OT: Osama & Huckleberry win?

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
still just me <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 11:09:47 -0600, Tim McNamara
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> >In article <[email protected]>,
> > still just me <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 06 Jan 2008 09:48:40 -0500, "(PeteCresswell)"
> >> <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Per Jay:
> >> >>Why does he hate our president so much?
> >> >
> >> >He might be living on a fixed pension - that he's worked all his
> >> >life to earn - and not exactly looking forward to the
> >> >inflationary consequences of a massive deficit.
> >>
> >> It's easy not to like a self-serving, low-intelligence, a-hole
> >> puppet who has violated the Constitution and our Laws numerous
> >> times, seriously damaged the Presidency, devastated our foreign
> >> relations and credibility abroad for the next 50 years, and
> >> simultaneously sold us out to the corporations and his rich
> >> friends at every turn.
> >>
> >> But if you've reached the point of hate, you really need to take a
> >> step back. If you hate anyone, hate the American people who were
> >> stupid enough to nominate, elect, and, incredibly, re-elect that
> >> putz.
> >
> >Well, we didn't elect him in 2000. The Supreme Court did, finally
> >paying back what they owed the Republican Party for their
> >appointments. And we may not have elected him in 2004, either,
> >given the reported voting irregularities around the country and
> >especially in Ohio.
>
> Points well taken, and well argued in both directions. I blame the
> Dumbocrats for running loser candidates. It should not have even been
> close in 2000 - and 2004 was a gimme that they, incredibly, blew.
>
> Watch for a repeat this year.

I think that is indeed likely. President Huckabee, anyone?

 

[Bill Sornson]

Jay wrote:

> On the other hand, there is Carter - brilliant - but he saw too many
> alternatives.

You misspelled "incompetent anti-Semite".

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> p.s. you can't be serious when you deny NYT is hard left.

I am. The NYT has been nonconfrontational with regards to the Bush
Administration since he was running for office in 1999. Bush's
unfitness for the job was on display for all to see throughout his
campaign, but no major media service bothered to do due diligence. The
only thing he's ever actually been successful at was as essentially a PR
guy for a baseball team. Their content generally favors capital over
labor throughout their pages. They uncritically accept the "America
uber alles" cant that dominates the media and they ignore our
accelerating slide to join Great Britain in the League of Formerly
Important Nations.

To me that is plenty of evidence as to where the NYT really stands:
right of center. They also have IMHO the best conservative columnist in
any medium (David Brooks; George F. Will has become a shadow of his
former acumen).

 

[Pat]

>
> I don't know about your young/old theory. If the Priests support gay
> marriage, they can all get married to their lovers (except for the
> ones with underage "partners", they have to do it clandestinely until
> they get caught and suffer the ultimate penalty - job transfer!

I am not a Roman Catholic, but as I understand it, none of their priests are
allowed to get married. NONE

So much for your theory.

Pat in TX

 

[SMS]

Tim McNamara wrote:

> I think that is indeed likely. President Huckabee, anyone?

Highly unlikely.

I predict a McCain-Clinton or McCain-Obama contest with McCain the
winner. Only Edwards can beat McCain, and he looks to be fading.

It's going to come down to Ohio and Florida again. If Kerry could not
win Ohio or Florida against W, then what chance do Clinton or Obama have
against McCain, who, for whatever reason, still seems to retain some
cross-over appeal.

I just hope that some of McCain's earlier fire is still there, just
simmering under what the neocons have forced upon him.

 

[Pat]

> I did not think there was any serious doubt, that the NYT sets the agenda,
> for the far left.
>
> Just pick an issue. Gay rights? Same sex marriage? Abortion?
>
> I rest my case.
>
> Judge Jay.

Well, I think it depends upon your desired view of the topic. A few years
ago, The Dallas Morning News, a notoriously right-wing newspaper, had a
series of stories on the positions of the presidential candidates. First
was George W. Bush's position and then a week later they had the Albert Gore
position. Following that, a reader wrote in that it was "obvious" that the
Morning News was a "far left newspaper" because after the Al Gore story they
did not write another story to contrast and compare the two positions AND
point out why George Bush's position was superior!

Since then, I have heard Bill O'Reilly has said on the radio that the
Morning News is a "far left publication" which must have caused a lot of
laughter in North Texas. It seems that when conservatives do not get the
slant they prefer in a story, then the newspaper is "far left." But what
if the newspaper is in the center? Well, that's the same as "far left" to a
conservative. If it doesn't "preach to the conservative choir" then it
follows the "if it ain't with us, it's agin us" line of thinking. So to
find out if a story in the paper has a slant, one first must ask the reader
exactly what he wanted the story to say prior to reading the story.

Pat in TX
>
>

 

[Pat]

>>But if you've reached the point of hate, you really
>>need to take a step back. If you hate anyone,
>>hate the American people who were stupid enough to nominate,
>>elect, and, incredibly, re-elect that putz.
>
> ..don't hate me, I didn't vote for Clinton...you are talking about
> Clinton right?...
>
> Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

I think he was talking about the candidate who promised us he was the
"uniter, not the divider." How's that working out, by the way?

Pat in TX
>

 

[Michael Baldwin]

>don't hate me, I didn't vote for Clinton...you are talking
>about Clinton right?...
>Best Regards - Mike Baldwin
>I think he was talking about the candidate who promised
>us he was the "uniter, not the divider." How's that
>working out, by the way?
>Pat in TX

...Abe Lincoln?...

Best Regards - Mike Baldwin

 

[[email protected]]

Oh forbid! All this on wreck.bike? Where is the complaining Ron
Wallenfang who wants to see only bicycles discussed here and says so
repeatedly?

There wasn't even an "OT" to warn me that there were no bicycles in
this thread. Boohoo!

I think what gets missed is that discussions are from "voices" we
recognize and not some politicos on some other newsgroup. There is
reason for non bicycle subjects in these newsgroups and I find it
better than sneaking politics into bicycle threads. On the other
hand, I hope people respond without being rude and accept that people
have different perspectives, just as they do on bicycle components.

Jobst Brandt

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On Jan 6, 7:43 pm, [email protected] wrote:

<snipped for clarity>

> I hope people respond without being rude and accept that people
> have different perspectives, just as they do on bicycle components.
>

Lead the way, Jobst. Show us how it's done.

 

[Tim McNamara]

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

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>, A Muzi
> > <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> p.s. you can't be serious when you deny NYT is hard left.
> >
> > I am. The NYT has been nonconfrontational with regards to the Bush
> > Administration since he was running for office in 1999. Bush's
> > unfitness for the job was on display for all to see throughout his
> > campaign, but no major media service bothered to do due diligence.
> > The only thing he's ever actually been successful at was as
> > essentially a PR guy for a baseball team. Their content generally
> > favors capital over labor throughout their pages. They
> > uncritically accept the "America uber alles" cant that dominates
> > the media and they ignore our accelerating slide to join Great
> > Britain in the League of Formerly Important Nations.
> >
> > To me that is plenty of evidence as to where the NYT really stands:
> > right of center. They also have IMHO the best conservative
> > columnist in any medium (David Brooks; George F. Will has become a
> > shadow of his former acumen).
> >
> I did not think there was any serious doubt, that the NYT sets the
> agenda, for the far left.
>
> Just pick an issue. Gay rights? Same sex marriage? Abortion?
>
> I rest my case.

You *are* a case if you think there is an agenda for the far left. Put
six of us in a room and you'll get seven opinions on any issue.

 

[still just me]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 17:21:43 -0600, "Pat" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I think he was talking about the candidate who promised us he was the
>"uniter, not the divider." How's that working out, by the way?
>
>Pat in TX

I seem to recall a candidate "who wasn't going to be the world's
policeman". Where'd he go?

 

[still just me]

On Sun, 6 Jan 2008 15:59:47 -0600, "Pat" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>>
>> I don't know about your young/old theory. If the Priests support gay
>> marriage, they can all get married to their lovers (except for the
>> ones with underage "partners", they have to do it clandestinely until
>> they get caught and suffer the ultimate penalty - job transfer!
>
>I am not a Roman Catholic, but as I understand it, none of their priests are
>allowed to get married. NONE
>
>So much for your theory.
>
>Pat in TX

They're not allowed to molest children as far as I know either - but
no one seemed to object to that up to and including the Pope.

 

[Bill Sornson]

Tim McNamara wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Jay" <[email protected]> wrote:

>> I did not think there was any serious doubt, that the NYT sets the
>> agenda, for the far left.
>>
>> Just pick an issue. Gay rights? Same sex marriage? Abortion?
>>
>> I rest my case.

> You *are* a case if you think there is an agenda for the far left.
> Put six of us in a room and you'll get seven opinions on any issue.

Abortion, education, regulation, gay marriage, socialized health care,
illegal immigration, global warming, taxes, entitlements and mandates,
terrorism. Six "far leftists" (term already in play) will disagree on ANY
of those? Highly doubtful.

Bill "MAYBE partial birth versus plain ol' 'simple' abortions and lip
service to border enforcement" S.

 

[Ron Ruff]

On Jan 6, 1:09 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
> p.s. you can't be serious when you deny NYT is hard left.

They serve neocon agendas while pretending to be liberal. The whole
idea of "left vs. right" and "conservative vs. liberal" is part of the
"dumbing down" strategy...

 

[Bill Sornson]

Ron Ruff wrote:
> On Jan 6, 1:09 pm, A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> p.s. you can't be serious when you deny NYT is hard left.
>
> They serve neocon agendas while pretending to be liberal. The whole
> idea of "left vs. right" and "conservative vs. liberal" is part of the
> "dumbing down" strategy...

It was a "neocon" agenda to run stories on Abu Grahib for 42 straight days?
But when AQI was declared vanquished or the Haditha Marines exonerated,
barely a mention. Gotta love those NYT Neocons! LOL

 

[A Muzi]

> Jay wrote:
>> On the other hand, there is Carter - brilliant - but he saw too many
>> alternatives.

Bill Sornson wrote:
> You misspelled "incompetent anti-Semite".

The earlier contributor had it exactly. Putz.
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[A Muzi]

> A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:
>> p.s. you can't be serious when you deny NYT is hard left.

Tim McNamara wrote:
> I am. The NYT has been nonconfrontational with regards to the Bush
> Administration since he was running for office in 1999. Bush's
> unfitness for the job was on display for all to see throughout his
> campaign, but no major media service bothered to do due diligence. The
> only thing he's ever actually been successful at was as essentially a PR
> guy for a baseball team. Their content generally favors capital over
> labor throughout their pages. They uncritically accept the "America
> uber alles" cant that dominates the media and they ignore our
> accelerating slide to join Great Britain in the League of Formerly
> Important Nations.
>
> To me that is plenty of evidence as to where the NYT really stands:
> right of center. They also have IMHO the best conservative columnist in
> any medium (David Brooks; George F. Will has become a shadow of his
> former acumen).

Brooks, OK. What about the front page and that raving fanatic Krugman?
--
Andrew Muzi
www.yellowjersey.org
Open every day since 1 April, 1971

 

[Ed Pirrero]

On Jan 6, 6:03 pm, Ozark Bicycle
<[email protected]> wrote:
> On Jan 6, 7:43 pm, [email protected] wrote:
>
> <snipped for clarity>
>
> > I hope people respond without being rude and accept that people
> > have different perspectives, just as they do on bicycle components.
>
> Lead the way, Jobst. Show us how it's done.

Bravo.

When Jobst Brandt practices civility, then the temperature of Hades
will be approaching zero degrees Kelvin.

I know, I know - he wrote a book and is an expert on all things
bicycle-technical, so he is exempted from politeness.

E.P.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article
<0b42d22e-dd75-48ea-80e9-029ba6ff1f0b@z17g2000hsg.googlegroups.com>,
Ed Pirrero <[email protected]> wrote:

> On Jan 6, 6:03 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 7:43 pm, [email protected] wrote:
> >
> > <snipped for clarity>
> >
> > > I hope people respond without being rude and accept that people
> > > have different perspectives, just as they do on bicycle
> > > components.
> >
> > Lead the way, Jobst. Show us how it's done.
>
> Bravo.
>
> When Jobst Brandt practices civility, then the temperature of Hades
> will be approaching zero degrees Kelvin.

So, you know, good old Ole he dies out on the farm one afternoon. Turns
out that he wasn't so good as he thought he was, doncha know, and he
ends up in the bad place. Well, it's pretty hot and Old Nick comes
around to check up on Ole. He finds Ole whistling away. "Oh ya," he
says to the devil, "just like a day in June out on the tractor." So the
old rascal turns up the heat a bit and goes back to see how Ole likes
that. "Oh, it's fine" says the old bachelor Norwegian farmer. "Just
like the Fourth of July back in Olmstead County." Getting miffed, the
devil turns up the heat some more. This time Ole has his shirt off and
says "yup, this reminds me of the hay barn in August" and keeps on
whistling. The devil thinks a bit and hits on a great idea. He cranks
the temperature all the way down and then, grinning slyly, heads back to
see Ole. He finds him dancing and singing on a snowdrift. "Hurray!"
shouts Ole. "The Vikings just won the Super Bowl!"