A request to all the inrtoverted Amerikens here

[TT]

Please, please be aware that the rest of the World does NOT care about you
internal politics and **DO** actually visit audio based groups to discuss
audio and NOT US politics. I know this must come as a complete shock but
can't you take your political diatribe to a political group?

So come on guys, have a heart? Leave off the OT crap that pollutes this
site or at least go back to Arny bashing as that is at least a little
beneficial to audio in general ;-)

Note: Before anyone says "killfile the posters" or "don't read the threads"
sometimes there is some intelligent discussion inside that has gone way off
the topic. Like Arny bashing ;-)

And now a note to Arny. Please grow a sense of humour? :-))

Anyone that wishes to disagree, meet me at the grassy knoll in Dallas. Oh
and make sure your car has the top down ;-)

Cheers TT

[TT]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
>
> "TT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Please, please be aware that the rest of the World does NOT care about
>> you internal politics and **DO** actually visit audio based groups to
>> discuss audio and NOT US politics. I know this must come as a complete
>> shock but can't you take your political diatribe to a political group?
>>
>> So come on guys, have a heart? Leave off the OT crap that pollutes this
>> site or at least go back to Arny bashing as that is at least a little
>> beneficial to audio in general ;-)
>>
>> Note: Before anyone says "killfile the posters" or "don't read the
>> threads" sometimes there is some intelligent discussion inside that has
>> gone way off the topic. Like Arny bashing ;-)
>>
>> And now a note to Arny. Please grow a sense of humour? :-))
>>
>> Anyone that wishes to disagree, meet me at the grassy knoll in Dallas. Oh
>> and make sure your car has the top down ;-)
>>
>> Cheers TT
>>
> TT, I sympathize, but for some reason, they want to do this in public.

Bob, public is not the issue. The "public" here is ;-)
>
> I got the impression you may have dabbled in recording. Do I have that
> correct?

Do home movies of kid's birthdays and Christmas count? :-)) If not, then
the answer is a definite no. I also take it you don't mean copying
copyrighted stuff because that is another issue as well of course ;-)

So basically I am just a mug consumer that has a view on how he likes his
recording presented and sounding. That's about it really.

I also do not wish to even try and impersonate a "rekordin enjunear" either
;-)

Cheers Terry

[TT]

"Soundhaspriority" > wrote in message
...
>

>
> Check out my Nimbus question.
>
> Bob Morein
> (310) 237-6511
I hope you took it in the humorous vein it was intended :-))

Cheers TT

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

TT said:

> Please, please be aware that the rest of the World does NOT care about you
> internal politics and **DO** actually visit audio based groups to discuss
> audio and NOT US politics. I know this must come as a complete shock but
> can't you take your political diatribe to a political group?

I will if Scottie does.

BTW, I've never seen "introverted" (assuming that's what you intended)
used to mean chauvinistic. Is that an established meaning in Oz?

[[email protected]]

On Sep 13, 2:01*am, "TT" > wrote:
> Please, please be aware that the rest of the World does NOT care about you
> internal politics and **DO** actually visit audio based groups to discuss
> audio and NOT US politics. *I know this must come as a complete shock but
> can't you take your political diatribe to a political group?
>
> So come on guys, have a heart? *Leave off the OT crap that pollutes this
> site or at least go back to Arny bashing as that is at least a little
> beneficial to audio in general ;-)
>
> Note: *Before anyone says "killfile the posters" or "don't read the threads"
> sometimes there is some intelligent discussion inside that has gone way off
> the topic. *Like Arny bashing ;-)
>
> And now a note to Arny. *Please grow a sense of humour? :-))
>
> Anyone that wishes to disagree, meet me at the grassy knoll in Dallas. Oh
> and make sure your car has the top down ;-)
>
> Cheers TT

If it is any help you are not alone feeling that this "audio" group is
now a forum for endless exchange of idiocies by bores inflicting their
elementary school v"iews" onto the helpless radio waves.. I for one
skip 90% of it and if we are not alone this "rec" group is about to
give up the ghost.as "rec.audio"and vegatate as "rec. bores"
Ludovic Mirabel

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 2:01�am, "TT" > wrote:
> Please, please be aware that the rest of the World does NOT care about you
> internal politics and **DO** actually visit audio based groups to discuss
> audio and NOT US politics. �I know this must come as a complete shock but
> can't you take your political diatribe to a political group?
>
> So come on guys, have a heart? �Leave off the OT crap that pollutes this
> site or at least go back to Arny bashing as that is at least a little
> beneficial to audio in general ;-)

I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
the biased viewpoints of bloggers. We've been discussing politics on
RAO for years, but both ScottW and Bret Ludwig have dropped the level
of discourse considerably. Bret's OT posts always annoyed me because
he always seemed like a spambot to me, providing links to an almost
random assortment of articles without any bridge to actual discussion
within the group. (It's even more amusing when he claims we don't
want to discuss audio when he does introduce the topic, but what he
fails to realize is the large percentage of RAO posters who have him
killfiled or just plain ignore him due to his past posting behaviors.)

For a few years I've given Scott a pass because I've met him several
times in person. And I'm certainly not trying to trash him or attack
him. It's just that I think he's sunk even lower than Bret recently
because he really doesn't bring anything to the discussion. He seldom
introduces OT threads that add any insight to the subject. A majority
of times we have no idea how Scott feels about his own thread until a
half dozen posts have been added. His vague subject lines indicate
that he's putting as little of an effort into having true discussions
here as possible, which shows a certain level of contempt and
disrespect to the others. He just wants to argue and be contrary. He
is a textbook example of a man who is spending too much time arguing
on the Internet, losing his humanity in the process.

I think that OT discussion on RAO is a good thing...in moderation.
Many of us here have known each other for close to a decade or even
more, and we know each other relatively well. It's only natural that
we want to discuss politics or religion on an unmoderated NG. But as
far as your comments about our chauvinism are concerned, I have to
remind that quite a bit of this discussion was initiated by one of
your compatriots (Trevor). So we Americans have to assume that there
is some interest in this election on a more international scale.

This election is historic on so many levels. It is consuming the
attention of the average American. Hang in there, though...it'll all
settle down in a couple of months.

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:

>
> I hear ya, buddy. *Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> the biased viewpoints of bloggers.

I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
\conspiracy theory.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 12:37�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
> > I hear ya, buddy. �Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> \conspiracy theory.

Yeah, thanks. Those discussions were based on my own observations by
the way, and not from bloggers. Again, it seems completely rational
to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
broke.

It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
based upon political party affiliation.

Boon

[Trevor Wilson[_2_]]

"TT" > wrote in message
...
> Please, please be aware that the rest of the World does NOT care about you
> internal politics and **DO** actually visit audio based groups to discuss
> audio and NOT US politics. I know this must come as a complete shock but
> can't you take your political diatribe to a political group?

**I disagree Terry. The rest of the world DOES care about US politics. The
last two elections in the US have seen the election of a person who has
almost dragged this planet to the brink of disaster. A President who is
completely oblivious to the issue of global warming. A President who has
shown care only for his buddies in the oil industry and a VP who is solely
concerned with the share price of Halliburton. A President who has managed
to bring the US economy to it's knees, dragging other economies (ours
included) with it. It is VITAL to the world that the US voters get it right
this time. We've had 8 wasted years. Let's hope that US voters come to their
senses this time 'round. We cannot afford another dumb choice.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

[Clyde Slick]

On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > \conspiracy theory.
>
> Yeah, thanks. *Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> the way, and not from bloggers. *Again, it seems completely rational
> to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> broke.
>
> It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> based upon political party affiliation.
>

Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 3:47�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > Yeah, thanks. �Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > the way, and not from bloggers. �Again, it seems completely rational
> > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > broke.
>
> > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-

I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. That's not the
point. The truth is probably some other crazy thing. But I will
apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
are answered:

1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? Arny's
explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
a 'tard. I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
said and she laughed hysterically. The only logical explanations are
that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
pregnant.

2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
personal staff that she was pregnant? Wouldn't they have noticed?
(Not in Arny's world!) Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
schedule accordingly? You would think that she would consider her
personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
have known in advance. The only logical explanations are that Palin
was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.

3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke? When
you deliver your fifth child, labor can be kind of quick. Plus, you're
not supposed to fly that late in the pregnancy because the air
pressure can be harmful to the fetus. The only logical explanations
are that Plain is a supreme dumbass (not one of my "dem talking
points" for a VP candidiate), or that she was not pregnant.

So far, the rebuttal to this argument is:

"Sarah Palin is Trig's mother, and how dare you start these rumors.
Oh, by the way, Bristol's five months pregnant, so there."

Wow. If these guys get into the White House, they're going to make
the Watergate coverup look like telling your girlfriend she doesn't
look fat in those jeans.

Boon

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
Vinylanach > wrote:

> On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
> >
> > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
> >
> > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > \conspiracy theory.
> >
> > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > broke.
> >
> > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > based upon political party affiliation.
> >
> > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. That's not the
> point. The truth is probably some other crazy thing. But I will
> apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> are answered:
>
> 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? Arny's
> explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> a 'tard. I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> said and she laughed hysterically. The only logical explanations are
> that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> pregnant.

I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.

>
> 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> personal staff that she was pregnant? Wouldn't they have noticed?
> (Not in Arny's world!) Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> schedule accordingly? You would think that she would consider her
> personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> have known in advance. The only logical explanations are that Palin
> was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
>
> 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?

That's the one that freaks me out. If true, she displayed very, very
poor judgement.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 4:13�pm, Jenn > wrote:
> In article
> >,
>
>
>
>
>
> �Vinylanach > wrote:
> > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > broke.
>
> > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. �That's not the
> > point. �The truth is probably some other crazy thing. �But I will
> > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > are answered:
>
> > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? �Arny's
> > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > a 'tard. �I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > said and she laughed hysterically. �The only logical explanations are
> > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > pregnant.
>
> I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
>
>
> > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > personal staff that she was pregnant? �Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > (Not in Arny's world!) �Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > schedule accordingly? �You would think that she would consider her
> > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > have known in advance. �The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
>
> > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> That's the one that freaks me out. �If true, she displayed very, very
> poor judgement.-

Exactly. And that's something she admits to! No rumors, no
conspiracy...the poor judgement is there for all to see.

Ok Art, Scott and Arny...stand up here like men and explain how this
person is smart enough to run this country.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Jenn said:

> > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> That's the one that freaks me out. If true, she displayed very, very
> poor judgement.

There's always a place in a Republican White House for an inveterate liar.

[MiNe 109]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> Bring up some bogus claim...and then
> talk about it, if true, and when it turns out not to be...on to the
> next BS.
> The invetigation is turning into a fraud.

Quoted without comment.

Stephen

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 4:38*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 4:13*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > *Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > > broke.
>
> > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. *That's not the
> > > point. *The truth is probably some other crazy thing. *But I will
> > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > are answered:
>
> > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? *Arny's
> > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > a 'tard. *I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > said and she laughed hysterically. *The only logical explanations are
> > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > pregnant.
>
> > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
> > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > personal staff that she was pregnant? *Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > (Not in Arny's world!) *Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > schedule accordingly? *You would think that she would consider her
> > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > have known in advance. *The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
>
> > > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> > That's the one that freaks me out. *If true, she displayed very, very
> > poor judgement.
>
> *This is turning into a mudfest. *Bring up some bogus claim...and then
> talk about it, if true, and when it turns out not to be...on to the
> next BS.
> The invetigation is turning into a fraud.
>
> "Monegan told the Anchorage Daily News on August 30 that he was never
> pressured to dismiss Palin’s former brother-in-law. “For the record,”
> he said, “no one has ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not
> Todd. Not any of the other staff.”
>
> http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/13/obama_parti...

Wow! That has nothing to do with what we were talking about! Good
job!

Boon

[Jenn[_3_]]

In article
>,
ScottW > wrote:

> On Sep 13, 4:13*pm, Jenn > wrote:
> > In article
> > >,
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > *Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
> >
> > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
> >
> > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've
> > > > > > > noticed a
> > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation
> > > > > > > of
> > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
> >
> > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
> >
> > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her
> > > > > water
> > > > > broke.
> >
> > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
> >
> > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
> >
> > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. *That's not the
> > > point. *The truth is probably some other crazy thing. *But I will
> > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > are answered:
> >
> > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? *Arny's
> > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > a 'tard. *I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > said and she laughed hysterically. *The only logical explanations are
> > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > pregnant.
> >
> > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
> >
> >
> >
> > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > personal staff that she was pregnant? *Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > (Not in Arny's world!) *Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > schedule accordingly? *You would think that she would consider her
> > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > have known in advance. *The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
> >
> > > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
> >
> > That's the one that freaks me out. *If true, she displayed very, very
> > poor judgement.
>
> This is turning into a mudfest. Bring up some bogus claim...and then
> talk about it, if true, and when it turns out not to be...on to the
> next BS.
> The invetigation is turning into a fraud.

IIRC, the facts of this are not in question. It seems that the facts
are as stated: her water broke, she gave a speech, she flew some 8
hours to Alaska. Very, very foolish.

[TT]

"Trevor Wilson" > wrote in message
...
>
>
>
> "TT" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Please, please be aware that the rest of the World does NOT care about
>> you internal politics and **DO** actually visit audio based groups to
>> discuss audio and NOT US politics. I know this must come as a complete
>> shock but can't you take your political diatribe to a political group?
>
> **I disagree Terry. The rest of the world DOES care about US politics.

Trevor you are answering this out of context. I do care about US politics
as well BUT not in an Audio Group. This is essentially my point.. Obviously
the occasional bit of OT stuff is good but IMHO there is just a flood of it
here.

> The last two elections in the US have seen the election of a person who
> has almost dragged this planet to the brink of disaster

It has been "disarster" for a lot of people! 3,500 dead in Iraq, more in
Afganistan, millions have lost their homes in the Sub-prime fiasco, more are
losing them in the market crash etc, etc.

>.\ A President who is

a comedian (at best).

> completely oblivious to the issue of global warming. A President who has
> shown care only for his buddies in the oil industry and a VP who is solely
> concerned with the share price of Halliburton. A President who has managed
> to bring the US economy to it's knees, dragging other economies (ours
> included) with it.

Yes and people here are losing their homes as well.

> It is VITAL to the world that the US voters get it right this time.

Don't hold your breath. Are these the same voters that put George W. back
for a second term????? ;-)

> We've had 8 wasted years. Let's hope that US voters come to their senses
> this time 'round. We cannot afford another dumb choice.
>
>
I just hope these guys realise it is a vote for the vice presidents? One is
that old his life expectancy is limited and the other may as well have a
target drawn on his forehead ;-)

> --
> Trevor Wilson
> www.rageaudio.com.au
Regardless Trevor I would still prefer to discuss audio in an audio group
;-)

Cheers Terry

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

MiNe 109 said:

> > Bring up some bogus claim...and then
> > talk about it, if true, and when it turns out not to be...on to the
> > next BS.

> Quoted without comment.

Somebody should splain to Scottie that we're still waiting for his
definition of 'hypocrisy'. Going on 5 years now.....

[Clyde Slick]

On 13 Sep, 19:22, Vinylanach > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 4:13 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In article
> > >,
>
> > Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > > broke.
>
> > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. That's not the
> > > point. The truth is probably some other crazy thing. But I will
> > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > are answered:
>
> > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? Arny's
> > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > a 'tard. I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > said and she laughed hysterically. The only logical explanations are
> > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > pregnant.
>
> > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
> > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > personal staff that she was pregnant? Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > (Not in Arny's world!) Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > schedule accordingly? You would think that she would consider her
> > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > have known in advance. The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
>
> > > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> > That's the one that freaks me out. If true, she displayed very, very
> > poor judgement.-
>
> Exactly. *And that's something she admits to! *No rumors, no
> conspiracy...the poor judgement is there for all to see.
>
> Ok Art, Scott and Arny...stand up here like men and explain how this
> person is smart enough to run this country.
>

One very smart man, a Rhodes scholar no less, ran the country,
while getting blow jobs in the office form a white house intern

[nebulax]

On Sep 13, 11:50*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

>
> One very smart man, a Rhodes scholar no less, ran the country,
> while getting blow jobs in the office form a white house intern


Seems pretty minor compared to the ass-reaming the whole country has
gotten from the current president for the last 8 years.

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Sep, 01:03, nebulax > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 11:50*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
> > One very smart man, a Rhodes scholar no less, ran the country,
> > while getting blow jobs in the office form a white house intern
>
> Seems pretty minor compared to the ass-reaming the whole country has
> gotten from the current president for the last 8 years.

Sorry your having such a bad time.
I am making'even more money than I ever have before.
All that, and I haven't even been
yanked off the street and thrown in Gitmo

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 8:50�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 13 Sep, 19:22, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 4:13 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > In article
> > > >,
>
> > > Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > > > broke.
>
> > > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. That's not the
> > > > point. The truth is probably some other crazy thing. But I will
> > > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > > are answered:
>
> > > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? Arny's
> > > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > > a 'tard. I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > > said and she laughed hysterically. The only logical explanations are
> > > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > > pregnant.
>
> > > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
> > > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > > personal staff that she was pregnant? Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > > (Not in Arny's world!) Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > > schedule accordingly? You would think that she would consider her
> > > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > > have known in advance. The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
>
> > > > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> > > That's the one that freaks me out. If true, she displayed very, very
> > > poor judgement.-
>
> > Exactly. �And that's something she admits to! �No rumors, no
> > conspiracy...the poor judgement is there for all to see.
>
> > Ok Art, Scott and Arny...stand up here like men and explain how this
> > person is smart enough to run this country.
>
> One very smart man, a Rhodes scholar no less, ran the country,
> while getting blow jobs in the office form a white house intern-

While I'm far from a Clinton fan, tell me how this is the same thing.
Palin jeopardized her own life and the life of her unborn child (a
funny thing considering she's pro-life), and also provided a bad
example for expectant mothers all over Alaska. Now equate this with
Clinton and Lewinski again in a way that makes sense.

Boon

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Sep, 03:30, Vinylanach > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 8:50 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 13 Sep, 19:22, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 13, 4:13 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
>
> > > > Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > > > > broke.
>
> > > > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > > > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. That's not the
> > > > > point. The truth is probably some other crazy thing. But I will
> > > > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > > > are answered:
>
> > > > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? Arny's
> > > > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > > > a 'tard. I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > > > said and she laughed hysterically. The only logical explanations are
> > > > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > > > pregnant.
>
> > > > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > > > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
> > > > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > > > personal staff that she was pregnant? Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > > > (Not in Arny's world!) Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > > > schedule accordingly? You would think that she would consider her
> > > > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > > > have known in advance. The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
>
> > > > > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> > > > That's the one that freaks me out. If true, she displayed very, very
> > > > poor judgement.-
>
> > > Exactly. And that's something she admits to! No rumors, no
> > > conspiracy...the poor judgement is there for all to see.
>
> > > Ok Art, Scott and Arny...stand up here like men and explain how this
> > > person is smart enough to run this country.
>
> > One very smart man, a Rhodes scholar no less, ran the country,
> > while getting blow jobs in the office form a white house intern-
>
> While I'm far from a Clinton fan, tell me how this is the same thing.
> Palin jeopardized her own life and the life of her unborn child (a
> funny thing considering she's pro-life), and also provided a bad
> example for expectant mothers all over Alaska. *Now equate this with
> Clinton and Lewinski again in a way that makes sense.
>
> Boon-


you gave your example of a smart person doing stupid things
and I gave mine.
its as simple as that

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 13, 4:53*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 13, 4:48*pm, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 4:38*pm, ScottW > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 13, 4:13*pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > In article
> > > > >,
>
> > > > *Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > > > > broke.
>
> > > > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > > > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. *That's not the
> > > > > point. *The truth is probably some other crazy thing. *But I will
> > > > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > > > are answered:
>
> > > > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? *Arny's
> > > > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > > > a 'tard. *I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > > > said and she laughed hysterically. *The only logical explanations are
> > > > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > > > pregnant.
>
> > > > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > > > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
> > > > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > > > personal staff that she was pregnant? *Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > > > (Not in Arny's world!) *Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > > > schedule accordingly? *You would think that she would consider her
> > > > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > > > have known in advance. *The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
>
> > > > > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> > > > That's the one that freaks me out. *If true, she displayed very, very
> > > > poor judgement.
>
> > > *This is turning into a mudfest. *Bring up some bogus claim...and then
> > > talk about it, if true, and when it turns out not to be...on to the
> > > next BS.
> > > The invetigation is turning into a fraud.
>
> > > "Monegan told the Anchorage Daily News on August 30 that he was never
> > > pressured to dismiss Palin’s former brother-in-law. “For the record,”
> > > he said, “no one has ever said fire Wooten. Not the governor. Not
> > > Todd. Not any of the other staff.”
>
> > >http://townhall.com/columnists/AmandaCarpenter/2008/09/13/obama_parti....
>
> > Wow! *That has nothing to do with what we were talking about! *Good
> > job!
>
> *Somebody has to bring something factual to the conversation.

Bull****. It was a weak response made by someone who doesn't listen
to what other people are actually saying.

Boon

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 14, 7:48�am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 14 Sep, 03:30, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 13, 8:50 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 13 Sep, 19:22, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 13, 4:13 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > In article
> > > > > >,
>
> > > > > Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > > > > > broke.
>
> > > > > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > > > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > > > > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. That's not the
> > > > > > point. The truth is probably some other crazy thing. But I will
> > > > > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > > > > are answered:
>
> > > > > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > > > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? Arny's
> > > > > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > > > > a 'tard. I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > > > > said and she laughed hysterically. The only logical explanations are
> > > > > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > > > > pregnant.
>
> > > > > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > > > > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
> > > > > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > > > > personal staff that she was pregnant? Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > > > > (Not in Arny's world!) Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > > > > schedule accordingly? You would think that she would consider her
> > > > > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > > > > have known in advance. The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > > > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > > > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
>
> > > > > > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> > > > > That's the one that freaks me out. If true, she displayed very, very
> > > > > poor judgement.-
>
> > > > Exactly. And that's something she admits to! No rumors, no
> > > > conspiracy...the poor judgement is there for all to see.
>
> > > > Ok Art, Scott and Arny...stand up here like men and explain how this
> > > > person is smart enough to run this country.
>
> > > One very smart man, a Rhodes scholar no less, ran the country,
> > > while getting blow jobs in the office form a white house intern-
>
> > While I'm far from a Clinton fan, tell me how this is the same thing.
> > Palin jeopardized her own life and the life of her unborn child (a
> > funny thing considering she's pro-life), and also provided a bad
> > example for expectant mothers all over Alaska. �Now equate this with
> > Clinton and Lewinski again in a way that makes sense.
>
> > Boon-
>
> you gave your example of a smart person doing stupid things
> and I gave mine.
> its as simple as that-

Yeah, but you're arguing with me as if I was a Democrat and Clinton is
my hero. I hated the guy when he was in office and I thought he was a
sleaze. It's only in retrospect that I think he was a sleaze who
actually got a lot of work done and didn't head off to the ranch every
chance he had.

In other words, your logic seems to be, well, we ****ed up in the
past...so why not in the future?

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 13, 4:01*am, "TT" > wrote:
> Please, please be aware that the rest of the World does NOT care about you
> internal politics and **DO** actually visit audio based groups to discuss
> audio and NOT US politics. *I know this must come as a complete shock but
> can't you take your political diatribe to a political group?

I've tried this tactic here before. I admit that recently I've posted
a number of OT topics related to US politics. I have done so very
seldom, if at all, in the past. So why now?

1. I'm sick of ignorant whackos like 2pid and Bratzi dominating the
group with their posts.

2. 2pid recently said that he "gave respect where he thought people
deserved it" but implied that he did not have to otherwise, although
he calls for "respect" frequently. My posts reflect this 'logic'.

3. I got sick of the lies, distortions and propaganda being put out by
some of the conservatives on this group and decided to give them a
dose of their own medicine, even though what I have posted has been
based in truth rather than lies.

4. Like the conservatives here, I did it because I can. Just try to
'oppress' my 'differing POV'!

5. Like some of the conservatives here, there is no other agenda than
to 'save' RAO.

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Sep, 12:25, Vinylanach > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 7:48 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Sep, 03:30, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 13, 8:50 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 13 Sep, 19:22, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 13, 4:13 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > In article
> > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > > > > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > > > > > > broke.
>
> > > > > > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > > > > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > > > > > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. That's not the
> > > > > > > point. The truth is probably some other crazy thing. But I will
> > > > > > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > > > > > are answered:
>
> > > > > > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > > > > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? Arny's
> > > > > > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > > > > > a 'tard. I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > > > > > said and she laughed hysterically. The only logical explanations are
> > > > > > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > > > > > pregnant.
>
> > > > > > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > > > > > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
> > > > > > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > > > > > personal staff that she was pregnant? Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > > > > > (Not in Arny's world!) Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > > > > > schedule accordingly? You would think that she would consider her
> > > > > > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > > > > > have known in advance. The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > > > > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > > > > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
>
> > > > > > > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> > > > > > That's the one that freaks me out. If true, she displayed very, very
> > > > > > poor judgement.-
>
> > > > > Exactly. And that's something she admits to! No rumors, no
> > > > > conspiracy...the poor judgement is there for all to see.
>
> > > > > Ok Art, Scott and Arny...stand up here like men and explain how this
> > > > > person is smart enough to run this country.
>
> > > > One very smart man, a Rhodes scholar no less, ran the country,
> > > > while getting blow jobs in the office form a white house intern-
>
> > > While I'm far from a Clinton fan, tell me how this is the same thing.
> > > Palin jeopardized her own life and the life of her unborn child (a
> > > funny thing considering she's pro-life), and also provided a bad
> > > example for expectant mothers all over Alaska. Now equate this with
> > > Clinton and Lewinski again in a way that makes sense.
>
> > > Boon-
>
> > you gave your example of a smart person doing stupid things
> > and I gave mine.
> > its as simple as that-
>
> Yeah, but you're arguing with me as if I was a Democrat and Clinton is
> my hero. *I hated the guy when he was in office and I thought he was a
> sleaze. It's only in retrospect that I think he was a sleaze who
> actually got a lot of work done and didn't head off to the ranch every
> chance he had.
>
> In other words, your logic seems to be, well, we ****ed up in the
> past...so why not in the future?
>

Whatever.
Your pregnancy complaint doesn't have any traction.
Attacks on Palin aren't working.
Obama did best when he was the fresh new face, offering
hope and change, including from the usual political
backsniping. He will do best if his campaign
keeps riding the horse that got him to where he is today.
He is not a natural born fighter, and doesn't look neither
good nor comfortable when in attack mode.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 14, 6:06*pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:

> He [Obama] is not a natural born fighter, and doesn't look neither
> good nor comfortable when in attack mode.

Isn''t it sad that McCain *does* look natural spinning his lies about
lipstick and sex ed? LoL.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 14, 4:06�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 14 Sep, 12:25, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 7:48 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 14 Sep, 03:30, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 13, 8:50 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 13 Sep, 19:22, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 4:13 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > > > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > > > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > > > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > > > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > > > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > > > > > > > broke.
>
> > > > > > > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > > > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > > > > > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > > > > > > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. That's not the
> > > > > > > > point. The truth is probably some other crazy thing. But I will
> > > > > > > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > > > > > > are answered:
>
> > > > > > > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > > > > > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? Arny's
> > > > > > > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > > > > > > a 'tard. I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > > > > > > said and she laughed hysterically. The only logical explanations are
> > > > > > > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > > > > > > pregnant.
>
> > > > > > > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > > > > > > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
> > > > > > > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > > > > > > personal staff that she was pregnant? Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > > > > > > (Not in Arny's world!) Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > > > > > > schedule accordingly? You would think that she would consider her
> > > > > > > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > > > > > > have known in advance. The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > > > > > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > > > > > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant..
>
> > > > > > > > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> > > > > > > That's the one that freaks me out. If true, she displayed very, very
> > > > > > > poor judgement.-
>
> > > > > > Exactly. And that's something she admits to! No rumors, no
> > > > > > conspiracy...the poor judgement is there for all to see.
>
> > > > > > Ok Art, Scott and Arny...stand up here like men and explain how this
> > > > > > person is smart enough to run this country.
>
> > > > > One very smart man, a Rhodes scholar no less, ran the country,
> > > > > while getting blow jobs in the office form a white house intern-
>
> > > > While I'm far from a Clinton fan, tell me how this is the same thing.
> > > > Palin jeopardized her own life and the life of her unborn child (a
> > > > funny thing considering she's pro-life), and also provided a bad
> > > > example for expectant mothers all over Alaska. Now equate this with
> > > > Clinton and Lewinski again in a way that makes sense.
>
> > > > Boon-
>
> > > you gave your example of a smart person doing stupid things
> > > and I gave mine.
> > > its as simple as that-
>
> > Yeah, but you're arguing with me as if I was a Democrat and Clinton is
> > my hero. �I hated the guy when he was in office and I thought he was a
> > sleaze. It's only in retrospect that I think he was a sleaze who
> > actually got a lot of work done and didn't head off to the ranch every
> > chance he had.
>
> > In other words, your logic seems to be, well, we ****ed up in the
> > past...so why not in the future?
>
> Whatever.
> Your pregnancy complaint doesn't have any traction.

My "complaint"? LoL.

> Attacks on Palin aren't working.

For some people who vote right down party lines without listening to
the issues, indeed.

> Obama did best when he was the fresh new face, offering
> hope and change, including from the usual political
> backsniping. He will do best if his campaign
> keeps riding the horse that got him to where he is today.
> He is not a natural born fighter, and doesn't look neither
> good nor comfortable when in attack mode.-

Hmmm...these comments seem more suited for the middle of November,
don't you think?

Boon

[TT]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
wrote in message
...
On Sep 13, 4:01 am, "TT" >
wrote:
> Please, please be aware that the rest of the World does
> NOT care about you
> internal politics and **DO** actually visit audio based
> groups to discuss
> audio and NOT US politics. I know this must come as a
> complete shock but
> can't you take your political diatribe to a political
> group?

I've tried this tactic here before. I admit that recently
I've posted
a number of OT topics related to US politics. I have done so
very
seldom, if at all, in the past. So why now?

1. I'm sick of ignorant whackos like 2pid and Bratzi
dominating the
group with their posts.

2. 2pid recently said that he "gave respect where he thought
people
deserved it" but implied that he did not have to otherwise,
although
he calls for "respect" frequently. My posts reflect this
'logic'.

3. I got sick of the lies, distortions and propaganda being
put out by
some of the conservatives on this group and decided to give
them a
dose of their own medicine, even though what I have posted
has been
based in truth rather than lies.

4. Like the conservatives here, I did it because I can. Just
try to
'oppress' my 'differing POV'!

5. Like some of the conservatives here, there is no other
agenda than
to 'save' RAO.

As I said the occasional stuff is not only fine but can be
informative and entertaining as well. I just have a dislike
for the over abundance of it at the moment :-(

Cheers TT

[Clyde Slick]

On 14 Sep, 20:04, Vinylanach > wrote:
> On Sep 14, 4:06 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On 14 Sep, 12:25, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > On Sep 14, 7:48 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > On 14 Sep, 03:30, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > On Sep 13, 8:50 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On 13 Sep, 19:22, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On Sep 13, 4:13 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > > Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > > > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > > > > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > > > > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > > > > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > > > > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > > > > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > > > > > > > > broke.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > > > > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. That's not the
> > > > > > > > > point. The truth is probably some other crazy thing. But I will
> > > > > > > > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > > > > > > > are answered:
>
> > > > > > > > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > > > > > > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? Arny's
> > > > > > > > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > > > > > > > a 'tard. I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > > > > > > > said and she laughed hysterically. The only logical explanations are
> > > > > > > > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > > > > > > > pregnant.
>
> > > > > > > > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > > > > > > > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
> > > > > > > > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > > > > > > > personal staff that she was pregnant? Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > > > > > > > (Not in Arny's world!) Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > > > > > > > schedule accordingly? You would think that she would consider her
> > > > > > > > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > > > > > > > have known in advance. The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > > > > > > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > > > > > > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 14, 10:10*pm, "TT" > wrote:

> As I said the occasional stuff is not only fine but can be
> informative and entertaining as well. *I just have a dislike
> for the over abundance of it at the moment :-(

I have British friends who cannot believe that our campaign cycle
lasts this long. What is it in GB? Six weeks? I'll buy that. We should
enact laws to do the same here. After 2-1/2 years all the republicans
can do is make stuff up about lipstick and pigs and make fake claims
about sex ed for kindergartners. Their empty policy positions were
done months ago.

It'll all be over in another six weeks for us too. :-)

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Shhhh! said:

> I have British friends who cannot believe that our campaign cycle
> lasts this long. What is it in GB? Six weeks? I'll buy that. We should
> enact laws to do the same here.

Wasn't the primary system we now have originally touted as a way of
empowering the electorate?

[TT]

"Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 14, 10:10 pm, "TT" > wrote:

> As I said the occasional stuff is not only fine but can be
> informative and entertaining as well. I just have a dislike
> for the over abundance of it at the moment :-(

I have British friends who cannot believe that our campaign cycle
lasts this long. What is it in GB? Six weeks? I'll buy that. We should
enact laws to do the same here. After 2-1/2 years all the republicans
can do is make stuff up about lipstick and pigs and make fake claims
about sex ed for kindergartners. Their empty policy positions were
done months ago.

It'll all be over in another six weeks for us too. :-)

We have just had a State election here and it was all over in 4 weeks. The
ex-Premier thought he would do a swiftie and call it during the Olympics and
Football finals so as to not attract attention to it. He got it wrong and
is now unemployed :-))

What a long boring, drawn out, boring, slow and boring procedure you guys
have. Did I mention boring?

Short and sweet is the answer ;-)

Cheers TT

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 6:48�am, "TT" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in ...
> On Sep 14, 10:10 pm, "TT" > wrote:
>
> > As I said the occasional stuff is not only fine but can be
> > informative and entertaining as well. I just have a dislike
> > for the over abundance of it at the moment :-(
>
> I have British friends who cannot believe that our campaign cycle
> lasts this long. What is it in GB? Six weeks? I'll buy that. We should
> enact laws to do the same here. After 2-1/2 years all the republicans
> can do is make stuff up about lipstick and pigs and make fake claims
> about sex ed for kindergartners. Their empty policy positions were
> done months ago.
>
> It'll all be over in another six weeks for us too. :-)
>
> We have just had a State election here and it was all over in 4 weeks. �The
> ex-Premier thought he would do a swiftie and call it during the Olympics and
> Football finals so as to not attract attention to it. �He got it wrong and
> is now unemployed :-))
>
> What a long boring, drawn out, boring, slow �and boring procedure you guys
> have. �Did I mention boring?
>
> Short and sweet is the answer �;-)

Think about all of the good that can be done with the hundreds of
millions dollars used to buy advertising during this period.

Boon

[Harry Lavo]

"Vinylanach" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 6:48?am, "TT" > wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" > wrote in
> ...
> On Sep 14, 10:10 pm, "TT" > wrote:
>
> > As I said the occasional stuff is not only fine but can be
> > informative and entertaining as well. I just have a dislike
> > for the over abundance of it at the moment :-(
>
> I have British friends who cannot believe that our campaign cycle
> lasts this long. What is it in GB? Six weeks? I'll buy that. We should
> enact laws to do the same here. After 2-1/2 years all the republicans
> can do is make stuff up about lipstick and pigs and make fake claims
> about sex ed for kindergartners. Their empty policy positions were
> done months ago.
>
> It'll all be over in another six weeks for us too. :-)
>
> We have just had a State election here and it was all over in 4 weeks.
> ?The
> ex-Premier thought he would do a swiftie and call it during the Olympics
> and
> Football finals so as to not attract attention to it. ?He got it wrong and
> is now unemployed :-))
>
> What a long boring, drawn out, boring, slow ?and boring procedure you guys
> have. ?Did I mention boring?
>
> Short and sweet is the answer ?;-)

Think about all of the good that can be done with the hundreds of
millions dollars used to buy advertising during this period.

*************************************************

Advertising the networks don't even bother checking for truthfulness. Both
a waste of money and a perversion of the election process.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 14, 9:46�pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> On 14 Sep, 20:04, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 4:06 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 14 Sep, 12:25, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 14, 7:48 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 14 Sep, 03:30, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 13, 8:50 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 19:22, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 4:13 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > > > Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > > > > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > > > > > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > > > > > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > > > > > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > > > > > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > > > > > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > > > > > > > > > broke.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > > > > > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. That's not the
> > > > > > > > > > point. The truth is probably some other crazy thing. But I will
> > > > > > > > > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > > > > > > > > are answered:
>
> > > > > > > > > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > > > > > > > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? Arny's
> > > > > > > > > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > > > > > > > > a 'tard. I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > > > > > > > > said and she laughed hysterically. The only logical explanations are
> > > > > > > > > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > > > > > > > > pregnant.
>
> > > > > > > > > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > > > > > > > > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
> > > > > > > > > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > > > > > > > > personal staff that she was pregnant? Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > > > > > > > > (Not in Arny's world!) Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > > > > > > > > schedule accordingly? You would think that she would consider her
> > > > > > > > > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > > > > > > > > have known in advance. The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > > > > > > > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > > > > > > > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
>
> > > > > > > > > > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> > > > > > > > > That's the one that freaks me out. If true, she displayed very, very
> > > > > > > > > poor judgement.-
>
> > > > > > > > Exactly. And that's something she admits to! No rumors, no
> > > > > > > > conspiracy...the poor judgement is there for all to see.
>
> > > > > > > > Ok Art, Scott and Arny...stand up here like men and explain how this
> > > > > > > > person is smart enough to run this country.
>
> > > > > > > One very smart man, a Rhodes scholar no less, ran the country,
> > > > > > > while getting blow jobs in the office form a white house intern-
>
> > > > > > While I'm far from a Clinton fan, tell me how this is the same thing.
> > > > > > Palin jeopardized her own life and the life of her unborn child (a
> > > > > > funny thing considering she's pro-life), and also provided a bad
> > > > > > example for expectant mothers all over Alaska. Now equate this with
> > > > > > Clinton and Lewinski again in a way that makes sense.
>
> > > > > > Boon-
>
> > > > > you gave your example of a smart person doing stupid things
> > > > > and I gave mine.
> > > > > its as simple as that-
>
> > > > Yeah, but you're arguing with me as if I was a Democrat and Clinton is
> > > > my hero. I hated the guy when he was in office and I thought he was a
> > > > sleaze. It's only in retrospect that I think he was a sleaze who
> > > > actually got a lot of work done and didn't head off to the ranch every
> > > > chance he had.
>
> > > > In other words, your logic seems to be, well, we ****ed up in the
> > > > past...so why not in the future?
>
> > > Whatever.
> > > Your pregnancy complaint doesn't have any traction.
>
> > My "complaint"? �LoL.
>
> > > Attacks on Palin aren't working.
>
> > For some people who vote right down party lines without listening to
> > the issues, indeed.
>
> No, besides reps, she is also doing well among independents and blue
> dog
> democrats and democratic women over 40
>
> > > Obama did best when he was the fresh new face, offering
> > > hope and change, including from the usual political
> > > backsniping. He will do best if his campaign
> > > keeps riding the horse that got him to where he is today.
> > > He is not a natural born fighter, and doesn't look neither
> > > good nor comfortable when in attack mode.-
>
> > Hmmm...these comments seem more suited for the middle of November,
> > don't you think?
>
> no, not after it is too late to do him any good.-

That wasn't really my point. Yesterday, I found one article that said
Obama was still enjoying a double digit lead in the polls. I found
another that said Obama was in the lead, but that McCain's numbers
were up. A third article stated that the polls had reversed
themselves, and that McCain was in charge.

In other words, all of us are full of **** when it comes to politics.
And we'll only know what's going on the day after the election.

What bothers me, however, is the party line bull****. I've been a
registered Republican since 1980 and I simply cannot support the
McCain-Palin ticket. And I supported Mccain in 2000. Here's what I
did...I looked at the issues, I listened to what the candidates said,
and I made a decision.

It bothers me that Republicans are ignoring the fact that Palin simply
isn't qualified. It's all about getting power with no regard to
what's best for the country. If you look at the facts about Palin,
you should see this. You're simply not offering anything substantial
to counter these claims. You're blinded by your politics, and I think
it's a shame.

Boon

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Vinylanach said:

> It bothers me that Republicans are ignoring the fact that Palin simply
> isn't qualified. It's all about getting power with no regard to
> what's best for the country. If you look at the facts about Palin,
> you should see this. You're simply not offering anything substantial
> to counter these claims. You're blinded by your politics, and I think
> it's a shame.

You got that right. Sacky has one guiding principle: "Democrats bad."

[Clyde Slick]

On 15 Sep, 16:09, George M. Middius > wrote:
> Vinylanach said:
>
> > It bothers me that Republicans are ignoring the fact that Palin simply
> > isn't qualified. *It's all about getting power with no regard to
> > what's best for the country. *If you look at the facts about Palin,
> > you should see this. *You're simply not offering anything substantial
> > to counter these claims. *You're blinded by your politics, and I think
> > it's a shame.
>
> You got that right. Sacky has one guiding principle: "Democrats bad."

Not exactly
republicans bad, Democrats usually worse.

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 1:08�pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 10:33�am, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Sep 14, 9:46 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > On 14 Sep, 20:04, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > On Sep 14, 4:06 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > On 14 Sep, 12:25, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > On Sep 14, 7:48 am, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > On 14 Sep, 03:30, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 8:50 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 19:22, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 4:13 pm, Jenn > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > In article
> > > > > > > > > > > >,
>
> > > > > > > > > > > Vinylanach > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 3:47?pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 15:59, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Sep 13, 12:37 pm, Clyde Slick > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 13 Sep, 14:38, Vinylanach > wrote:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I hear ya, buddy. Personally, I've only joined because I've noticed a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lack of true political discussion, only a mindless regurgitation of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the biased viewpoints of bloggers.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I especially enjoyed your rational discussion of the Palin baby
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > \conspiracy theory.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, thanks. ?Those discussions were based on my own observations by
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > the way, and not from bloggers. ?Again, it seems completely rational
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to me that a woman who is 7-months pregnant show be showing, and that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > she would inform her personal staff of her pregnancy before the sixth
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > month, and the she wouldn't provide a poor example to other expecting
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > mothers in Alaska by flying in a plane for eight hours AFTER her water
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > broke.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > It seems irrational to me that someone would dispute this information
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > based upon political party affiliation.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Maybe the liittle retard is really God's kid!-
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > I'm not sure if Bristol is the momma, or Sarah. That's not the
> > > > > > > > > > > > point. The truth is probably some other crazy thing.. But I will
> > > > > > > > > > > > apologize for my comments about Sarah Plain if the following questions
> > > > > > > > > > > > are answered:
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 1. Why are there photos of a slim, svelte Palin in a tight-fitting
> > > > > > > > > > > > dress when she was supposed to be seven months pregnant? Arny's
> > > > > > > > > > > > explanation that not all women show after 7 months is the rantings of
> > > > > > > > > > > > a 'tard. I told my sister-in-law, a maternity scrub nurse, what Arny
> > > > > > > > > > > > said and she laughed hysterically. The only logical explanations are
> > > > > > > > > > > > that the photos were dated incorrectly, or that Palin was not
> > > > > > > > > > > > pregnant.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > I haven't seen those pictures, but I've certainly never seen a woman who
> > > > > > > > > > > is 7 months along who is not showing in a very obvious way.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 2. Why did Palin wait until she was 6 months pregnant to tell her
> > > > > > > > > > > > personal staff that she was pregnant? Wouldn't they have noticed?
> > > > > > > > > > > > (Not in Arny's world!) Wouldn't they have needed to adjust her
> > > > > > > > > > > > schedule accordingly? You would think that she would consider her
> > > > > > > > > > > > personal staff to be close to her in some way, and that someone would
> > > > > > > > > > > > have known in advance. The only logical explanations are that Palin
> > > > > > > > > > > > was embarrassed about her pregnancy (not really consistent with the
> > > > > > > > > > > > whole Bible-thumping thing), or that Palin was not pregnant.
>
> > > > > > > > > > > > 3. Why did Palin jump on a 8-hour flight after her water broke?
>
> > > > > > > > > > > That's the one that freaks me out. If true, she displayed very, very
> > > > > > > > > > > poor judgement.-
>
> > > > > > > > > > Exactly. And that's something she admits to! No rumors, no
> > > > > > > > > > conspiracy...the poor judgement is there for all to see..
>
> > > > > > > > > > Ok Art, Scott and Arny...stand up here like men and explain how this
> > > > > > > > > > person is smart enough to run this country.
>
> > > > > > > > > One very smart man, a Rhodes scholar no less, ran the country,
> > > > > > > > > while getting blow jobs in the office form a white house intern-
>
> > > > > > > > While I'm far from a Clinton fan, tell me how this is the same thing.
> > > > > > > > Palin jeopardized her own life and the life of her unborn child (a
> > > > > > > > funny thing considering she's pro-life), and also provided a bad
> > > > > > > > example for expectant mothers all over Alaska. Now equate this with
> > > > > > > > Clinton and Lewinski again in a way that makes sense.
>
> > > > > > > > Boon-
>
> > > > > > > you gave your example of a smart person doing stupid things
> > > > > > > and I gave mine.
> > > > > > > its as simple as that-
>
> > > > > > Yeah, but you're arguing with me as if I was a Democrat and Clinton is
> > > > > > my hero. I hated the guy when he was in office and I thought he was a
> > > > > > sleaze. It's only in retrospect that I think he was a sleaze who
> > > > > > actually got a lot of work done and didn't head off to the ranch every
> > > > > > chance he had.
>
> > > > > > In other words, your logic seems to be, well, we ****ed up in the
> > > > > > past...so why not in the future?
>
> > > > > Whatever.
> > > > > Your pregnancy complaint doesn't have any traction.
>
> > > > My "complaint"? LoL.
>
> > > > > Attacks on Palin aren't working.
>
> > > > For some people who vote right down party lines without listening to
> > > > the issues, indeed.
>
> > > No, besides reps, she is also doing well among independents and blue
> > > dog
> > > democrats and democratic women over 40
>
> > > > > Obama did best when he was the fresh new face, offering
> > > > > hope and change, including from the usual political
> > > > > backsniping. He will do best if his campaign
> > > > > keeps riding the horse that got him to where he is today.
> > > > > He is not a natural born fighter, and doesn't look neither
> > > > > good nor comfortable when in attack mode.-
>
> > > > Hmmm...these comments seem more suited for the middle of November,
> > > > don't you think?
>
> > > no, not after it is too late to do him any good.-
>
> > That wasn't really my point. �Yesterday, I found one article that said
> > Obama was still enjoying a double digit lead in the polls. �I found
> > another that said Obama was in the lead, but that McCain's numbers
> > were up. �A third article stated that the polls had reversed
> > themselves, and that McCain was in charge.
>
> > In other words, all of us are full of **** when it comes to politics.
> > And we'll only know what's going on the day after the election.
>
> > What bothers me, however, is the party line bull****. �I've been a
> > registered Republican since 1980 and I simply cannot support the
> > McCain-Palin ticket. �And I supported Mccain in 2000. �Here's what I
> > did...I looked at the issues, I listened to what the candidates said,
> > and I made a decision.
>
> > It bothers me that Republicans are ignoring the fact that Palin simply
> > isn't qualified.
>
> �At least as qualified as Obama.
>
> > �It's all about getting power with no regard to
> > what's best for the country. �If you look at the facts about Palin,
> > you should see this. �You're simply not offering anything substantial
> > to counter these claims. �You're blinded by your politics, and I think
> > it's a shame.
>
> �At this point it's a choice between tickets which may or may
> not have been our first choice.
> Arguing that Palin is unqualified for VP while
> supporting Obama as President is an absurd argument to
> make.

Not when you look at the actual achievements. You are merely echoing
your beloved blogs.

�Blindness obviously comes in many forms.

Like a strict adherence to right-wing blogs when forming a political
opinion.

Boon

[Vinylanach]

On Sep 15, 1:21�pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 1:09�pm, George M. Middius >
> wrote:
>
> > Vinylanach said:
>
> > > It bothers me that Republicans are ignoring the fact that Palin simply
> > > isn't qualified. �It's all about getting power with no regard to
> > > what's best for the country. �If you look at the facts about Palin,
> > > you should see this. �You're simply not offering anything substantial
> > > to counter these claims. �You're blinded by your politics, and I think
> > > it's a shame.
>
> > You got that right. Sacky has one guiding principle: "Democrats bad."
>
> George is alway impressed by vacuous statements.

You mean he reads all the same blogs you do?

Boon

[Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!]

On Sep 15, 3:08*pm, ScottW > wrote:
> On Sep 15, 10:33*am, Vinylanach > wrote:

> > *It's all about getting power with no regard to
> > what's best for the country. *If you look at the facts about Palin,
> > you should see this. *You're simply not offering anything substantial
> > to counter these claims. *You're blinded by your politics, and I think
> > it's a shame.
>
> *At this point it's a choice between tickets which may or may
> not have been our first choice.
> Arguing that Palin is unqualified for VP while
> supporting Obama as President is an absurd argument to
> make. *Blindness obviously comes in many forms.

Let's see: McCain wants to keep doing the same things and expects
different results. What's that called...again?

Keep healthcare as it is and "promote" competition.

Keep taxes low. More "borrow and spend". We're fast approaching our
national debt equalling our *entire* GNP.

Pander to right-wing religious whackos on social issues.

Here's a good one: Assault Weapons

John McCain opposes restrictions on so-called "assault rifles" and
voted consistently against such bans. Most recently he opposed an
amendment to extend a ban on 19 specific firearms, and others with
similar characteristics.

Importation of High Capacity Magazines

John McCain opposes bans on the importation of certain types of
ammunition magazines and has voted against such limitations.

http://www.johnmccain.com/Informing/Issues/77636553-6337-4ecd-b170-49e1c07d2fbd.htm

"National police organizations such as the International Association
of Chiefs of Police, the International Brotherhood of Police Officers
and the Fraternal Order of Police all support the renewal of the ban.
President Bush has said he would sign such a bill if Congress passed
it."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5946127/

Yup. McCain is the 'think'ing man's candidate of choice. LoL.

[George M. Middius[_4_]]

Clyde Slick said:

> > > *You're blinded by your politics, and I think it's a shame.

> > You got that right. Sacky has one guiding principle: "Democrats bad."

> Not exactly
> republicans bad, Democrats usually worse.

Really? Congratulations on keeping the secret so well. I hope you'll alert
us the next time you want to say something more substantative than you
dislike McCain. It's not as though W & Co. didn't give us ample
opportunity to denounce their criminality. Whatever you thought about
their misdeeds, you kept to yourself.

[TT]

"Vinylanach" > wrote in message
...
On Sep 15, 6:48?am, "TT" >
wrote:
> "Shhhh! I'm Listening to Reason!" >
> wrote in
> ...
> On Sep 14, 10:10 pm, "TT" >
> wrote:
>
> > As I said the occasional stuff is not only fine but can
> > be
> > informative and entertaining as well. I just have a
> > dislike
> > for the over abundance of it at the moment :-(
>
> I have British friends who cannot believe that our
> campaign cycle
> lasts this long. What is it in GB? Six weeks? I'll buy
> that. We should
> enact laws to do the same here. After 2-1/2 years all the
> republicans
> can do is make stuff up about lipstick and pigs and make
> fake claims
> about sex ed for kindergartners. Their empty policy
> positions were
> done months ago.
>
> It'll all be over in another six weeks for us too. :-)
>
> We have just had a State election here and it was all over
> in 4 weeks. ?The
> ex-Premier thought he would do a swiftie and call it
> during the Olympics and
> Football finals so as to not attract attention to it. ?He
> got it wrong and
> is now unemployed :-))
>
> What a long boring, drawn out, boring, slow ?and boring
> procedure you guys
> have. ?Did I mention boring?
>
> Short and sweet is the answer ?;-)

Think about all of the good that can be done with the
hundreds of
millions dollars used to buy advertising during this period.

Boon

Exactly! How many 1,000 bed hospitals could have been
built?

Cheers TT