Goddamm, Cheney's got his head up his ass

[amit]

Bill C wrote:

> Yeah, I did and the numbers keep dropping, but I think they have
> chosen not to vote rather than vote for the Democrat so it hurts, but
> it's not a double effect, and the majority of the military is coming
> from States that are pretty firmly Republican anyway so it has about as
> much effect as my voting does here in Mass. I was just reading where
> the national Democratic party put the screws to one of the Iraq war
> vets they had been pushing hard to run once one of the Good Ol' Boy
> networks pols decided he'd like to run for that seat. They cut his
> funding off by calling everyone and telling them NOT to give him money,
> apparently Schumer was leading the way on this but his office wouldn't
> return calls on the subject.
> They really keep shooting themselves in the foot and just can't seem
> to focus on the things that would sway swing voters. They just keep
> pounding away at their base, arguing that all they need to do is get
> the base "energized". If that hasn't worked yet, after all this, then
> it's hopeless, but as you pointed out, they are hidebound in how they
> do things. I think the Republicans have been smart enough to, at least
> publicly, marginalize their nutcases while the Dem's feature them and
> play them up. Just doesn't sell to middle America and the swing states.

dumbass,

this is only my outsiders perspective, but somehow the american public
has been convinced they what they want in a leader is someone who
"represents" them, or at least how they ideally see themselves -- as
opposed to someone who will WORK for them. which is why if a candidate
is happily married is apprently more important than their track record
on environmental issues. and apprently this stupid **** cheney hunting
fiasco might actually be a bigger political blunder than possibily
having leaked classified information to the press in order to justify
attacking Iraq.

> You're probably right about both the upcoming elections. I'm really
> afraid that they are going to nominate Hillary whose negative rating
> rivals Bush's even at this point. Obama is gaining crediblity, but is
> still too young and green to stick, especially against Guilliani.

I can't understand at all why Hillary Clinton has been vilified. When
Clinton was running for president the press and columnists were gushed
about her and how she's the "real brains" in that marriage and how
accomplished she is and how much she would elevate the role of first
lady yadda yadda.

she might not have been the ideal person to reform healthcare, but as
soon as she was in a position of power it was open season on her and
she now has been stigmatized as a witch. so Obama looks like a goden
boy now, but once it looks like he might be in a position of real power
the republicans are going to come up with his version of the swift boat
veterans and the issue of "who he is" is going to overshadow "what he
will do". even if the facts aren't there they do such a great job
"casting doubts" that what's true doesn't even matter.

 

[[email protected]]

Sandy wrote:
> Dans le message de
> news:[email protected],
> [email protected] <[email protected]> a réfléchi, et puis a déclaré :
>
> > I mock your horrible stupidity.
> >
> Can you post a picture of that ? Need the proper bar to saddle view.

Tempting, tempting... a quick google for a suitable-- but no, I must
demur.

Sorry, Sandy, you're going to have to satisfy yourself with the verbal
on this one. Regrets.

Maybe TK will read from the following link. It expands somewhat on
conversations I've had with men who have done time in prison:
http://www.spr.org/en/sprnews/2002/102502.html --D-y

 

[[email protected]]

Jack Hollis wrote:
> On 19 Feb 2006 07:45:18 -0800, "[email protected]"
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >*Illegal*? Let's see, we make laws so people can't strike, so we take
> >any collective power (those Communists!!!) away from them, right, Mr.
> >Conservative? And smear them "morally" while we're at it?
>
>
> No, actually the procedure in cases of a stalemate is binding
> arbetration. Same was true in NY last December. In both cases, the
> Union figured that they would play hard ball and call an illegal
> strike. In NY, the TWU had to fold because they were running out of
> money to pay the daily fine and were about to lose their building. In
> the case of the ATCs, they were out hard balled by Reagan.

The first step being, not to repeat myself or anything, "make the
strike illegal". Thus, strikers are put in a bad light if they choose
not to be bound by "arbitration" that perhaps exists in name only. TWU
workers, especially new hires, were being squeezed by the MTA, which
reported a $1 billion surplus at the same time. Squeezes such as
etending length of service/retirement age requirements, a 2 percent
wage increase over 2 years, "contingent on exetending disciplinary
citations on members who take 'too much' sick leave" (translation: you
can't use your sick leave without penalty), making new hires pay 2
percent of their salary into a pension plan (from
www.workers.ore/2006/us/twu-0112/ ).

Yes, Ronnie had a field day with the ATC's. Power to the Power! A
forecast of things to come, like mismanaging say, General Motors, and
then taking away worker pensions when the "liability" of fulfilling
long-term contracts/financial obligations gets too big. O brave new
world...
--D-y

 

[Bill C]

amit wrote:
> Bill C wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I did and the numbers keep dropping, but I think they have
> > chosen not to vote rather than vote for the Democrat so it hurts, but
> > it's not a double effect, and the majority of the military is coming
> > from States that are pretty firmly Republican anyway so it has about as
> > much effect as my voting does here in Mass. I was just reading where
> > the national Democratic party put the screws to one of the Iraq war
> > vets they had been pushing hard to run once one of the Good Ol' Boy
> > networks pols decided he'd like to run for that seat. They cut his
> > funding off by calling everyone and telling them NOT to give him money,
> > apparently Schumer was leading the way on this but his office wouldn't
> > return calls on the subject.
> > They really keep shooting themselves in the foot and just can't seem
> > to focus on the things that would sway swing voters. They just keep
> > pounding away at their base, arguing that all they need to do is get
> > the base "energized". If that hasn't worked yet, after all this, then
> > it's hopeless, but as you pointed out, they are hidebound in how they
> > do things. I think the Republicans have been smart enough to, at least
> > publicly, marginalize their nutcases while the Dem's feature them and
> > play them up. Just doesn't sell to middle America and the swing states.
>
> dumbass,
>
> this is only my outsiders perspective, but somehow the american public
> has been convinced they what they want in a leader is someone who
> "represents" them, or at least how they ideally see themselves -- as
> opposed to someone who will WORK for them. which is why if a candidate
> is happily married is apprently more important than their track record
> on environmental issues. and apprently this stupid **** cheney hunting
> fiasco might actually be a bigger political blunder than possibily
> having leaked classified information to the press in order to justify
> attacking Iraq.
>
> > You're probably right about both the upcoming elections. I'm really
> > afraid that they are going to nominate Hillary whose negative rating
> > rivals Bush's even at this point. Obama is gaining crediblity, but is
> > still too young and green to stick, especially against Guilliani.
>
> I can't understand at all why Hillary Clinton has been vilified. When
> Clinton was running for president the press and columnists were gushed
> about her and how she's the "real brains" in that marriage and how
> accomplished she is and how much she would elevate the role of first
> lady yadda yadda.
>
> she might not have been the ideal person to reform healthcare, but as
> soon as she was in a position of power it was open season on her and
> she now has been stigmatized as a witch. so Obama looks like a goden
> boy now, but once it looks like he might be in a position of real power
> the republicans are going to come up with his version of the swift boat
> veterans and the issue of "who he is" is going to overshadow "what he
> will do". even if the facts aren't there they do such a great job
> "casting doubts" that what's true doesn't even matter.

I have a ton of problems with Hillary, the biggest is that my
impression from following her all these years is that she is easily the
most Machiavellian politician in the US today. I don't think she has
anything even resembling integrity, or principles other than to grab
all the money and power she can get, and after 8 years of that from
this bunch I think we need a rest. IMO she's a much smarter version of
Cheney, but coming from the left instead of the right. If they run her
against anyone even vaguely decent I think she loses pretty big and
that would leave us with at least another 4 years of this **** from the
next midget.
Bill C

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"amit" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Bill C wrote:
>
> > Yeah, I did and the numbers keep dropping, but I think they have
> > chosen not to vote rather than vote for the Democrat so it hurts, but
> > it's not a double effect, and the majority of the military is coming
> > from States that are pretty firmly Republican anyway so it has about as
> > much effect as my voting does here in Mass. I was just reading where
> > the national Democratic party put the screws to one of the Iraq war
> > vets they had been pushing hard to run once one of the Good Ol' Boy
> > networks pols decided he'd like to run for that seat. They cut his
> > funding off by calling everyone and telling them NOT to give him money,
> > apparently Schumer was leading the way on this but his office wouldn't
> > return calls on the subject.
> > They really keep shooting themselves in the foot and just can't seem
> > to focus on the things that would sway swing voters. They just keep
> > pounding away at their base, arguing that all they need to do is get
> > the base "energized". If that hasn't worked yet, after all this, then
> > it's hopeless, but as you pointed out, they are hidebound in how they
> > do things. I think the Republicans have been smart enough to, at least
> > publicly, marginalize their nutcases while the Dem's feature them and
> > play them up. Just doesn't sell to middle America and the swing states.
>
> dumbass,
>
> this is only my outsiders perspective, but somehow the american public
> has been convinced they what they want in a leader is someone who
> "represents" them, or at least how they ideally see themselves -- as
> opposed to someone who will WORK for them. which is why if a candidate
> is happily married is apprently more important than their track record
> on environmental issues. and apprently this stupid **** cheney hunting
> fiasco might actually be a bigger political blunder than possibily
> having leaked classified information to the press in order to justify
> attacking Iraq.
>
> > You're probably right about both the upcoming elections. I'm really
> > afraid that they are going to nominate Hillary whose negative rating
> > rivals Bush's even at this point. Obama is gaining crediblity, but is
> > still too young and green to stick, especially against Guilliani.
>
> I can't understand at all why Hillary Clinton has been vilified. When
> Clinton was running for president the press and columnists were gushed
> about her and how she's the "real brains" in that marriage and how
> accomplished she is and how much she would elevate the role of first
> lady yadda yadda.
>
> she might not have been the ideal person to reform healthcare, but as
> soon as she was in a position of power it was open season on her and
> she now has been stigmatized as a witch. so Obama looks like a goden
> boy now, but once it looks like he might be in a position of real power
> the republicans are going to come up with his version of the swift boat
> veterans and the issue of "who he is" is going to overshadow "what he
> will do". even if the facts aren't there they do such a great job
> "casting doubts" that what's true doesn't even matter.

While she was First Lady I continued to think of Hillary
Clinton as a private citizen; someone who is owed
consideration because I never know the whole story. Once
she entered politics as a candidate I exercised my right
to dislike and vilify her on a whim.

--
Michael Press

 

[Michael Press]

In article
<[email protected]>,
"Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:

> amit wrote:
> > Bill C wrote:
> >
> > > Yeah, I did and the numbers keep dropping, but I think they have
> > > chosen not to vote rather than vote for the Democrat so it hurts, but
> > > it's not a double effect, and the majority of the military is coming
> > > from States that are pretty firmly Republican anyway so it has about as
> > > much effect as my voting does here in Mass. I was just reading where
> > > the national Democratic party put the screws to one of the Iraq war
> > > vets they had been pushing hard to run once one of the Good Ol' Boy
> > > networks pols decided he'd like to run for that seat. They cut his
> > > funding off by calling everyone and telling them NOT to give him money,
> > > apparently Schumer was leading the way on this but his office wouldn't
> > > return calls on the subject.
> > > They really keep shooting themselves in the foot and just can't seem
> > > to focus on the things that would sway swing voters. They just keep
> > > pounding away at their base, arguing that all they need to do is get
> > > the base "energized". If that hasn't worked yet, after all this, then
> > > it's hopeless, but as you pointed out, they are hidebound in how they
> > > do things. I think the Republicans have been smart enough to, at least
> > > publicly, marginalize their nutcases while the Dem's feature them and
> > > play them up. Just doesn't sell to middle America and the swing states.
> >
> > dumbass,
> >
> > this is only my outsiders perspective, but somehow the american public
> > has been convinced they what they want in a leader is someone who
> > "represents" them, or at least how they ideally see themselves -- as
> > opposed to someone who will WORK for them. which is why if a candidate
> > is happily married is apprently more important than their track record
> > on environmental issues. and apprently this stupid **** cheney hunting
> > fiasco might actually be a bigger political blunder than possibily
> > having leaked classified information to the press in order to justify
> > attacking Iraq.
> >
> > > You're probably right about both the upcoming elections. I'm really
> > > afraid that they are going to nominate Hillary whose negative rating
> > > rivals Bush's even at this point. Obama is gaining crediblity, but is
> > > still too young and green to stick, especially against Guilliani.
> >
> > I can't understand at all why Hillary Clinton has been vilified. When
> > Clinton was running for president the press and columnists were gushed
> > about her and how she's the "real brains" in that marriage and how
> > accomplished she is and how much she would elevate the role of first
> > lady yadda yadda.
> >
> > she might not have been the ideal person to reform healthcare, but as
> > soon as she was in a position of power it was open season on her and
> > she now has been stigmatized as a witch. so Obama looks like a goden
> > boy now, but once it looks like he might be in a position of real power
> > the republicans are going to come up with his version of the swift boat
> > veterans and the issue of "who he is" is going to overshadow "what he
> > will do". even if the facts aren't there they do such a great job
> > "casting doubts" that what's true doesn't even matter.
>
> I have a ton of problems with Hillary, the biggest is that my
> impression from following her all these years is that she is easily the
> most Machiavellian politician in the US today.

That's a good thing, yes?

> I don't think she has
> anything even resembling integrity, or principles other than to grab
> all the money and power she can get, and after 8 years of that from
> this bunch I think we need a rest. IMO she's a much smarter version of
> Cheney, but coming from the left instead of the right. If they run her
> against anyone even vaguely decent I think she loses pretty big and
> that would leave us with at least another 4 years of this **** from the
> next midget.

I still think that she will not be nominated.

--
Michael Press

 

[Bill C]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
> <[email protected]>,
> "Bill C" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > amit wrote:
> > > Bill C wrote:
> > >
> > > > Yeah, I did and the numbers keep dropping, but I think they have
> > > > chosen not to vote rather than vote for the Democrat so it hurts, but
> > > > it's not a double effect, and the majority of the military is coming
> > > > from States that are pretty firmly Republican anyway so it has about as
> > > > much effect as my voting does here in Mass. I was just reading where
> > > > the national Democratic party put the screws to one of the Iraq war
> > > > vets they had been pushing hard to run once one of the Good Ol' Boy
> > > > networks pols decided he'd like to run for that seat. They cut his
> > > > funding off by calling everyone and telling them NOT to give him money,
> > > > apparently Schumer was leading the way on this but his office wouldn't
> > > > return calls on the subject.
> > > > They really keep shooting themselves in the foot and just can't seem
> > > > to focus on the things that would sway swing voters. They just keep
> > > > pounding away at their base, arguing that all they need to do is get
> > > > the base "energized". If that hasn't worked yet, after all this, then
> > > > it's hopeless, but as you pointed out, they are hidebound in how they
> > > > do things. I think the Republicans have been smart enough to, at least
> > > > publicly, marginalize their nutcases while the Dem's feature them and
> > > > play them up. Just doesn't sell to middle America and the swing states.
> > >
> > > dumbass,
> > >
> > > this is only my outsiders perspective, but somehow the american public
> > > has been convinced they what they want in a leader is someone who
> > > "represents" them, or at least how they ideally see themselves -- as
> > > opposed to someone who will WORK for them. which is why if a candidate
> > > is happily married is apprently more important than their track record
> > > on environmental issues. and apprently this stupid **** cheney hunting
> > > fiasco might actually be a bigger political blunder than possibily
> > > having leaked classified information to the press in order to justify
> > > attacking Iraq.
> > >
> > > > You're probably right about both the upcoming elections. I'm really
> > > > afraid that they are going to nominate Hillary whose negative rating
> > > > rivals Bush's even at this point. Obama is gaining crediblity, but is
> > > > still too young and green to stick, especially against Guilliani.
> > >
> > > I can't understand at all why Hillary Clinton has been vilified. When
> > > Clinton was running for president the press and columnists were gushed
> > > about her and how she's the "real brains" in that marriage and how
> > > accomplished she is and how much she would elevate the role of first
> > > lady yadda yadda.
> > >
> > > she might not have been the ideal person to reform healthcare, but as
> > > soon as she was in a position of power it was open season on her and
> > > she now has been stigmatized as a witch. so Obama looks like a goden
> > > boy now, but once it looks like he might be in a position of real power
> > > the republicans are going to come up with his version of the swift boat
> > > veterans and the issue of "who he is" is going to overshadow "what he
> > > will do". even if the facts aren't there they do such a great job
> > > "casting doubts" that what's true doesn't even matter.
> >
> > I have a ton of problems with Hillary, the biggest is that my
> > impression from following her all these years is that she is easily the
> > most Machiavellian politician in the US today.
>
> That's a good thing, yes?
Not in my world, but if it works for you, and you own the opinion
publicly I've got no problem with it.
>
> > I don't think she has
> > anything even resembling integrity, or principles other than to grab
> > all the money and power she can get, and after 8 years of that from
> > this bunch I think we need a rest. IMO she's a much smarter version of
> > Cheney, but coming from the left instead of the right. If they run her
> > against anyone even vaguely decent I think she loses pretty big and
> > that would leave us with at least another 4 years of this **** from the
> > next midget.
>
> I still think that she will not be nominated.
>
> --
> Michael Press

I hope not, but they nominated Dukakis, and still think well of Teddy
Kennedy. We won't even go into Algore, he rivals Danny "boy" Quayle.
For a party that prides itself on intelligent academics serving and
advising, they have made some of the dumbest most out of touch with
reality decisions known to man, and have paid the price for it. Clinton
broke the mold and won handily, now they're back to normal and losing
as usual.
Bill C

 

[Steven Bornfeld]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article
>
>
> While she was First Lady I continued to think of Hillary
> Clinton as a private citizen; someone who is owed
> consideration because I never know the whole story. Once
> she entered politics as a candidate I exercised my right
> to dislike and vilify her on a whim.
>


If you're gonna base your vilifications on a whim, why should a
politician deserve less consideration than anyone else?

Steve

 

[Bill C]

Steven Bornfeld wrote:
> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> >
> >
> > While she was First Lady I continued to think of Hillary
> > Clinton as a private citizen; someone who is owed
> > consideration because I never know the whole story. Once
> > she entered politics as a candidate I exercised my right
> > to dislike and vilify her on a whim.
> >
>
>
> If you're gonna base your vilifications on a whim, why should a
> politician deserve less consideration than anyone else?
>
> Steve

Hey Steve
I'm pretty happy with your buddy Schumer at the moment. This port deal
is screwed, and borders on treason in my mind. I'm glad he's raising
hell about it. Selling off both strategic, and tactical US concerns to
the people who'll pay the biggest kickback seems to be the way of this
administration. I almost never agree with Chuck, but in this case I've
got his back.
Bill C

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 20 Feb 2006 13:53:10 -0800, "[email protected]"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>The first step being, not to repeat myself or anything, "make the
>strike illegal". Thus, strikers are put in a bad light if they choose
>not to be bound by "arbitration" that perhaps exists in name only.

Certain public sector employees are bound by law not to strike. The
safety and welfare of the public superseded their right to strike. In
those cases, when they can't reach an agreement they have to go to
binding arbitration.

In NY the arbitration panel has one member appointed by the City, one
member appointed by the Union and one member agreed on by both
parties.

BTW, if they still can't agree on the third party the matter goes to a
legislative hearing.

This seems quite logical and fair. You can't have public sector
employees holding the public hostage.

 

[Jack Hollis]

On 20 Feb 2006 13:57:18 -0800, "Bill C" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>If they run her
>against anyone even vaguely decent I think she loses pretty big and
>that would leave us with at least another 4 years of this **** from the
>next midget.

She could bring the Democratic Party down even further that it already
is.

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article
> >
> >
> > While she was First Lady I continued to think of Hillary
> > Clinton as a private citizen; someone who is owed
> > consideration because I never know the whole story. Once
> > she entered politics as a candidate I exercised my right
> > to dislike and vilify her on a whim.
>
> If you're gonna base your vilifications on a whim, why should a
> politician deserve less consideration than anyone else?

When you say `If you're gonna base your vilifications on a
whim' that is a misstatement of what I said. I never said
that I base all vilification on a whim.

--
Michael Press

 

[Steven Bornfeld]

Bill C wrote:
> Steven Bornfeld wrote:
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>>In article
>>>
>>>
>>>While she was First Lady I continued to think of Hillary
>>>Clinton as a private citizen; someone who is owed
>>>consideration because I never know the whole story. Once
>>>she entered politics as a candidate I exercised my right
>>>to dislike and vilify her on a whim.
>>>
>>
>>
>> If you're gonna base your vilifications on a whim, why should a
>>politician deserve less consideration than anyone else?
>>
>>Steve
>
>
> Hey Steve
> I'm pretty happy with your buddy Schumer at the moment. This port deal
> is screwed, and borders on treason in my mind. I'm glad he's raising
> hell about it. Selling off both strategic, and tactical US concerns to
> the people who'll pay the biggest kickback seems to be the way of this
> administration. I almost never agree with Chuck, but in this case I've
> got his back.
> Bill C

Chuck lives nearby, we occasionally see him on the street. If there's
a microphone or camera around, I know better than to get between him and
them.

Steve

>

 

[Steven Bornfeld]

Michael Press wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Michael Press wrote:
>>
>>>In article
>>>
>>>
>>>While she was First Lady I continued to think of Hillary
>>>Clinton as a private citizen; someone who is owed
>>>consideration because I never know the whole story. Once
>>>she entered politics as a candidate I exercised my right
>>>to dislike and vilify her on a whim.
>>
>> If you're gonna base your vilifications on a whim, why should a
>>politician deserve less consideration than anyone else?
>
>
> When you say `If you're gonna base your vilifications on a
> whim' that is a misstatement of what I said. I never said
> that I base all vilification on a whim.
>

Nor did I.

Steve

 

[Tim Lines]

Howard Kveck wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>So if I understand you correctly the more opinions you get from people that
>>weren't there the more correct you feel?
>
>
> Pretty funny stuff coming from a guy who seems to know precisely what was
> going on in Ted Kennedy's car back in 1969.
>

How do you know he wasn't there?

 

[Michael Press]

In article <[email protected]>,
Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:

> Michael Press wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Steven Bornfeld <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>Michael Press wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>While she was First Lady I continued to think of Hillary
> >>>Clinton as a private citizen; someone who is owed
> >>>consideration because I never know the whole story. Once
> >>>she entered politics as a candidate I exercised my right
> >>>to dislike and vilify her on a whim.
> >>
> >> If you're gonna base your vilifications on a whim, why should a
> >>politician deserve less consideration than anyone else?
> >
> >
> > When you say `If you're gonna base your vilifications on a
> > whim' that is a misstatement of what I said. I never said
> > that I base all vilification on a whim.
> >
>
> Nor did I.

Then I do not understand the question. Would your restate it?

--
Michael Press

 

[Howard Kveck]

In article <[email protected]>,
Tim Lines <[email protected]> wrote:

> Howard Kveck wrote:
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > "Tom Kunich" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >
> >>So if I understand you correctly the more opinions you get from people that
> >>weren't there the more correct you feel?
> >
> >
> > Pretty funny stuff coming from a guy who seems to know precisely what
> > was going on in Ted Kennedy's car back in 1969.
> >
>
> How do you know he wasn't there?

Whoaaa. Good point. He's been everywhere and done everything else, why not
this?

--
tanx,
Howard

The poodle bites, the poodle chews it.

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

 

[Donald Munro]

Bill C wrote:
> IMO she's a much smarter version of Cheney, but coming from the left
> instead of the right.

If you can get the two of them to mate perhaps you'd end up with the
ultimate politician.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Donald Munro" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> When I was sailing, I knew some guys who sailed around and with Kennedy
>> on the east coast. They had some stories about him that suggest that he
>> wasn't exactly the ladies man depicted in your posting.
>
> Apparently everyone that was a communist in the McCarthy era has become
> gay in the Kunich era. Russia must be quite a happy place.

You want the stories so I'll give them to you - it was said that Kennedy
couldn't get it up anymore but he liked to have handsome crew around him so
they could pick up the babes, bring them back to the boat and be really
noisey screwing them. They said that was the way he got his jollies off.

Now explain again how somehow I was talking about faggots. Oh, that's right,
you faggots always believe the conversation is about you.

 

[Tom Kunich]

"Howard Kveck" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Tom Kunich wrote:
>> > There WAS an autoptsy.
>>
>> Got a link?

It is a requirement in EVERY STATE OF THE UNION that an autoptsy be
performed in any case where there wasn't an attending physician or where a
physician won't sign off on cause of death (such as when old people die
while the doctor is out of the room).

But then I wouldn't expect someone with a room temperature IQ to know
something that archane.

http://www.cga.ct.gov/2004/rpt/2004-R-0402.htm

"By law, autopsy results are not available for public inspection in
Massachusetts. They are available only to those legally entitled to receive
them (Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 38 § 2)."

Of course if you have anything contrary you could have noted it. But then
you're all mouth and very little else.