ever seen.
_Especially_ when it comes to politics.
--
They call me Mister Benson.
*******************************************************
"Opinions are like assholes, everbody's got one."
- Clint Eastwood
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
> of the "normal" population? This newsgroup has more
> extremists, kooks, trolls, usenet performance artists
> and weirdos posting opinions than I've ever seen.
> _Especially_ when it comes to politics.
>
I wouldn't say RSPW is a good sample of the "normal" population, but as
I've said before, the political discussion is signficantly better here
than it is on the "political discussion" groups in usenet, like
alt.politics. That's nothing to be proud of because the bar is so
miserably low there, but it's true.--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
Froggy in the [mWo]
Mark van Pelt wrote:
> *SMACK TO THE LEFT* *SMACK TO THE RIGHT* But toor...@gmail.com still
managed to
> say:
> >> There you go again, making erroneous assumptions and then
attributing
> >> your own misconceptions to the people you attack.
> >
> >And there *you* go, doing the same.
> >
> >Didn't you used to have a sense of humor? I thought you might be
able
> >to wrap your head around the fact that I was purposefully being
crass
> >in that statement, and might not completely flip out on me for it.
>
> Clearly, you have a *LOT* to learn about expressing humor in a text
> medium. I say this not because of this instance but I believe that
> there's been at least one other instance in the past week when you
> "tried" to make a joke which completely fell flat.
I'm assuming (since outside of voting in popularity contests I've made
like three point four posts all week) you must be referring to the
"Chad=Cain" observation I made; which, if you fell for it, you join a
very small minority in not "getting" it.
> >> >but you really should reconsider
> >> >grouping the Libertarians in when you comment on things regarding
> >> >religion, censorship, or social issues.
> >>
> >> Y'know, Slater's comments about you being knowledgeable in areas
> >> outside of politics notwithstanding, you really are one of the
> >dumbest
> >> guys I've ever had the misfortune to interact with. See, what you
> >> should have done here is asked the question "What do you mean when
> >> you use the term 'RepubliDixieLibCon'?", to which I would have
> >replied:
> >>
> >> "It refers to Bush supporters, as evidenced by the people who
> >> voted him into a second term of office."
> >>
> >> I don't see any hate in that statement, I don't seen any confusion
> >> of positions -- these were all people who, regardless of their
> >beliefs,
> >> engaged in the same action.
> >
> >Okay, then. I'll bite, since you brought it up.
> >
> >When you include the "Lib" portion in that statement, does that
indeed
> >signify Libertarians? If not, then what does it encompass? If so,
then
> >where do you get the assumption that Libertarians voted for George
> >Bush?
>
> Lib = Libertarians. Why include them? Because in the months before
> the election, people who identified themselves as Libertarian or
> libertarian-leaning here in RSPW and elsewhere said that they just
> couldn't bring themselves to vote for a Democrat and didn't want to
> waste their vote on someone who didn't have a chance to win.
Hey, I can identify myself as a Nobel-prize winning Luchadore with a
twelve-inch penis, but that doesn't necessarily make it true.
Anyone who calls themself a Libertarian and then complains about
wasting a vote on a thirs party, though, ain't no Libertarian.
> >I mean, I know several Libertarians who strongly support George
Bush,
> >although I myself am most certainly not a member of that population.
> >However, I've yet to meet one that could bring himself to actually
vote
> >for George Bush.
>
> Well, here's a couple of "Libertarians For Bush" websites for you.
> I sure that more than just a couple of self-described Libertarians
> voted for Bush:
>
> http://qando.net/archives/003931.htm
> http://www.m4radio.com/main/messageboard/553.html
>
> There was a website www.libertariansforbush.com but it's been
abandoned
> since the election and now re-directs to the following website:
>
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/mainstreamlibertarians/
Well, by that rationale, you might want to amend that name to something
like "RepubliDixieLibDemoCons", because it doesn't take much effort to
find sites like this:
http://democrats4bush.com/
http://democratsforbush.blogspot.com/
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections2004/story/0,13918,1340525,00.html
http://www.newciv.org/nl/newslog.php/_v256/__show_article/_a000256-000101.htm
Hell, if I look hard enough, I can even find Hungarian Socialists for
Bush!
http://www.patridiots.com/001136.html
Perhaps the most telling evidence is in the exit polling, which proved
to be inaccurate, but inaccurate in favor of the Democrats in this
election, helping to illustrate my point:
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2004/pages/results/states/US/P/00/epolls.0.html
According to those polls, nearly *twice as many* Democrats voted for
George Bush (11% of them) than Republicans voted for John Kerry (only
6%)
Point is, I'm sure there are plenty of self-professed Libertarians out
there who voted for Dubya, and I'm sure even a few registered ones
(talk show host Neal Boortz is one.) But you really can't possibly
think that number is substantial enough to make a difference,
especially considering 11% of registered Democrats who voted voted for
Bush.
> >The floor goes back to you, Mr. VP. You're more than welcome to act
> >like a child again and make a bunch of strawman accusations
>
> "Strawman accusations"? Do you have any idea what you're talking
about?
You've painted a nice picture of the version of me with whom you
disagree with, without really knowing what I believe.
> >and ad hominem attacks,
>
> "Stupid is as stupid does". I just call what you do as I see it.
>
> >but I think you might be able to be civil about it if
> >you give it a shot.
>
> You're right. I really should be more sensitive to mentally
challenged.
*sigh*. Well, I guess must have been too much to ask for you to act
like a grown-up for five minutes.
-Froggy
Allan J. Benson
Perhaps, but 9/10 times I click on a political thread
I see somebody flaming someone else. It's actually
been pretty good since the election, in terms of
volume, though.
Froggy in the [mWo]
> *SMACK TO THE LEFT* *SMACK TO THE RIGHT* But jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
> still
> managed to say:
>>
>>> >I know that you use your new "RepubliDixieLibCons" catchphrase as a
>>> >silly attempt to group everyone whose viewpoint differs from yours
>>> >together in one easy-to-hate bundle,
>>
>>> >but you really should reconsider
>>> >grouping the Libertarians in when you comment on things regarding
>>> >religion, censorship, or social issues.
>>>
>>> Y'know, Slater's comments about you being knowledgeable in areas
>>> outside of politics notwithstanding, you really are one of the dumbest
>>> guys I've ever had the misfortune to interact with. See, what you
>>> should have done here is asked the question "What do you mean when
>>> you use the term 'RepubliDixieLibCon'?", to which I would have replied:
>>>
>>> "It refers to Bush supporters, as evidenced by the people who
>>> voted him into a second term of office."
>>
>>Hey, since you've invoked my name ....
>
>
>>One, my politics are almost
>>certainly closer to MVP's than Froggy's. BUT I never said or implied
>>Froggy wasn't "knowlegeable" about politics,
>
> I didn't want to say that you thought F. wasn't knowledgeable about
> politics, that that was just my own opinion.
>
>>merely that he and I often
>>disagree (which is what adds the spice to our imaginary tag-team). And
>>in this particular case, I think Froggy is correct that Libertarians
>>are not going to be sympathetic to the "SpongeBob is gay!" crowd.
>
> like that.
My crassness must have thrown you for a loop, because the entire point of me
entering this thread was to point that out. When I said "you really should
reconsider grouping the Libertarians in when you comment on things regarding
religion, censorship, or social issues" I clearly was grouping the whole
SpongeBob fiasco in that context.
-Froggy
the Bede
"Allan J. Benson" <cc...@FreeNet.Carleton.CA> wrote in message
news:css1rn$is1$1...@theodyn.ncf.ca...
>
> (jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu) writes:
> >> Since when should RSPW be considered a good sample
> >> of the "normal" population? This newsgroup has more
> >> extremists, kooks, trolls, usenet performance artists
> >> and weirdos posting opinions than I've ever seen.
> >> _Especially_ when it comes to politics.
> >
> > I wouldn't say RSPW is a good sample of the "normal" population, but as
> > I've said before, the political discussion is signficantly better here
> > than it is on the "political discussion" groups in usenet, like
> > alt.politics. That's nothing to be proud of because the bar is so
> > miserably low there, but it's true.--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
>
> Perhaps, but 9/10 times I click on a political thread
> I see somebody flaming someone else. It's actually
> been pretty good since the election, in terms of
> volume, though.
>
Lord Gow, rogue bull of the 333!
> *sigh*. Well, I guess must have been too much to ask for you to act
> like a grown-up for five minutes.
I think he may have legitimately snapped now that W2 is official.
LG
--
Winter wonderland my ass!!!
How much longer 'til spring?!?
Lord Gow, rogue bull of the 333!
> I agree but I'd break it down into:
> (1) they are a bunch of scary morons
> (2) they have too much influence with Dubbya
Bush exaggerates Christianity to appeal to the religious right.
Bush influenced by the religious right.
Ladies & Gentlemen, the wisdom of MVP.
Weren't there concerns that JFK was going to be influenced by the Pope?
> Even if they didn't influence Dubbya, they'd be scary morons.
This I can fairly well agree with.
Lord Gow, rogue bull of the 333!
> toor...@gmail.com wrote in news:1106343062.762221.202580
> @z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com:
>
>> I mean, I know several Libertarians who strongly support George Bush,
>>
>
> themselves so. George Bush's policies are 'libertarian' only to the
> extent that he seeks to remove the useful and necessary environmental
> and ethical contraints placed on large corporations, while continuing
> to enact and support policies and positions which are clearly
> intended to limit and even eliminate individual freedom.
>
> This is, in point of fact, precisely the inverse of what the last
> known group of genuinely rational Libertarians had in mind when they
> wrote the constitution.
Psst... John. That's why they put in that whole "ability to select a new
govt. periodically" thinghy...
Depending on the will of the majority, of course.
LG
--
George Bush 59,099,991 votes 279 EC
John Kerry 55,535,905 votes 252 EC
God Bless America!
Froggy in the [mWo]
> *SMACK TO THE LEFT* *SMACK TO THE RIGHT* But Froggy in the [mWo]"
> <toor...@clownpenis.fart> still managed to say:
> a rose in garbage landfill.
>
>>because the entire point of me
>>entering this thread was to point that out.
>
> with that communication problem you have.
I'm feeling slightly too tipsy right now to quibble on intent, but the good
Professor Slater was able to pick up on mine with no problem here. Either
way, if you think I'm putting *that* much effort into a post on an internet
newsgroup dedicated to a fake sport, then there's some prime farmland in
Greenland I'm willing to get you real cheap.
>>When I said "you really should
>>reconsider grouping the Libertarians in when you comment on things
>>regarding
>>religion, censorship, or social issues"
>
> On this point specificly: you're kidding right? You may believe
> that you think differently from the Christian Right and other right-wing
> nuts but the net result of a libertarian's actions is equivalent to that
> of those groups. Exhibit A: George Dubbya.
Pray tell, what do Libertarians have to do with George Dubya? I mean,
considering the majority of them are completely against the item that was
the foundation of his campaign (that being the Iraq war) then I fail to see
how you arrive at this conclusion.
>>I clearly was grouping the whole SpongeBob fiasco in that context.
>
> "clearly" LOL~! Look into that effective communication course, m'kay?
Hey, who knows? Maybe I left you behind. Others semed to catch my drift
without a problem.
-Froggy
Get on board! It's like the Great Space Coaster!
Froggy in the [mWo]
"John Henry" <j...@inNOSPAMsurgent.orgy> wrote in message
news:Xns95E5D995FED17jo...@216.168.3.44...
>>
>
> George Bush's policies are 'libertarian' only to the extent that he seeks
> to remove the useful and necessary environmental and ethical contraints
> placed on large corporations, while continuing to enact and support
> policies and positions which are clearly intended to limit and even
> eliminate individual freedom.
>
> This is, in point of fact, precisely the inverse of what the last known
> group of genuinely rational Libertarians had in mind when they wrote the
> constitution.
Naw.
I think, if you look back in history, there are plenty of *rational*
Libertarians, both in party and in philosophy, that have come since. Even as
someone who identifies with the party far more than the "big two", I will
gladly concede the idea that the current party philosophy is extreme, but
you have to put that in context. People once thought the idea of democracy
was extreme. People once thought the idea of equal rights was extreme.
People once thought that allowing women and minorities to vote was extreme.
Fact is, on a lot of issues, the current Libertarians are *far* more
rational than the founding fathers; people who dreamed of a society of rich
white male landowners.
And when you apply the label more loosely, look at what you find. I mean,
aside from his hawkish stance in Viet Nam, JFK was a Libertarian, for all
intents and purposes; at least more than any Prez who's come since could
ever pretend to be.
People miss the point of the third party. Nobody who voted for Michael
Badnarik expected him to win and turn the nation on its ear. Same goes for
Ralph Nader, David Cobb, or Michael Peroutka. The idea is to send a message
to the big guys that they're doing everything wrong. And it may be
working -- The folks in the Republican Party who have been bubbling under
the surface for the last few years, the Schwarzeneggers, the Patakis, the
Guilianis, the McCains -- are far closer to the Libertarian philosophy than
the party would have you believe. And while a lot of it may have to do with
the right-wing zealots who vote against gay marriage and abortion and civil
rights laws, I think that a lot of the reason the Republicans swept the last
election had to do with the fact that they show a greater hope for
moderatism, while the Democrats have abandoned that ideal in order to prop
up the Hillary Clintons and Howard Deans of the party. Those who are
presented as moderates, including John Kerry, come off looking like they're
faking it.
Fuck it. I'm too tipsy to be getting in to this, but I think you get my
point.
-Froggy
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
But stable-mate o' mine, I honestly don't get why you (or any other
Libertarian, or anybody else, period), thinks Bush was more "moderate"
than Kerry. Bush, like him or not, is the most hard-core right wing
president we've had since ... well, I'm not sure when. Reagan looks
restrained in comparison (RR only gave lip service to the religious
right, didn't try to undo the New Deal the way Bush is trying to, and
didn't start any disastrous war based on ideology over facts). What
the hell would Kerry have done, or tried to do, that would have been
less "moderate" than what Bush has done and is doing?
Bush's campaign, in the final days, came down to "I'm the tough guy
that went to war with Iraq" and "I'm the guy that is proposing a
constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." Why a libertarian would
be attracted to those positions baffles me. Unless the libertarians in
question are the knee-jerk anti-any-kind of regulation (environmental,
labor) etc. that go for Bush because of his "anything big business
wants, big business gets" doctrines. And I think there are folks who
call themselves libertarians who are like that. But I don't get the
sense you are one of those, Froggy, so I remain confused.--Joe (n.j)
[mWo]
Froggy in the [mWo]
<jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in message
news:1106500172.4...@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Er, I don't. I don't seem to recall ever thinking that, much less relaying
any idea of that nature to RSPW.
In fact, I'd say the opposite, but only because i think John Kerry was so
easily manipulated in his campaign to try to sell his own image. Don't get
me wrong -- I think Kerry has some pretty deep convictions, he just chose to
ignore a lot of those and try and appeal to everyone by playing it down the
middle in his campaign. Bush, OTOH, like him or not, was pretty concrete on
his stances on everything. Sure, you and I might call it stubbornness, but I
think voters connected to his convictions better than they connected with
Kerry's.
So yeah, John Kerry is *definitely* more of a moderate than G.W. Bush, but I
would say that is more by his own design rather than by accident.
Bush, like him or not, is the most hard-core right wing
> president we've had since ... well, I'm not sure when. Reagan looks
> restrained in comparison (RR only gave lip service to the religious
> right, didn't try to undo the New Deal the way Bush is trying to, and
> didn't start any disastrous war based on ideology over facts). What
> the hell would Kerry have done, or tried to do, that would have been
> less "moderate" than what Bush has done and is doing?
>
> Bush's campaign, in the final days, came down to "I'm the tough guy
> that went to war with Iraq" and "I'm the guy that is proposing a
> constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage." Why a libertarian would
> be attracted to those positions baffles me. Unless the libertarians in
> question are the knee-jerk anti-any-kind of regulation (environmental,
> labor) etc. that go for Bush because of his "anything big business
> wants, big business gets" doctrines. And I think there are folks who
> call themselves libertarians who are like that. But I don't get the
> sense you are one of those, Froggy, so I remain confused.--Joe (n.j)
> [mWo]
But I'm not sure what you're trying to get at.
I think you may be falling in to the same trap that MVP falls in to so
often -- just because I'm not with you on something doesn't mean I'm against
you.
Don't assume because I didn't fellate John Kerry during this last election
that I, in any way, supported his opponent. I guarantee you won't find an
instance of me saying such a thing since he took office.
-Froggy
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
Froggy in the [mWo] wrote:
You say above, and I quote directly, "I think that a lot of the reason
the Republicans swept the last election had to do with the fact that
they show a greater hope for moderatism, while the Democrats have
abondoned that ideal in order to prop up the Hillary Clintons and
Howard Deans of the party. Those who are presented as moderates,
including John Kerry, come off looking like they're faking it."
Now, it's true, I guess, that you never say "Bush is more moderate than
Kerry," in so many words, but I think I could reasonably come to the
conclusion that that was what you meant--certainly you're saying the
Repubs. came off as moderates more than the Dems.
I don't want to get into one of those "but the better reading of an
earlier post was ...," so I'll just say this:
The Repubs. AS A PARTY, from Bush to Congressional candidates, were not
the moderates last time. Hillary Clinton and Howard Dean--if you get
past the right wing disinformation and personal smears--actually have
relatively moderate platforms (a friend of mine that does immigration
law was bemoaning how anti-immigrant Hillary is). And again, I think
Kerry was more of a moderate than Bush. If you agree, cool.
> In fact, I'd say the opposite, but only because i think John Kerry
was so
> easily manipulated in his campaign to try to sell his own image.
Don't get
> me wrong -- I think Kerry has some pretty deep convictions, he just
chose to
> ignore a lot of those and try and appeal to everyone by playing it
down the
> middle in his campaign. Bush, OTOH, like him or not, was pretty
concrete on
> his stances on everything. Sure, you and I might call it
stubbornness, but I
> think voters connected to his convictions better than they connected
with
> Kerry's.
I agree that Bush seemed more "authentic" to many people. To others,
like me, Bush seemed like a product in a well-oiled commerical
campaign, but there was only 49% of people like me. I don't call
Bush's attitude "stubborness," by the way, I call it "blind and pretty
radical ideological faith despite facts."
> So yeah, John Kerry is *definitely* more of a moderate than G.W.
Bush, but I
> would say that is more by his own design rather than by accident.
OK.
Nah, I just took your words saying that the Repubs. seemed more
moderate. If that's not what you meant, cool.
> Don't assume because I didn't fellate John Kerry during this last
election
> that I, in any way, supported his opponent. I guarantee you won't
find an
> instance of me saying such a thing since he took office.
I'll take you at your word on that. Now, what were your top ten albums
of 2004? If they don't include "I" by Magnetic Fields, well THEN we
have a problem.--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
> -Froggy
Froggy in the [mWo]
<jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in message
news:1106508453....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> I'll take you at your word on that. Now, what were your top ten albums
> of 2004? If they don't include "I" by Magnetic Fields, well THEN we
> have a problem.--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
My favorite ten albums of the year are... erm...
Well, the only albums released last year that I heard in their entirety were
Velvet Revolver's "Contraband", De La Soul's "The Grind Date", Jet's "Get
Born", and the Cure's self-titled album, then I guess we have that problem.
Oh hell, I just realized the Jet album came out in '03. So like, nevermind
on that one.
I guess I like my old fogey music too much to get into this new-fangled
stuff.
-Froggy
jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu
Froggy in the [mWo] wrote:
> <jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in message
> news:1106508453....@c13g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> >
> > Froggy in the [mWo] wrote:
> >> <jsl...@utnet.utoledo.edu> wrote in message
>
> > I'll take you at your word on that. Now, what were your top ten
albums
> > of 2004? If they don't include "I" by Magnetic Fields, well THEN
we
> > have a problem.--Joe (n.j.) [mWo]
>
> My favorite ten albums of the year are... erm...
>
> Well, the only albums released last year that I heard in their
entirety were
> Velvet Revolver's "Contraband", De La Soul's "The Grind Date", Jet's
"Get
> Born", and the Cure's self-titled album, then I guess we have that
problem.
>
> Oh hell, I just realized the Jet album came out in '03. So like,
nevermind
> on that one.
>
> I guess I like my old fogey music too much to get into this
new-fangled
> stuff.
>
> -Froggy
Get "I" by Magnetic Fields. It's not all that new-fangled and I'll
bet dollars to donuts you'll like it. One song has my favorite opening
line maybe ever: "So you quote love unquote me ..." Or, if you're a
downloading kind of guy, get these songs: "I Don't Believe You," "I
Thought You Were My Boyfriend," and "I Wish I Had an Evil Twin."--Joe
(n.j.) [mWo]