Goodbye

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

OTOH, if the Head [censored]'s ticker gave out from the stress, we'd have
Pelosi 'til January 2009. That would be a huge improvement over the
current situation.

Bill said:

Now there's an opinion I can't even begin to argue with. I think she
might take 2008 and have Hillary as the V.P.

I was sorta hopin the Dems ticket would be Kucinich/Sharpton. . .

--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:30:37 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill said:

Look on the bright side. We KNOW we are going to have a Dem landslide in
2008, and the Republicans are going to fall off the chart for
(4-8-10-12) years.
Bill Baka

You think so? the Democrats have consistently shown their stupidity in
nominating ideological candidates that are unelectable. Look at the
last election -Bushy was the weakest re-election candidate the Rep's
had in many decades, with approval ratings in the dumper, and he still
squeaked it out because the Dumbacrats nominated John Kerry, a
Northern white ultra-liberal.

It's not primarily the candidates. It's Republican discipline (fair
and square) and corruption (some proven, such as the NH phone jamming
plus some stuff that's just coming out that relates to the USAttorney
scandal and the political operations inside agencies such as the GSA)
that allowed GWB to win. The numbers were close, so it behooves the
Republican supporters to claim it was "ideology" and not corruption,
but both played a role, and w/o both Kerry would have one.

Actually, there is an argument to be made that it's a public
recognition of Replublican corruption in congress that the led to the
big gains for Democrats in the last Congressional election. Whether
the Republican party can keep that taint off of it's presidential
candiates is another matter.

Also, Obama Barack and John Edwards are projecting themselves as very
ideolical -- that is moved by ideals -- and it seems to be working.
Early days yet, and whether they can withstand the republican machine
is another question.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Jay Beattie said:

FYI, the nastiest dictators of all times were grass-roots heros put in to
power by aggravated people. Stalin was very left wing.

Stalin was actually a far worse idiot than [censored], as if that were
possible. When Lenin died he decided to kill off the educated class and
all engineers and free thinkers who might oppose him. Then along comes
[censored] and Russia's brain trust is all 6 feet under.

[censored] was right.

Quoted message said:

By whom would you prefer to be executed? Actually, to be fair, it was Lenin
and not Stalin who was put in power by aggravated people, but Stalin was
just one step removed.

They were both the worst kind of jerks and the human history could well
have done without them.

And let's not forget the good dictators like Peter

Quoted message said:

the Great, arguably Cromwell, the aggravated French people loved Napoleon. I
think the closest we ever got to a dictator in this country was FDR who was
hardly right-wing (even though he put the Japanese in detention camps just
because they were Japanese).

I think Truman was the worst V.P. to president in my lifetime.

Some wanted to make George Washington king, but

Quoted message said:

he declined.

Really, though, the chances of there being a dictator in the U.S. is zero,
but it does make for wonderful, indulgent rhetoric that proves no point. --
Jay Beattie.

Nope.
No point at all until Bush tries it ;<😉
Bill Baka

still me said:

Bill said:

Look on the bright side. We KNOW we are going to have a Dem landslide in
2008, and the Republicans are going to fall off the chart for
(4-8-10-12) years.
Bill Baka

You think so? the Democrats have consistently shown their stupidity in
nominating ideological candidates that are unelectable. Look at the
last election -Bushy was the weakest re-election candidate the Rep's
had in many decades, with approval ratings in the dumper, and he still
squeaked it out because the Dumbacrats nominated John Kerry, a
Northern white ultra-liberal. That tells you how weak Kerry was. You
even hear a lot of those idiots still talking about Al Bore. They need
to get a freakin clue if they want to win an election.

We need a change about every 20-30 years just to clean house and stir
things up in D.C. or the politicians get kind of lazy.
Kerry's major problems were...
1. He didn't keep his medals.
2. He actually DID serve in Viet Nam.
3. He was not kind on the eyes.
4. Bush had a full head of corruption behind him.

As far as Toad Gengrich goes, get real.
The Republicans have no viable candidate this time.
Don't blame me.
Bill Baka

A Muzi said:

Bill said:

Bush 1. Waco, Texas????

Clinton /Reno on that one

I'm a bit fuzzy on that time line but I thought it was after the
election but before the swearing in. Reno's name definitely resonates.
I would look it up but I am running a system virus scan and don't want
to overload the system and lose 4 hours of scanning.
Sure it wasn't Bush/Reno??
Bill (up all night, but why?) Baka

A Muzi said:

-snip-

Quoted message said:

Ozark Bicycle said:

OTOH, if the Head [censored]'s ticker gave out from the stress, we'd have
Pelosi 'til January 2009. That would be a huge improvement over the
current situation.

Bill said:

Now there's an opinion I can't even begin to argue with. I think she
might take 2008 and have Hillary as the V.P.

I was sorta hopin the Dems ticket would be Kucinich/Sharpton. . .

I might agree but who's Kucinich? Sharptons' mug is everywhere he can
find a camera. I'm already tired of looking at him.
Bill Baka

Bill said:

The Republicans have no viable candidate this time.

I think Hagel could win if he ran. I think any of a number of
Republicans could have had decent shots if they'd been willing to
break with the president and the party apparatus earlier. But the
thing is, they would have been ostracized from their own party. That
strong party discipline is a double-edged sword, and it's tainting
otherwise viable candidates who have had to say stuff the last couple
of years that will haunt them next year.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill said:

A Muzi said:

Bill said:

Bush 1. Waco, Texas????

Clinton /Reno on that one

I'm a bit fuzzy on that time line but I thought it was after the
election but before the swearing in. Reno's name definitely resonates.
I would look it up but I am running a system virus scan and don't want
to overload the system and lose 4 hours of scanning.
Sure it wasn't Bush/Reno??

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/713648.stm
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Jay Beattie said:

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:23:48 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>
wrote:

>I _could_ get aggravated, but I don't anymore. Why? Because it doesn't
>change anything, and it just gets you aggravated and wastes your time.

Maybe. And the current decline in polls for the right-wing may say
things are going to work out. But not getting aggravated is also the
way dictatorships creep in. It's suck if we didn't get aggravated
enough and our democracy is in the toilet in 15 years.

FYI, the nastiest dictators of all times were grass-roots heros put in to
power by aggravated people. Stalin was very left wing. [censored] was right.
By whom would you prefer to be executed?

It's pretty much the same to me if I'm going to die, but your question
is not so relevant to the US now.

In the US at least, the greater present-day threat to the democracy is
from the right, especially the current administration. By far. Look
at attacks on habeas corpus and the rights to fair trials. Look at
assertions by the US Attorney General (!!!!).

There is a confusion of terms here. "Democracy" refers to government by the
people, exercised either directly or through elected representatives. It
has nothing to do with the political bent or goals of a democratically
elected government. Obviously, the people can democratically elect a tyrant
or the "wrong" person. This problem has put the United States at odds with
is own pro-democracy stance -- like when Mossadeq was democratically elected
but threatened to nationalize oil production in Iran. Enter the CIA (created
by a real Lefty, Truman, although under the control of Eisenhower at the
time -- to the extent he controlled Dulles).

What you appear to be saying is that you do not like the policies of this
democratically elected administration. That's fine. Neither do I, but that
has nothing to do with democracy. It is the result of democracy. Long live
democracy. Thank God for the 22nd Amendment.

Quoted message said:

So that's what I'm concerned with. We dont' have a powerful left-wing
movement in the US with the power to jail people indefinitely or
wiretap people w/o a court order.

Believe it or not, people have already brought law suits which have been
adjudicated and which have established that the President may not do these
things. These lawsuits were not won by screaming. They were won by
advocates who presented well constructed arguments and who were, I am sure,
totally civil to the court and the parties. I can assure you that I have
never won an argument in court by screaming at the top of my lungs. That
would only cause the judge to push the panic button under his or her desk,
and some burley guy in a Kevlar vest wrestling me to the ground. I am not
very persusasive when burried under a 250lb sheriff's deputy.

Join the ACLU. Really. But be prepared to pay your dues even when it sues
to protect the free speech rights of Nazis in Skokie. It's not a pick and
choose thing. -- Jay Beattie.

Jay Beattie said:

What you appear to be saying is that you do not like the policies of this
democratically elected administration. That's fine.

No, what I am saying is that in the US, currently, it is people
holding right wing views who are working hardest to expand political
control ove US citizens, and undermine fundamental protections against
an overly strong government (such as the separation of powers). At
the moment, it is the right that is therefore the bigger threat to
democracy.

Quoted message said:

Believe it or not, people have already brought law suits which have been
adjudicated and which have established that the President may not do these
things. These lawsuits were not won by screaming. They were won by
advocates who presented well constructed arguments and who were, I am sure,
totally civil to the court and the parties.

First off the fight is not over. The Justice department is pushing
back again on rights to fair trials for "unlawful" combatants.

And second, the fight has to take place on multiple levels. One level
is in court. Another is via elections. Getting a democratic congress
back is proving essential to uncovering the extent to which the Bush
administration has tried to circumvent the rule of law.

And finally, it sounds like you are also saying that it's
inappropriate to be outraged. It's entirely appropriate to be
outraged, and to scream at times.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Jay Beattie said:

What you appear to be saying is that you do not like the policies of this
democratically elected administration. That's fine. Neither do I, but that
has nothing to do with democracy. It is the result of democracy. Long live
democracy. Thank God for the 22nd Amendment.

Results in elections that pivot on fraud are not democracy.

Secondly, I believe I said "our democracy" and by that I mean
democracy in the US, which includes protections under the bill of
rights and the main part of the constitution. That shouldn't be voted
out. And sadly, the big republican wins in elections led to attempts
to dismantle those things. That may be democratic, but that's not our
democracy unless it's done above board, in non-corupt way. Probably
including amendments to the constitution and not congress and the
press looking the other way when the US government breaks the law.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

Bill said:

The Republicans have no viable candidate this time.

As John Stewart pointed out, if they nominate a blue-blooded,
patrician looking, flip-flopping, foot-in-mouth putting white leader
from Massachusetts - well, that didn't work out so well for the Dems
in 2004, eh?

Bill said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 12:23:48 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>
wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

I _could_ get aggravated, but I don't anymore. Why? Because it doesn't
change anything, and it just gets you aggravated and wastes your time.

Quoted message said:

Maybe. And the current decline in polls for the right-wing may say
things are going to work out. But not getting aggravated is also the
way dictatorships creep in. It's suck if we didn't get aggravated
enough and our democracy is in the toilet in 15 years.

Look on the bright side. We KNOW we are going to have a Dem landslide in
2008, and the Republicans are going to fall off the chart for
(4-8-10-12) years.

I hope you're right, but not sure you are. Do you think Hillary or
Obama can win a national election? IMO, the Dems need an *electable*
nominee in '08 (e.g., John Edwards, Kerry, Gore) or they might just be
handing to WH to the Repugs for another term.

Of course, the Repugs could screw up and have, for example, a Giuliani/
Huckabee ticket.....

Quoted message said:

Bill Baka

Ozark Bicycle said:

I hope you're right, but not sure you are. Do you think Hillary or
Obama can win a national election? IMO, the Dems need an *electable*
nominee in '08 (e.g., John Edwards, Kerry, Gore) or they might just be
handing to WH to the Repugs for another term.

Let me get this straight: Obama is NOT "electable"?

Kerry and Gore ARE "electable"?

I can't wait for Sornsen to jump all over THAT.

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but Kerry already lost both the popular
and the electoral vote and is about as "electable" in 2008 as Dennis
Kucinich. Gore won the popular but not the electoral (at least
according to the Supreme Court), and is about as "electable" in 2008
as Michael Dukakis

And we blue staters wonder why we can't win an election? We can't
even agree on who is "electable"?

At least we agree that phony baloney Hilary is toast.

"John Forrest Tomlinson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 19:30:37 GMT, still me <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

Bill said:

Look on the bright side. We KNOW we are going to have a Dem landslide in
2008, and the Republicans are going to fall off the chart for
(4-8-10-12) years.
Bill Baka

You think so? the Democrats have consistently shown their stupidity in
nominating ideological candidates that are unelectable. Look at the
last election -Bushy was the weakest re-election candidate the Rep's
had in many decades, with approval ratings in the dumper, and he still
squeaked it out because the Dumbacrats nominated John Kerry, a
Northern white ultra-liberal.

It's not primarily the candidates. It's Republican discipline (fair
and square) and corruption (some proven, such as the NH phone jamming
plus some stuff that's just coming out that relates to the USAttorney
scandal and the political operations inside agencies such as the GSA)
that allowed GWB to win. The numbers were close, so it behooves the
Republican supporters to claim it was "ideology" and not corruption,
but both played a role, and w/o both Kerry would have one.

Actually, there is an argument to be made that it's a public
recognition of Replublican corruption in congress that the led to the
big gains for Democrats in the last Congressional election. Whether
the Republican party can keep that taint off of it's presidential
candiates is another matter.

Also, Obama Barack and John Edwards are projecting themselves as very
ideolical -- that is moved by ideals -- and it seems to be working.
Early days yet, and whether they can withstand the republican machine
is another question.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

I think it's Barak Obama, or is it Edward John's, who knows anymore, doesn't
matter they're both losers.

"Qui si parla Campagnolo" <[email hidden]> wrote in message

Quoted message said:

I know how you feel Mark and I have taken a 'vacation' from these
silly NGs as well. Hopefully yours will be a vacation, not permanent
and you'll be back bcause you DO have something worthwhile to offer.
But if you don't come back certainly understand.

Don't you leave too, Peter. You, Jobst and a few others are the main
reasons I put up with this newsgroup. I find some of the web forums,
particularly Serotta's, are more moderate in tone. Richard Sachs, Dave Kirk
and Tom Kellogg frequent that forum so there is a wealth of knowledge to be
found by the likes of me, and most of the posts are not Serotta related.

Tim McTeague

weel, shall I read 'goodbye' or http://www.uvm.edu/~bmitchel/Bioacoustics.html
??

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Tim McNamara said:

In Mark's case, if I
recall his posts correctly, he went on record supporting the use of
waterboarding. (It's possible that I am not recalling his posts
correctly, however).

He did support waterboarding of prisoners to get information to
prevent more probelms and doesn't dispute that.

He disputes that waterboarding prisoners is in fact torture due to
particular interpretation of the Geneva conventions and also the fact
that some members of the US military have undergone waterboarding as
training to resist interrogation.

The Geneva Convention does not apply in these cases. They are not
prisoners of war. The MCA presumaby would apply.

On Wed, 25 Apr 2007 13:46:27 -0400 in rec.bicycles.misc, John

Forrest Tomlinson said:

You're a coward.

PLONK. should have killfiled you long ago, idjit.

I detest Hickey's politics, too (which certainly changed my mind
about buying a bike frame from himO, but you are simply a
gratuitous attacker who never does anything positive for anyone.

your contribution to this newsgroup is nothing but negative, so
everyone in the group should join me in killfiling you.

Doug Taylor said:

On 26 Apr 2007 13:31:36 -0700, Ozark Bicycle

Quoted message said:

I hope you're right, but not sure you are. Do you think Hillary or
Obama can win a national election? IMO, the Dems need an *electable*
nominee in '08 (e.g., John Edwards, Kerry, Gore) or they might just be
handing to WH to the Repugs for another term.

Let me get this straight: Obama is NOT "electable"?

IMO, no, he is not.

Quoted message said:

Kerry and Gore ARE "electable"?

I meant to type: "(e.g., John Edwards, not Kerry, Gore)". Oh well....

At any rate, IMO, either Kerry or Gore is more electable than either
Hillary or Obama.

Quoted message said:

I can't wait for Sornsen to jump all over THAT.

Like I give a [censored]!

Quoted message said:

Uh, correct me if I'm wrong, but Kerry already lost both the popular
and the electoral vote and is about as "electable" in 2008 as Dennis
Kucinich. Gore won the popular but not the electoral (at least
according to the Supreme Court), and is about as "electable" in 2008
as Michael Dukakis

And we blue staters wonder why we can't win an election? We can't
even agree on who is "electable"?

At least we agree that phony baloney Hilary is toast.

She not any crisper than Obama. Neither is any more electable in a
national election than was McGovern. (Except v. a Guiliani/Huckabee
ticket. ;-> )

-30-