"Total Recall"

[knud]

Mostly it was hagglers setting up desks at private business establishments
and screaming in the ears of everyone. There were some legal battles where I
live between the annoying pricks harrasing customers and the businesses who
wanted them to get off their property. Once I went to the supermarket for some
antacid and this little sideburned prick screamed in my ear to sign the recall.
I ignored him, went inside and got my crap. On my way out he yelled AGAIN at
point blank range right into my ear. I got up in his face and told him to shut
the **** up, at which he smiled, like he was getting off on it. So I rounded up
a couple buddies, grabbed a tablet of paper, scribbled out a phony form and
popped in a fresh video tape. We went down there and I stood and yelled in that
pricks ear to sign our petition for about almost an hour and we filmed the
whole thing. I gotta say, that guy must have been a career public nuisance
because he didn't even budge the whole time. I wonder where they get these
people...


blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!

[Scott Dorsey]

knud > wrote:
> I gotta say, that guy must have been a career public nuisance
>because he didn't even budge the whole time. I wonder where they get these
>people...

Unemployed telemarketers?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Scott Dorsey]

knud > wrote:
> I gotta say, that guy must have been a career public nuisance
>because he didn't even budge the whole time. I wonder where they get these
>people...

Unemployed telemarketers?
--scott


--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(knud) wrote:

> Mostly it was hagglers setting up desks at private business establishments
> and screaming in the ears of everyone.

[snip]

> I wonder where they get these
> people...
>

They pay them for each signature they produce. They are supposed to be
registered voters, but no one seems to have checked. Oddly, I never encountered
anyone with a recall petition in the bay area... Probably just as well: I'm told
I embarass my wife enough as it is.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Jay Kadis]

In article >,
(knud) wrote:

> Mostly it was hagglers setting up desks at private business establishments
> and screaming in the ears of everyone.

[snip]

> I wonder where they get these
> people...
>

They pay them for each signature they produce. They are supposed to be
registered voters, but no one seems to have checked. Oddly, I never encountered
anyone with a recall petition in the bay area... Probably just as well: I'm told
I embarass my wife enough as it is.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[knud]

>They pay them for each signature they produce. They are supposed to be
>registered voters, but no one seems to have checked. Oddly, I never
>encountered
>anyone with a recall petition in the bay area... Probably just as well: I'm
>told
>I embarass my wife enough as it is.

Come to think of it, I didn't encounter any petitioners in the bay area
either. Wonder why?

It may be interesting to note that the vast majority of people I saw
signing were quite elderly. The way they had it set up, you would think you're
signing something to save orphans or something. Lots of people signed without
realizing what they were doing. Some call it democracy at work... I call it
deception at work.


blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!

[knud]

>They pay them for each signature they produce. They are supposed to be
>registered voters, but no one seems to have checked. Oddly, I never
>encountered
>anyone with a recall petition in the bay area... Probably just as well: I'm
>told
>I embarass my wife enough as it is.

Come to think of it, I didn't encounter any petitioners in the bay area
either. Wonder why?

It may be interesting to note that the vast majority of people I saw
signing were quite elderly. The way they had it set up, you would think you're
signing something to save orphans or something. Lots of people signed without
realizing what they were doing. Some call it democracy at work... I call it
deception at work.


blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!

[WillStG]

(knud)

> It may be interesting to note that the vast majority of people I saw
>signing were quite elderly. The way they had it set up, you would think
>you're
>signing something to save orphans or something. Lots of people signed without
>realizing what they were doing. Some call it democracy at work... I call it
>deception at work.

Dude, the recall passed by a landslide. You can call everyone in the State
an idiot if it makes you feel better, but you cannot deny that the sentiment
supporting recall was extremely widespread, the turnout was about 20% higher
than the last Presidential election, and there is no segment of the population
that didn't show show strong support for the recall. Davis tried every trick
in the book along the way, tried to pay off everyone who supported him in the
past and the public just didn't buy it.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(knud)

> It may be interesting to note that the vast majority of people I saw
>signing were quite elderly. The way they had it set up, you would think
>you're
>signing something to save orphans or something. Lots of people signed without
>realizing what they were doing. Some call it democracy at work... I call it
>deception at work.

Dude, the recall passed by a landslide. You can call everyone in the State
an idiot if it makes you feel better, but you cannot deny that the sentiment
supporting recall was extremely widespread, the turnout was about 20% higher
than the last Presidential election, and there is no segment of the population
that didn't show show strong support for the recall. Davis tried every trick
in the book along the way, tried to pay off everyone who supported him in the
past and the public just didn't buy it.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Tommy B]

> I'm told I embarass my wife enough as it is.
That's an art in itself!

Tom


"Jay Kadis" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (knud) wrote:
>
> > Mostly it was hagglers setting up desks at private business
establishments
> > and screaming in the ears of everyone.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I wonder where they get these
> > people...
> >
>
> They pay them for each signature they produce. They are supposed to be
> registered voters, but no one seems to have checked. Oddly, I never
encountered
> anyone with a recall petition in the bay area... Probably just as well:
I'm told
> I embarass my wife enough as it is.
>
> -Jay
> --
> x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
> x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
> x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
> x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[Tommy B]

> I'm told I embarass my wife enough as it is.
That's an art in itself!

Tom


"Jay Kadis" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> (knud) wrote:
>
> > Mostly it was hagglers setting up desks at private business
establishments
> > and screaming in the ears of everyone.
>
> [snip]
>
> > I wonder where they get these
> > people...
> >
>
> They pay them for each signature they produce. They are supposed to be
> registered voters, but no one seems to have checked. Oddly, I never
encountered
> anyone with a recall petition in the bay area... Probably just as well:
I'm told
> I embarass my wife enough as it is.
>
> -Jay
> --
> x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ------x
> x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
> x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
> x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[EggHd]

<< Dude, the recall passed by a landslide. >>

Not if you look at who voted no on the recall and who voted for Arnold. VERY
close.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Dude, the recall passed by a landslide. >>

Not if you look at who voted no on the recall and who voted for Arnold. VERY
close.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[WillStG]

(EggHd)

>Not if you look at who voted no on the recall and who voted for Arnold. VERY
>close.
>

If you consider an Apples And Oranges comparison meaningful. Over 55%
voted to recall. THAT's a landslide.

If you add Arnold's and McClintock's number together, the next in line
Democrat lost by 2,200,000 votes! That's a major repudiation of Democratic
"Politics as usual" in the Golden State.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(EggHd)

>Not if you look at who voted no on the recall and who voted for Arnold. VERY
>close.
>

If you consider an Apples And Oranges comparison meaningful. Over 55%
voted to recall. THAT's a landslide.

If you add Arnold's and McClintock's number together, the next in line
Democrat lost by 2,200,000 votes! That's a major repudiation of Democratic
"Politics as usual" in the Golden State.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[EggHd]

<< If you add Arnold's and McClintock's number together, the next in line
Democrat lost by 2,200,000 votes! >>

What does putting their numbers together have to do with anything?

If you look at who voted no and who voted for Arnold there is a 20K vote
difference. That's apples to apples.

Bustamante got over 1,000,000 more votes that Mclintock.

Of course the movie star won. He was on Jay leno, Oprah, everything that the
others couldn't get close to.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< If you add Arnold's and McClintock's number together, the next in line
Democrat lost by 2,200,000 votes! >>

What does putting their numbers together have to do with anything?

If you look at who voted no and who voted for Arnold there is a 20K vote
difference. That's apples to apples.

Bustamante got over 1,000,000 more votes that Mclintock.

Of course the movie star won. He was on Jay leno, Oprah, everything that the
others couldn't get close to.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EganMedia]

>That's a major repudiation of Democratic
>"Politics as usual" in the Golden State.

Arnold deserves to be governor... and California deverves Arnold.



Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[EganMedia]

>That's a major repudiation of Democratic
>"Politics as usual" in the Golden State.

Arnold deserves to be governor... and California deverves Arnold.



Joe Egan
EMP
Colchester, VT
www.eganmedia.com

[Guitarboy]

In article >, WillStG
> wrote:

> (EggHd)
>
> >Not if you look at who voted no on the recall and who voted for Arnold. VERY
> >close.
> >
>
> If you consider an Apples And Oranges comparison meaningful. Over 55%
> voted to recall. THAT's a landslide.
>
> If you add Arnold's and McClintock's number together, the next in line
> Democrat lost by 2,200,000 votes! That's a major repudiation of Democratic
> "Politics as usual" in the Golden State.
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
a lot of dumb stupid as an ox middle aged white men sitting around in
front of the tube watching fox scratching their balls and angry as hell
at the economy that bush has created but fox managed to pin on davis.
but then again nobody ever went broke or lost an election UNDER-
estimating the intelligence of the average american. the billionaire
who run and benefit from fox are laughing all the way to their now tax
free trustfunds

[Guitarboy]

In article >, WillStG
> wrote:

> (EggHd)
>
> >Not if you look at who voted no on the recall and who voted for Arnold. VERY
> >close.
> >
>
> If you consider an Apples And Oranges comparison meaningful. Over 55%
> voted to recall. THAT's a landslide.
>
> If you add Arnold's and McClintock's number together, the next in line
> Democrat lost by 2,200,000 votes! That's a major repudiation of Democratic
> "Politics as usual" in the Golden State.
>
> Will Miho
> NY Music & TV Audio Guy
> Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
> "The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits
a lot of dumb stupid as an ox middle aged white men sitting around in
front of the tube watching fox scratching their balls and angry as hell
at the economy that bush has created but fox managed to pin on davis.
but then again nobody ever went broke or lost an election UNDER-
estimating the intelligence of the average american. the billionaire
who run and benefit from fox are laughing all the way to their now tax
free trustfunds

[LeBaron & Alrich]

WillStG > wrote:

> That's a major repudiation of Democratic "Politics as usual"
> in the Golden State.

Unfortunately you are as ignorant as many California voters, seeing as
how the situation against which they voted is Enron's politics as usual,
and somehow the Democratness of that escapes me. Apparently a lot more
than that escapes you.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

WillStG > wrote:

> That's a major repudiation of Democratic "Politics as usual"
> in the Golden State.

Unfortunately you are as ignorant as many California voters, seeing as
how the situation against which they voted is Enron's politics as usual,
and somehow the Democratness of that escapes me. Apparently a lot more
than that escapes you.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

EggHd wrote:

> What does putting their numbers together have to do with anything?

It allows Will to be an arithmetician.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

EggHd wrote:

> What does putting their numbers together have to do with anything?

It allows Will to be an arithmetician.

--
ha

[WillStG]

(LeBaron & Alrich)
>Unfortunately you are as ignorant as many California voters, seeing as how the
situation against which they voted is Enron's politics as usual, and somehow
the Democratness of that escapes me. Apparently a lot more than that escapes
you.<

Let me be more clear Hank. 55% overall voted for the recall, and 48%
overall voted for Arnold. More people voted for Arnold than voted against the
recall. And Bustamonte made a pathetic showing despite a split in the
Republican vote, if you consolidate the Arnold votes and the McClintock votes
just how PO'ed the California electorate was should be crystal clear. This
election was a major repudiation of the Democratic _Party_ in California's
"business as usual", and the sooner you start trying to figure out why that is
and stop swallowing hook line and sinker all the BS talking points the Party
puts out for the "True Believers'" , the more in touch with reality you will
be.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(LeBaron & Alrich)
>Unfortunately you are as ignorant as many California voters, seeing as how the
situation against which they voted is Enron's politics as usual, and somehow
the Democratness of that escapes me. Apparently a lot more than that escapes
you.<

Let me be more clear Hank. 55% overall voted for the recall, and 48%
overall voted for Arnold. More people voted for Arnold than voted against the
recall. And Bustamonte made a pathetic showing despite a split in the
Republican vote, if you consolidate the Arnold votes and the McClintock votes
just how PO'ed the California electorate was should be crystal clear. This
election was a major repudiation of the Democratic _Party_ in California's
"business as usual", and the sooner you start trying to figure out why that is
and stop swallowing hook line and sinker all the BS talking points the Party
puts out for the "True Believers'" , the more in touch with reality you will
be.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(EggHd)

>What does putting their numbers together have to do with anything?>

It shows a major repudiation of the Democratic Party, even with a spilt in
the Republican Party the nearest Democrat was trounced.

>If you look at who voted no and who voted for Arnold there is a 20K vote
difference. That's apples to apples.>

That is incorrect.

Arnold got 48.7 % of the overall vote, and 55.4 % supported the recall.
More people voted for Arnold than opposed the recall.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(EggHd)

>What does putting their numbers together have to do with anything?>

It shows a major repudiation of the Democratic Party, even with a spilt in
the Republican Party the nearest Democrat was trounced.

>If you look at who voted no and who voted for Arnold there is a 20K vote
difference. That's apples to apples.>

That is incorrect.

Arnold got 48.7 % of the overall vote, and 55.4 % supported the recall.
More people voted for Arnold than opposed the recall.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[knud]

> Dude, the recall passed by a landslide. You can call everyone in the
>State
>an idiot if it makes you feel better, but you cannot deny that the sentiment
>supporting recall was extremely widespread, the turnout was about 20% higher
>than the last Presidential election, and there is no segment of the
>population
>that didn't show show strong support for the recall.

It doesn't matter to me. I'm not interested in the whole thing. However
where I live the methods used by the recall solicitors were underhanded and
tacky. That is the only point I am making, so save your imagined argument for
someone else.


blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!

[knud]

> Dude, the recall passed by a landslide. You can call everyone in the
>State
>an idiot if it makes you feel better, but you cannot deny that the sentiment
>supporting recall was extremely widespread, the turnout was about 20% higher
>than the last Presidential election, and there is no segment of the
>population
>that didn't show show strong support for the recall.

It doesn't matter to me. I'm not interested in the whole thing. However
where I live the methods used by the recall solicitors were underhanded and
tacky. That is the only point I am making, so save your imagined argument for
someone else.


blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!

[EggHd]

<< It shows a major repudiation of the Democratic Party, even with a spilt in
the Republican Party the nearest Democrat was trounced. >>

Unless you factor in that the nearest democrat wasn't trounced. But yes Arnold
did get more "yes" votes than Gray Davis but by a slim margin.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< It shows a major repudiation of the Democratic Party, even with a spilt in
the Republican Party the nearest Democrat was trounced. >>

Unless you factor in that the nearest democrat wasn't trounced. But yes Arnold
did get more "yes" votes than Gray Davis but by a slim margin.


---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[MikeK]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you consider an Apples And Oranges comparison meaningful. Over
55%
> voted to recall. THAT's a landslide.

Seriously, I want to know when winning by 10% became a landslide. Seems
every president has claimed a "landslide" and a "mandate" since as far back
as I can remember. Some of those got a lot of electoral college votes but
the actual vote was 10% or less difference.

Any sport I can think of, 10% difference is a "close game."

[MikeK]

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
>
> If you consider an Apples And Oranges comparison meaningful. Over
55%
> voted to recall. THAT's a landslide.

Seriously, I want to know when winning by 10% became a landslide. Seems
every president has claimed a "landslide" and a "mandate" since as far back
as I can remember. Some of those got a lot of electoral college votes but
the actual vote was 10% or less difference.

Any sport I can think of, 10% difference is a "close game."

[WillStG]

(knud)
>It doesn't matter to me. I'm not interested in the whole thing. However where
I live the methods used by the recall solicitors were underhanded and tacky.
That is the only point I am making, so save your imagined argument for someone
else.>

You were trying to claim by extension that the whole recall process was
bogus, contrived and manipulated and as such did not reflect the position of
the people of the State of California. The results of the election show
incontrovertibly that such claims are crap.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(knud)
>It doesn't matter to me. I'm not interested in the whole thing. However where
I live the methods used by the recall solicitors were underhanded and tacky.
That is the only point I am making, so save your imagined argument for someone
else.>

You were trying to claim by extension that the whole recall process was
bogus, contrived and manipulated and as such did not reflect the position of
the people of the State of California. The results of the election show
incontrovertibly that such claims are crap.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(EggHd)
>Unless you factor in that the nearest democrat wasn't trounced. >

How is being recalled by 55.7% of the heavily Democratic electorate NOT
being "trounced" when you're a Democrat? Because in a field of hundreds of
candidates Arnold only got 3% than voted against the recall? That's a very
very weak assertion Dude, methinks you are still in some serious denial...


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(EggHd)
>Unless you factor in that the nearest democrat wasn't trounced. >

How is being recalled by 55.7% of the heavily Democratic electorate NOT
being "trounced" when you're a Democrat? Because in a field of hundreds of
candidates Arnold only got 3% than voted against the recall? That's a very
very weak assertion Dude, methinks you are still in some serious denial...


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[EggHd]

<< How is being recalled by 55.7% of the heavily Democratic electorate NOT
being "trounced" when you're a Democrat? >>

You need to calm down a little.

<< Because in a field of hundreds of
candidates Arnold only got 3% than voted against the recall? That's a very
very weak assertion Dude, methinks you are still in some serious denial... >>

I don't follow. My point is simple. very close to the same amount of people
voted FOR Arnold as governor thaqn did to keep Davis.

FYI, I'm not trying to take this partisan. Why are you?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< How is being recalled by 55.7% of the heavily Democratic electorate NOT
being "trounced" when you're a Democrat? >>

You need to calm down a little.

<< Because in a field of hundreds of
candidates Arnold only got 3% than voted against the recall? That's a very
very weak assertion Dude, methinks you are still in some serious denial... >>

I don't follow. My point is simple. very close to the same amount of people
voted FOR Arnold as governor thaqn did to keep Davis.

FYI, I'm not trying to take this partisan. Why are you?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[WillStG]

> (EggHd)

>I don't follow. My point is simple. very close to the same amount of people
>voted FOR Arnold as governor thaqn did to keep Davis.

In a two way race it's not a landslide by definition. In this situation, it
is.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

> (EggHd)

>I don't follow. My point is simple. very close to the same amount of people
>voted FOR Arnold as governor thaqn did to keep Davis.

In a two way race it's not a landslide by definition. In this situation, it
is.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[EggHd]

<< In a two way race it's not a landslide by definition. In this situation, it
is. >>

We see it differently.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< In a two way race it's not a landslide by definition. In this situation, it
is. >>

We see it differently.



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[Rob Adelman]

EggHd wrote:
> << In a two way race it's not a landslide by definition. In this situation, it
> is. >>
>
> We see it differently.

You got that right. There is Will's way, and then there is reality.

[Rob Adelman]

EggHd wrote:
> << In a two way race it's not a landslide by definition. In this situation, it
> is. >>
>
> We see it differently.

You got that right. There is Will's way, and then there is reality.

[Gary]

(WillStG) wrote in message >...
> (EggHd)
>
> >What does putting their numbers together have to do with anything?>
>
> It shows a major repudiation of the Democratic Party, even with a spilt in
> the Republican Party the nearest Democrat was trounced.

Uhhh... that's a bit deep. I think it shows a major repudiation for
politicians in general. Ahnold is not yet viewed as a politician.
But how can he avoid it?

I wish him the best of luck, gee whiz I hope he lowers my taxes and
creates a job for my wife who is probably going to lose hers, after
all it was created by the bleeding-heart liberal initiative Prop 136.
This is the one that suggested providing treatment to drug addicts
rather than incarceration. My conservative work buddies argue that
this is the job of the community, the church, etc. And they may be
right. It's another issue that doesn't lend itself to sound-bite
analysis.

(standing back)

[Gary]

(WillStG) wrote in message >...
> (EggHd)
>
> >What does putting their numbers together have to do with anything?>
>
> It shows a major repudiation of the Democratic Party, even with a spilt in
> the Republican Party the nearest Democrat was trounced.

Uhhh... that's a bit deep. I think it shows a major repudiation for
politicians in general. Ahnold is not yet viewed as a politician.
But how can he avoid it?

I wish him the best of luck, gee whiz I hope he lowers my taxes and
creates a job for my wife who is probably going to lose hers, after
all it was created by the bleeding-heart liberal initiative Prop 136.
This is the one that suggested providing treatment to drug addicts
rather than incarceration. My conservative work buddies argue that
this is the job of the community, the church, etc. And they may be
right. It's another issue that doesn't lend itself to sound-bite
analysis.

(standing back)

[WillStG]

(EggHd)

><< WillStg
>>In a two way race it's not a landslide by definition. In this situation, it
is. >>

>We see it differently.

Look, I know two definitions of landslide, one is a swing in the
electorate of 10% or more. The other definition of landslide is to get 55% of
the vote in a two way race. In a 130 person race, 48.7% of the vote and a
swing in the voting pattern to this degree would well qualify I believe as a
landslide.

But believe as you wish.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(EggHd)

><< WillStg
>>In a two way race it's not a landslide by definition. In this situation, it
is. >>

>We see it differently.

Look, I know two definitions of landslide, one is a swing in the
electorate of 10% or more. The other definition of landslide is to get 55% of
the vote in a two way race. In a 130 person race, 48.7% of the vote and a
swing in the voting pattern to this degree would well qualify I believe as a
landslide.

But believe as you wish.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[EggHd]

<< But believe as you wish. >>

Gee thanks. Even when I politely say we see things differently, you're an
asshole.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< But believe as you wish. >>

Gee thanks. Even when I politely say we see things differently, you're an
asshole.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[WillStG]

(EggHd)

>WillStG<< But believe as you wish. >>

>Gee thanks. Even when I politely say we see things differently, you're an
asshole. >

I wasn't trying to be. I was trying (to politely) say, "You may cling to
the "Arnold's votes vs. the Against the recall votes " comparison if you
wish, but that's weak reasoning IMO and I can't convince you if you disagree
with my analysis or define "landslide" differently." But you haven't defined
landslide either.

Look, in the first ballot question "Should Gov. Grey Davis be recalled?",
Davis lost 45 to 55%. By the definition of a landslide as getting 55% of the
vote in a 2 man race, that's WORSE because that was a ONE man race against
himself. That's a landslide.

And in the second ballot question "Who should replace Grey Davis as
Governor", Arnold got 48.7% of the vote, the next nearest candidate Bustamonte
got 31.4% That's a greater than 10% difference in the vote, which is another
way an electoral landslide is defined. Over all Republicans got 60% of the
vote, in a state where Registered Republicans are only 35% of the population.
Seen from the perpective of political party shift by greater than 15% also
being a landslide, that fits that definition.

Had the question been "Who should be Governor, Grey Davis or Arnold
Swartzenegger" the result would have been different, because that would have
been a 2 man race. As even it is, Arnold got more votes than Davis did in
2002.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(EggHd)

>WillStG<< But believe as you wish. >>

>Gee thanks. Even when I politely say we see things differently, you're an
asshole. >

I wasn't trying to be. I was trying (to politely) say, "You may cling to
the "Arnold's votes vs. the Against the recall votes " comparison if you
wish, but that's weak reasoning IMO and I can't convince you if you disagree
with my analysis or define "landslide" differently." But you haven't defined
landslide either.

Look, in the first ballot question "Should Gov. Grey Davis be recalled?",
Davis lost 45 to 55%. By the definition of a landslide as getting 55% of the
vote in a 2 man race, that's WORSE because that was a ONE man race against
himself. That's a landslide.

And in the second ballot question "Who should replace Grey Davis as
Governor", Arnold got 48.7% of the vote, the next nearest candidate Bustamonte
got 31.4% That's a greater than 10% difference in the vote, which is another
way an electoral landslide is defined. Over all Republicans got 60% of the
vote, in a state where Registered Republicans are only 35% of the population.
Seen from the perpective of political party shift by greater than 15% also
being a landslide, that fits that definition.

Had the question been "Who should be Governor, Grey Davis or Arnold
Swartzenegger" the result would have been different, because that would have
been a 2 man race. As even it is, Arnold got more votes than Davis did in
2002.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[EggHd]

<< But you haven't defined landslide either. >>

This wasn't any kind of normal election. What you fail to consider is that
there very well may have been many people who voted no on the recall and then
also FOR Arnold.

That even makes the entire post mortem more impossible to analyze.

<< Look, in the first ballot question "Should Gov. Gray Davis be recalled?",
Davis lost 45 to 55%. >>

Correct.

<< By the definition of a landslide as getting 55% of the
vote in a 2 man race, that's WORSE because that was a ONE man race against
himself. That's a landslide. >>

I may agree if they would have also let Gray Davis on the ballot after the yes
or no. Remember 12K people voted for Gary Coleman. Right there speaks
volumes.

<< And in the second ballot question "Who should replace Gray Davis as
Governor", Arnold got 48.7% of the vote, the next nearest candidate Bustamonte
got 31.4% >>

Bustamonte is not the point. Even using your math. Arnold received 48.7% of
the vote and Davis got 45%.

So Arnold won with a 3.7 % margin in terms of who actually voted FOR and, in
effect, voted to keep Gray Davis in office.. They both ran against the entire
field. Somehow you are trying to make it a race between Arnold and Cruz. It
wasn't.

YMWV





---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[WillStG]

(EggHd)

> Somehow you are trying to make it a race between Arnold and Cruz. It
>wasn't.

The question on the ballot wasn't "Who shall be Governor, Grey Davis or
Arnold Swartzenegger?" The questions on the ballot before the voters was,
"Should Gov, Davis be recalled?" and "If Gov Davis should be recalled, who
should replace him?"

Since they were two separate questions on the ballot, your evaluation using
results from one question against the other is comparing apples and oranges.
The Democrats took the situation in an extremely cavalier manner, it's their
own fault they lost so badly. They couldn't understand why people would be
angry, and I think many of you still don't understand it...


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

EggHd > wrote:

> So Arnold won with a 3.7 % margin in terms of who actually voted FOR and, in
> effect, voted to keep Gray Davis in office.. They both ran against the entire
> field. Somehow you are trying to make it a race between Arnold and Cruz. It
> wasn't.

Actually it was 2.3%. 189,000 vote margin our of nearly 8 million
votes.


ulysses

[EggHd]

<< The question on the ballot wasn't "Who shall be Governor, Grey Davis or
Arnold Swartzenegger?" >>

If you lived in the state you would have thought so based on advertising the
local coverage. But you don't live in the state.

Is there somewhere in my posts that suggest that Gray Davis didn't get
recalled?

<< The questions on the ballot before the voters was,
"Should Gov, Davis be recalled?" and "If Gov Davis should be recalled, who
should replace him?" >>

But people were allowed to vote for both. They could vote no on the recall and
yes for the movie star, for instance. You do know this correct? Even if you
voted no on the recall you could vote for another candidate. They may have
really not wanted the real republican in office, Tom Mclintock. They were fine
with the Kennedy republican as the lesser of two evils.

<< Since they were two separate questions on the ballot, your evaluation using
results from one question against the other is comparing apples and oranges. >>

You've said this already. The apples and oranges is that people were both
allowed to vote for or against keeping Davis and voting for another candidate.
That makes it even more difficult to figure out.

<< The Democrats took the situation in an extremely cavalier manner, it's
their
own fault they lost so badly. They couldn't understand why people would be
angry, and I think many of you still don't understand it. >>

Whatever you wish to believe is your right. But it's useless to discuss
something with a partisan with blinders on.

You should keep all this in mind when Bush is up for re election.

Oh by the way, even Arnold yesterday talked about the 8 billion deficit. Yet
in the campaign he claimed it was 38 billion.




---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[EggHd]

<< Actually it was 2.3%. 189,000 vote margin our of nearly 8 million
votes. >>

And a year ago davis beat Simon by a 5 point margin.

Could you imagine oif there was no movie star in the race?



---------------------------------------
"I know enough to know I don't know enough"

[R Krizman]

Will wrote:
<< Look, I know two definitions of landslide, one is a swing in the
electorate of 10% or more. The other definition of landslide is to get 55% of
the vote in a two way race. In a 130 person race, 48.7% of the vote and a
swing in the voting pattern to this degree would well qualify I believe as a
landslide. >>


It's really more of a mud slide.

-R

[R Krizman]

<< (WillStG) wrote in message
>...
> (EggHd)
>
> >What does putting their numbers together have to do with anything?>
>
> It shows a major repudiation of the Democratic Party, even with a spilt
in
> the Republican Party the nearest Democrat was trounced.
>>


No it doesn't. It just shows people are star struck. Arnold isn't a real
Republican anyway. He's pro gun control, pro choice, and shares a lot of
outright liberal attitudes that no real Republican would ever embrace. In
fact, from what we know about him he may well be the next Bill Clinton. LOL

If you hate the way he treats women, just wait until you see him make Dubya
kiss his ass.

-R

[WillStG]

> (R Krizman)
>Arnold isn't a real
>Republican anyway. He's pro gun control, pro choice, and shares a lot of
>outright liberal attitudes that no real Republican would ever embrace.>

Well - it would be a mistake to think the Republican Party is that
monolithic, and I think this election proved that viewing Democrats as being
similarly monolithic is a mistake as well. As for Arnie being socially
liberal, I said that... The only way to try to change things in California was
to run from outside the party, the same was true for Guiliani in NYC.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[R Krizman]

<< > (R Krizman)
>Arnold isn't a real
>Republican anyway. He's pro gun control, pro choice, and shares a lot of
>outright liberal attitudes that no real Republican would ever embrace.>

Well - it would be a mistake to think the Republican Party is that
monolithic, and I think this election proved that viewing Democrats as being
similarly monolithic is a mistake as well. As for Arnie being socially
liberal, I said that... The only way to try to change things in California was
to run from outside the party, t >>

Precisely why your assertion that

<<It (the election) shows a major repudiation of the Democratic Party >>

is not correct. If it had been Republican versus Democrat, Gray would still be
governor. McClintock, the only "true" Republican in the race, could never have
motivated the recall's success, and moreover would have lost badly to Cruz.
No, this was no referrendum on the two parties at all. The California
electorate was justifiably cranky and in need of an action hero.

I still predict that Bush will be feeling a real political wedgie when he has
to show fealty to this Trojan horse of a so-called Republican governor. Can't
wait to hear his soprano version of "California Here I Come".

-R

[LeBaron & Alrich]

EggHd wrote:

> << Actually it was 2.3%. 189,000 vote margin our of nearly 8 million
> votes. >>

> And a year ago davis beat Simon by a 5 point margin.

> Could you imagine oif there was no movie star in the race?


<j>

So you're suggesting fame was a factor?

</j>

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

R Krizman wrote:

> Will wrote:

> << Look, I know two definitions of landslide, one is a swing in the
> electorate of 10% or more. The other definition of landslide is to get 55% of
> the vote in a two way race. In a 130 person race, 48.7% of the vote and a
> swing in the voting pattern to this degree would well qualify I believe as a
> landslide. >>

> It's really more of a mud slide.

In New York, 2.3% is 10%. You _have_ heard of a "New York minute"?

I know somebody who hauled a bunch of Texas weed to NYC in the early
'70's. The guy on the NYC end asked her, "So how much do your pounds
weigh?". Kinda figures, don't it?

For the record, Texas pounds weigh sixteen ounces. It's a concept.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

R Krizman wrote:

> If you hate the way he treats women, just wait until you see him make Dubya
> kiss his ass.

That'll be crack lickin', bubba.

--
ha

[R Krizman]

<< For the record, Texas pounds weigh sixteen ounces. It's a concept.

--
ha
>><BR><BR>

Did you know an English pint is 20 ounces?

-R

[WillStG]

<< (R Krizman) >>
<< Precisely why your assertion that

<<It (the election) shows a major repudiation of the Democratic Party >>

is not correct. >>

I think I also put that as "repudiation of the Democratic Party "Business
as usual"" Rick.

<< McClintock, the only "true" Republican in the race, could never have
motivated the recall's success, and moreover would have lost badly to Cruz. >>

Well if Arnie doesn't really have a "R" after his name now, tell me why all
your left of center friends here are so upset? Fact is this all about
politics to many and has little to do with solveing the real problems in
California. That is also why the Democrats lost so badly, if it wasn't an
absolute trouncing as some here would claim, WHY are they hurting so bad?
Let's call a spade a spade.

<< I still predict that Bush will be feeling a real political wedgie when he
has to show fealty to this Trojan horse of a so-called Republican governor >>

Bush has always shown himself willing to work with people regardless of
politcal party, for instance the Kennedy Education bill. He has practiced the
politics of inclusion in his career, for better or worse. But I can understand
why a Democrat might see it that way and try to take comfort from that.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[knud]

> You were trying to claim by extension that the whole recall process was
>bogus, contrived and manipulated and as such did not reflect the position of
>the people of the State of California.

Sounds like you're claiming it to me. I didn't claim anything of the
sort. I am simply relating my personal experience with the obnoxious recall
disenfranchised telemarketers who were on the street making everyones shopping
experience singularily unpleasant.

You've shown yourself to be the sort of guy who hears only what you want
to hear again and again.


blahblah
ALL MUSIC IS ORIGINAL...
EVEN IF ONLY ONE NOTE IS CHANGED!
EVERYONE CREATES IN A VACUUM!

[R Krizman]

<< Bush has always shown himself willing to work with people regardless of
politcal party, for instance the Kennedy Education bill. He has practiced the
politics of inclusion in his career, for better or worse. >><BR><BR>

You think if you say that enough times it will become true?

-R

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

WillStG > wrote:

> Bush has always shown himself willing to work with people
> regardless of politcal party, for instance the Kennedy Education
> bill. He has practiced the politics of inclusion in his career, for
> better or worse.


Were you able to type that with a straight face?


ulysses

[WillStG]

> Justin Ulysses Morse

>WillStG > wrote:
>
>> Bush has always shown himself willing to work with people
>> regardless of politcal party, for instance the Kennedy Education
>> bill. He has practiced the politics of inclusion in his career, for
>> better or worse.
>
>
>Were you able to type that with a straight face?>

There are plenty of facts to back that up, but being factual has little
to do with this thread, you guys just wanna bitch and moan. So fine, bitch and
moan, in my experience presenting the facts does little to stop kids who are so
inclined from having a fit when they don't get their way.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[R Krizman]

<< He has practiced the politics of inclusion in his career, for
>> better or worse.
>>

Well, yes, if that's what you want to call favoring big money special
interests.

-R

[WillStG]

> (R Krizman)

><<Willstg> He has practiced the politics of inclusion in his career, for
better or worse. > >>

>Well, yes, if that's what you want to call favoring big money special
>interests.

Oh, and a _Democrat_ would never favor "Big Money Special Interests",
would they Rick? Oh no, no _Democrat_ would ever take say, a couple million
in illegal campaign contributions from an Indian Casino Consortium or anything?




Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[R Krizman]

<< Oh, and a _Democrat_ would never favor "Big Money Special Interests",
would they Rick? Oh no, no _Democrat_ would ever take say, a couple million
in illegal campaign contributions from an Indian Casino Consortium or anything?
>>

So that's just the Democrats practicing the "politics of inclusion". In this
case, they're including the interests of the native people who were here before
we "liberated" them.

But in truth, that's small time stuff compared to what Bush has been up to, and
Cruz didn't get away with it anyway. In any case, that's just walking around
money for Halliburton.

And there's probably some cops somewhere getting free donuts, but so what.

-R

[Jay Kadis]

In article > (R
Krizman) writes:
[snip]
>
> And there's probably some cops somewhere getting free donuts, but so what.
>
> -R

So we pay their health benefits after they sit around eating donuts all day and
then engage in a 3-block foot chase. That's what.

-Jay
--
x------- Jay Kadis ------- x---- Jay's Attic Studio ----x
x Lecturer, Audio Engineer x Dexter Records x
x CCRMA, Stanford University x http://www.offbeats.com/ x
x-------- http://ccrma-www.stanford.edu/~jay/ ----------x

[R Krizman]

Will wrote:

<< ( Uh oh, now Rick's going morally incoherent... I feel bad but someone had
to bust his cherry over his persistent "The Democrats are all moral and good,
The Republicans are all greedy and evil" delusions of virtue... ) >>


I never said that. In fact as I've said before, i don't think my views are
represented anywhere in the mainstream political spectrum.

Go find another straw dummy.

<< >But in truth, that's small time stuff compared to what Bush has been up to,
and Cruz didn't get away with it anyway. <

( Still in denial, as if Bustamonte actually gave the money back... ) >>

Well, he didn't get away with it. He was busted and it sank his ship. It made
him look just like the perception people had of Davis.


<< and you have gear in your rack
right now Rick that's made by a guy whose son is "over there". >>

That's a pretty random thing to say. What's your implication? That I'm being
disloyal or unpatriotic or something if I should question what's going on over
there?

That's pretty creepy of you, actually.

Peace out.

-R

[WillStG]

> (R Krizman)

>WillStG<< ( Uh oh, now Rick's going morally incoherent... I feel bad but
someone had to bust his cherry over his persistent "The Democrats are all moral
and good,
>The Republicans are all greedy and evil" delusions of virtue... ) >>

>I never said that. In fact as I've said before, i don't think my views are
represented anywhere in the mainstream political spectrum. >

Come on Rick, your attitude is implicit and transparent when you make
comments about Republicans being in the pocket of special interests, and then
excuse the Democratic Lt. Gov of California for taking millions in iilegal
comapaign contributions as if that was a noble program to support minorities...


>Go find another straw dummy.

Hey now Rick, I _never_ called you a dummy... <g>

SNIP

>Well, he didn't get away with it. He was busted and it sank his ship. It
made him look just like the perception people had of Davis.>

The court ordered him to return the money, and he still has not done so.

>WillStG<< and you have gear in your rack right now Rick that's made by a guy
whose son is "over there". >>

>Rick <<That's a pretty random thing to say. What's your implication? That
I'm being disloyal or unpatriotic or something if I should question what's
going on over there? >

Read my post again Rick, I said nothing about your patriotism at all.
The context I said that in, money is cheaper than the lives of our soldiers,
and there are times when you contract out work for the sake of getting a job
done period, on time, on budget, not totally screwed up like "The Big Dig" in
Boston. "Good, fast, cheap, pick two". Not many companies can do what
Halliburton can.

>That's pretty creepy of you, actually.

Find another straw man Rick, my stuffing's coming a bit loose...

Read my post again.
Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[LeBaron & Alrich]

WillStG wrote:

> ( Uh oh, now Rick's going morally incoherent... I feel bad but
> someone had to bust his cherry over his persistent "The Democrats are all
> moral and good, The Republicans are all greedy and evil" delusions of
> virtue... )

Uh, Will, you been incommunicatively incoherent in political threads in
this forum for as long as I've been reading your "stuff". Again, you
seem unable to read what is written and deal with it, preferring
fantasies you construct and then address. It'd be humorous were it not
pathetic. Carry on.

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

WillStG > wrote:

> Come on Rick, your attitude is implicit and transparent when you make
> comments about Republicans being in the pocket of special interests, and
> then excuse the Democratic Lt. Gov of California for taking millions in
> iilegal comapaign contributions as if that was a noble program to support
> minorities...

Are you actually sufficiently disingenuous to say what you have written
above? Rick wrote no such statement, period. That you keep reading into
other's writings whatever it is you think you hope to argue against is a
fascinating exercise in cognitive dissonance. Apparently, unable to
address what is presented you want to run over to a different sandbox
where standing on tiptoes in your tutu you can proclaim, "I'm king of
the hill!!"

Is it that you cannot type and think at the same time? Whatever is at
the root of this, it makes no logical or political sense whatsoever.

--
ha

[[email protected]]

(LeBaron & Alrich) wrote in message

> Uh, Will, you been incommunicatively incoherent in political threads in
> this forum for as long as I've been reading your "stuff". Again, you
> seem unable to read what is written and deal with it, preferring
> fantasies you construct and then address. It'd be humorous were it not
> pathetic. Carry on.


The strange thing is how Will's posts always manage to read like a
"news" bite.

He's definitely proven that he can't separate himself from his dayjob.
He really believes he's working for a news organization, and not just
an entertainment group, beholden to the pnac supportive advertisers
that own it.

It's a broken record, even when he completely contradicts himself.
It's great humor and a little sad at the same time. Carry on indeed..

[WillStG]

(LeBaron & Alrich)

>WillStG > wrote:
>> Come on Rick, your attitude is implicit and transparent when you make
comments about Republicans being in the pocket of special interests, and then
excuse the Democratic Lt. Gov of California for taking millions in iilegal
comapaign contributions as if that was a noble program to support
minorities...>

>Are you actually sufficiently disingenuous to say what you have written
>above? Rick wrote no such statement, period. That you keep reading into
>other's writings whatever it is you think you hope to argue against is a
>fascinating exercise in cognitive dissonance.

Well - he did Hank. Perhaps your local "Secret Mountain" google server
has left some posts off this thread?


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>The strange thing is how Will's posts always manage to read like a "news"
bite.<

Well thank you. I have studied journalism, done a bit of writing, done a
bit of editing...

As for the rest of your comments, the combination of insults and left wing
paranoia is SO stale and, well, stupid. Get a life of your own Tom, I played
with my kid today.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

LeBaron & Alrich > wrote:

> Uh, Will, you been incommunicatively incoherent in political threads in
> this forum for as long as I've been reading your "stuff". Again, you
> seem unable to read what is written and deal with it, preferring
> fantasies you construct and then address. It'd be humorous were it not
> pathetic. Carry on.


Dude, it's pronounced "carrion."


ulysses

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

WillStG > wrote:

> As for the rest of your comments, the combination of insults and
> left wing paranoia is SO stale and, well, stupid. Get a life of your
> own Tom, I played with my kid today.


Anybody who notices that Will is insane is just showing their "left
wing bias." I wonder if he uses this tactic on his shrink? Something
like...

Will: "Doc, I think Commies are out to get me."

Shrink: "You're ****ing nuts."

Will: "Oh, you democrats are all alike. Why, I once called Eldridge
Cleaver on the intercom and he told me you were all paranoid. You like
to imagine that everybody in the Bush administration works for the Oil
industry and has tankers named after them."

Shrink: "Wow, you really are nuts."

Will: "That's pretty unpatriotic of you. I work for Fox News. Why
can't your diagnosis be more Fair and Balanced? If you're not with us,
you're against us."



ulysses

[WillStG]

> Justin Ulysses Morse

>Anybody who notices that Will is insane is just showing their "left wing
bias." I wonder if he uses this tactic on his shrink? Something like...
<snip>

Well, Justin you have proved me wrong. I thought you had matured beyond
the need to attack people on a personal level just because you disagree with
them on political issues but no. My bad.

But when you jump in to pile on the personal insults remember (for the
sake of your own personal intellectual honesty if for no other reason), it's no
substitute for having something meaningful to say and it just reflects your own
frustration and lack of a rationale to back up your political positions. And
as for pananoia, it's Tom and Hank maybe you who have been accusing me of
belonging to a conspiracy, the PNAC. I would submit the paranoia you are
feeling is your own.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[LeBaron & Alrich]

WillStG wrote:

> > (LeBaron & Alrich)
>
> >WillStG wrote:
> >> Come on Rick, your attitude is implicit and transparent when you make
> comments about Republicans being in the pocket of special interests, and then
> excuse the Democratic Lt. Gov of California for taking millions in iilegal
> comapaign contributions as if that was a noble program to support
> minorities...>
>
> >Are you actually sufficiently disingenuous to say what you have written
> >above? Rick wrote no such statement, period. That you keep reading into
> >other's writings whatever it is you think you hope to argue against is a
> >fascinating exercise in cognitive dissonance.
>
> Well - he did Hank. Perhaps your local "Secret Mountain" google server
> has left some posts off this thread?

1. I contend Rick did not write what you have interpreted from your
soapbox.

2. I don't google this group except for historical investigation.

3. My Earthlink news server is showing the full thread and I have read
Rick's posts and your "replies".

4. You still don't get that you do not read what is written but insist
on making up stuff that is not written.

6. I do not expect you ever to come to your so-called senses about this
method of nonperception.

--
ha

[WillStG]

> (LeBaron & Alrich)

>1. I contend Rick did not write what you have interpreted from your soapbox.>

Here's bit of the thread for the cognitively dissonant. Here Rick
criticizes Bush.

> (R Krizman)

><<Willstg> He has practiced the politics of inclusion in his career, for
better or worse. > >>

>Well, yes, if that's what you want to call favoring big money special
interests.>

And here inthe same thread, he excuses the Democratic Lt. Governor of
Claifornia for taking millions in illegal campaign contributions from Indian
Casinos.

"WillStG" > wrote in message
...
> > (R Krizman)

> ><< WillStG<< Oh, and a _Democrat_ would never favor "Big Money Special
Interests", would they Rick? Oh no, no _Democrat_ would ever take say, a
couple million in illegal campaign contributions from an Indian Casino
Consortium or anything?> >>

>So that's just the Democrats practicing the "politics of inclusion". In this
case, they're including the interests of the native people who were here before
we "liberated" them.>

So he criticizes Republicans for "being in the pockets of special
interests" and excuses Democrats for taking illegal campaign contributions as
if it's a program to help out minoritites, just as I said.


So if you're too F'n lazy to google something, you should think twiuce
before you call people a liar Hank.>

>Hank Alrich wrote
>2. I don't google this group except for historical investigation.>

If you're too lazy to google a person's comments then you shouldn't be so
quick to call them a liar. Some people take exception to such things. Unless
of course, your whole intention is to get in a fight and be a distraction,
which you seem to quite enjoy actually.

Complete thread here.

http://groups.google.com/groups?hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&threadm=bmhknv
%24n6qfr%241%40ID-195747.news.uni-berlin.de&rnum=1&prev=/groups%3Fq%3Drec.
audio.pro%2B%2522rkrizman%2522%2B%2522will%2Bmiho% 2522%2B%2522%26hl%3Den%2
6lr%3D%26ie%3DUTF-8%26oe%3DUTF-8%26scoring%3Dd%26selm%3Dbmhknv%2524n6qfr%2
5241%2540ID-195747.news.uni-berlin.de%26rnum%3D1


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[R Krizman]

Will, if you think that's what I said, perhaps you should quote it. And be
sure to include my comments about the political spectrum in general.

Between you and O'Reily I was starting to think that deliberate misdirection,
attacking straw dummies and questioning peoples' patriotism was a requirement
for working for Fox, but now as a paid consultant for Fox news I know better.
There are a lot of very sharp,well-spoken and open minded people working for
Fox, and as the wheel turns I'm convinced this will be increasingly reflected
in its broadcasts.

Stay tuned.

-R

<< >WillStG > wrote:
>> Come on Rick, your attitude is implicit and transparent when you make
comments about Republicans being in the pocket of special interests, and then
excuse the Democratic Lt. Gov of California for taking millions in iilegal
comapaign contributions as if that was a noble program to support
minorities...>

>Are you actually sufficiently disingenuous to say what you have written
>above? Rick wrote no such statement, period.

Well - he did Hank. Perhaps your local "Secret Mountain" google server
has left some posts off this thread?
>>

[WillStG]

>"Roger W. Norman"
BIG SNIP

As much as I appreciate the long lecture on things that have nothing to do
with the subject of conversation Roger, you are way off on a tangent.

>And try doing it by sticking to the statements made,
>not the statements you would like to use.

How about showing me where I did that?



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

> (R Krizman)
>Will, if you think that's what I said, perhaps you should quote it. And
>be
>sure to include my comments about the political spectrum in general.

Sure - but I did that even before you posted this. In this posting, #36 in
the "Re: Total Recall" thread, you excuse Bustamonte for the illegal campaign
contributions (it's just the "politics of inclusion" you say) .

<< Message 36 in threadFrom: R Krizman )
Subject: Re: "Total Recall"
Newsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Date: 2003-10-13 13:34:57 PST

<WillstG wrote
< Oh, and a _Democrat_ would never favor "Big Money Special Interests", would
they Rick? Oh no, no _Democrat_ would ever take say, a couple million in
illegal campaign contributions from an Indian Casino Consortium or anything? >

<< So that's just the Democrats practicing the "politics of inclusion". In
this case, they're including the interests of the native people who were here
before we "liberated" them.

But in truth, that's small time stuff compared to what Bush has been up to, and
Cruz didn't get away with it anyway. In any case, that's just walking around
money for Halliburton.

And there's probably some cops somewhere getting free donuts, but so what.

-R <<



Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

WillStG > wrote:

> Well, Justin you have proved me wrong. I thought you had matured beyond
> the need to attack people on a personal level just because you disagree with
> them on political issues but no. My bad.

No, I'm still hopelessly immature. When all relevance is gone from the
discussion, I'll go for the cheap laugh.

But it's been a long time since I've bothered disagreeing with you,
personally, on any political issues because you consistently manage to
drive any relevant political discussion out of a thread with your
pedantic, self-contradictory bull****. Somehow the threads don't die
off though. It's a bummer.

I have no problem discussing politics politely with people who disagree
with me. I may get a bit excited at times, but I don't have a problem
with folks who hold different values than my own, because as I talk to
them we usually discover our values are very similar and we simply have
reached different conclusions based on differing priorities. I simply
don't include you among those people. Useful discourse relies on
reasonable participants.


ulysses

[Romeo Rondeau]

> No, I'm still hopelessly immature. When all relevance is gone from the
> discussion, I'll go for the cheap laugh.

So, when you're done discussing things, you would rather offend people by
making fun of them? Maybe it's not your intent, but it's the result. I'm not
trying to come down on you, but this is what the situation looks like from
here. A psychologist friend of mine said something to me when I was young
that I still try to keep to this day. He said "We judge other by their
actions...but we judge ourselves by our intentions"... food for thought.
It's just common sense, which somehow in today's hustle and bustle doesn't
seem so common anymore.

> I have no problem discussing politics politely with people who disagree
> with me. I may get a bit excited at times, but I don't have a problem
> with folks who hold different values than my own, because as I talk to
> them we usually discover our values are very similar and we simply have
> reached different conclusions based on differing priorities.

Jeez, maybe you should take your behavior when discussing politics with
people and apply it to this group as well :-)


I simply
> don't include you among those people. Useful discourse relies on
> reasonable participants.

Any republicans that you DO include?

[R Krizman]

Will wrote:

<< Here's bit of the thread for the cognitively dissonant. Here Rick
criticizes Bush.

> (R Krizman)

><<Willstg> He (Bush) has practiced the politics of inclusion in his career,
for
better or worse. > >>

>Well, yes, if that's what you want to call favoring big money special
interests.>



So he criticizes Republicans for "being in the pockets of special
interests" >>

No, you genius. As you can see, I'm criticizing Bush, not "the Republicans".
You tried to make it out that I was tarring all the Republicans as the "bad
guys", or whatever.

I think you've demonstrated Hank's point quite nicely.

In any case, you don't need to presume to interpret my comments. They stand
quite nicely on their own.

-R

[R Krizman]

<< > ><< WillStG<< Oh, and a _Democrat_ would never favor "Big Money Special
Interests", would they Rick? Oh no, no _Democrat_ would ever take say, a
couple million in illegal campaign contributions from an Indian Casino
Consortium or anything?> >>

>So that's just the Democrats practicing the "politics of inclusion". In this
case, they're including the interests of the native people who were here before
we "liberated" them.>

<< So he .... excuses Democrats for taking illegal campaign contributions
as
if it's a program to help out minoritites, just as I said.
>>

LOL. It was a humorous and ironic comment. Sorry if it was too subtle for
you. In case you are unclear, I believe very firmly that "politics of
inclusion" is a euphemism for "being in the pocket of". And you neglected to
quote my comment about how Cruz didn't get away with it anyway. The whole deal
made him look bad and added another nail in his political coffin.

And don't forget about my comment about cops getting free donuts. See, it's a
little metaphor to suggest differences of scale and overall relevance.

For quite some time now I've been carrying in my wallet a quote from a (very)
high government official (hint: he's in the executive branch) who said the
following:

"My job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think. And
when I think there's an axis of evil, I say it. I think moral clarity is
important".

I carry that with me because I'm so astounded that somebody would say that.
This thread astounds me in the same way.

-R

[WillStG]

>Justin Ulysses Morse

>I have no problem discussing politics politely with people who disagree with
me. I may get a bit excited at times, but I don't have a problem with folks
who hold different values than my own, because as I talk to them we usually
discover our values are very similar and we simply have reached different
conclusions based on differing priorities. I simply don't include you among
those people. Useful discourse relies on reasonable participants. >

So your rationale for being insulting and personally attacking me is "you
don't include me" on you roster of those who are "reasonable"? That's a pretty
lame excuse, really.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

>Justin Ulysses Morse

>I have no problem discussing politics politely with people who disagree with
me. I may get a bit excited at times, but I don't have a problem with folks
who hold different values than my own, because as I talk to them we usually
discover our values are very similar and we simply have reached different
conclusions based on differing priorities. I simply don't include you among
those people. Useful discourse relies on reasonable participants. >

So your rationale for being insulting and personally attacking me is "you
don't include me" on you roster of those who are "reasonable"? That's a pretty
lame excuse, really.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

> (R Krizman)

>LOL. It was a humorous and ironic comment. Sorry if it was too subtle for
you. >

See Hank? I told you Rick was capable of issuing a disclaimer or
qualifer for his remarks on his own, without any help from you. He was just
KIDDING.

> In case you are unclear, I believe very firmly that "politics of inclusion"
is a euphemism for "being in the pocket of". And you neglected to quote my
comment about how Cruz didn't get away with it anyway.The whole deal made him
look bad and added another nail in his political coffin. >

And you negelected my question, "How did he "not get away with it"? "
The courts ordered him to return the illegal money but he hasn't, has he? That
such behavior made him look bad to voters is a side issue, it does not mean
that he obeyed the courts and returned the illegal money.

> And don't forget about my comment about cops getting free donuts. See, it's
a little metaphor to suggest differences of scale and overall relevance.>

I didn't forget Rick, you actually said "Cops are eating donuts SO
WHAT..." (emphasis added). But I do agree that your comments speak for
themself. They aren't _that_ "nuanced"...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

> (R Krizman)

>LOL. It was a humorous and ironic comment. Sorry if it was too subtle for
you. >

See Hank? I told you Rick was capable of issuing a disclaimer or
qualifer for his remarks on his own, without any help from you. He was just
KIDDING.

> In case you are unclear, I believe very firmly that "politics of inclusion"
is a euphemism for "being in the pocket of". And you neglected to quote my
comment about how Cruz didn't get away with it anyway.The whole deal made him
look bad and added another nail in his political coffin. >

And you negelected my question, "How did he "not get away with it"? "
The courts ordered him to return the illegal money but he hasn't, has he? That
such behavior made him look bad to voters is a side issue, it does not mean
that he obeyed the courts and returned the illegal money.

> And don't forget about my comment about cops getting free donuts. See, it's
a little metaphor to suggest differences of scale and overall relevance.>

I didn't forget Rick, you actually said "Cops are eating donuts SO
WHAT..." (emphasis added). But I do agree that your comments speak for
themself. They aren't _that_ "nuanced"...

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(R Krizman)

>No, you genius. As you can see, I'm criticizing Bush, not "the Republicans".
>
>You tried to make it out that I was tarring all the Republicans as the "bad
>guys", or whatever.
>
>I think you've demonstrated Hank's point quite nicely.

Ok fine Rick. But then I expect no comments about "the PNAC conspiracy",
the Republicans and Bush and Cheney in the same breath from you.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

(R Krizman)

>No, you genius. As you can see, I'm criticizing Bush, not "the Republicans".
>
>You tried to make it out that I was tarring all the Republicans as the "bad
>guys", or whatever.
>
>I think you've demonstrated Hank's point quite nicely.

Ok fine Rick. But then I expect no comments about "the PNAC conspiracy",
the Republicans and Bush and Cheney in the same breath from you.


Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Tommy B]

OK How bout another thread even more topical:
"China launches Rocket" or "Just what we needed,
Take out in space"
Tom


"R Krizman" > wrote in message
...
> << > ><< WillStG<< Oh, and a _Democrat_ would never favor "Big Money
Special
> Interests", would they Rick? Oh no, no _Democrat_ would ever take say, a
> couple million in illegal campaign contributions from an Indian Casino
> Consortium or anything?> >>
>
> >So that's just the Democrats practicing the "politics of inclusion". In
this
> case, they're including the interests of the native people who were here
before
> we "liberated" them.>
>
> << So he .... excuses Democrats for taking illegal campaign
contributions
> as
> if it's a program to help out minoritites, just as I said.
> >>
>
> LOL. It was a humorous and ironic comment. Sorry if it was too subtle
for
> you. In case you are unclear, I believe very firmly that "politics of
> inclusion" is a euphemism for "being in the pocket of". And you neglected
to
> quote my comment about how Cruz didn't get away with it anyway. The whole
deal
> made him look bad and added another nail in his political coffin.
>
> And don't forget about my comment about cops getting free donuts. See,
it's a
> little metaphor to suggest differences of scale and overall relevance.
>
> For quite some time now I've been carrying in my wallet a quote from a
(very)
> high government official (hint: he's in the executive branch) who said the
> following:
>
> "My job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think.
And
> when I think there's an axis of evil, I say it. I think moral clarity is
> important".
>
> I carry that with me because I'm so astounded that somebody would say
that.
> This thread astounds me in the same way.
>
> -R
>
>

[Tommy B]

OK How bout another thread even more topical:
"China launches Rocket" or "Just what we needed,
Take out in space"
Tom


"R Krizman" > wrote in message
...
> << > ><< WillStG<< Oh, and a _Democrat_ would never favor "Big Money
Special
> Interests", would they Rick? Oh no, no _Democrat_ would ever take say, a
> couple million in illegal campaign contributions from an Indian Casino
> Consortium or anything?> >>
>
> >So that's just the Democrats practicing the "politics of inclusion". In
this
> case, they're including the interests of the native people who were here
before
> we "liberated" them.>
>
> << So he .... excuses Democrats for taking illegal campaign
contributions
> as
> if it's a program to help out minoritites, just as I said.
> >>
>
> LOL. It was a humorous and ironic comment. Sorry if it was too subtle
for
> you. In case you are unclear, I believe very firmly that "politics of
> inclusion" is a euphemism for "being in the pocket of". And you neglected
to
> quote my comment about how Cruz didn't get away with it anyway. The whole
deal
> made him look bad and added another nail in his political coffin.
>
> And don't forget about my comment about cops getting free donuts. See,
it's a
> little metaphor to suggest differences of scale and overall relevance.
>
> For quite some time now I've been carrying in my wallet a quote from a
(very)
> high government official (hint: he's in the executive branch) who said the
> following:
>
> "My job isn't to try to nuance. My job is to tell people what I think.
And
> when I think there's an axis of evil, I say it. I think moral clarity is
> important".
>
> I carry that with me because I'm so astounded that somebody would say
that.
> This thread astounds me in the same way.
>
> -R
>
>

[R Krizman]

Will wrote:

<<(RK wrote:) SO
WHAT..." (emphasis added). But I do agree that your comments speak for
themself. >>

Apparently not, since you see fit to add your own emphasis.

<< They aren't _that_ "nuanced"... >>

So you've just been pretending to be stupid in order to misconstrue my meaning?

-R

[R Krizman]

Will wrote:

<<(RK wrote:) SO
WHAT..." (emphasis added). But I do agree that your comments speak for
themself. >>

Apparently not, since you see fit to add your own emphasis.

<< They aren't _that_ "nuanced"... >>

So you've just been pretending to be stupid in order to misconstrue my meaning?

-R

[R Krizman]

<< (R Krizman)

>No, you genius. As you can see, I'm criticizing Bush, not "the Republicans".
>
>You tried to make it out that I was tarring all the Republicans as the "bad
>guys", or whatever.
>
>I think you've demonstrated Hank's point quite nicely.

Ok fine Rick. But then I expect no comments about "the PNAC conspiracy",
the Republicans and Bush and Cheney in the same breath from you. >>

I have no idea what the **** you're talking about.

But whatever it is, don't forget to include the ultra right wing born-agains.

Holy smokes, did they just pull Clemens?

-R

[R Krizman]

<< (R Krizman)

>No, you genius. As you can see, I'm criticizing Bush, not "the Republicans".
>
>You tried to make it out that I was tarring all the Republicans as the "bad
>guys", or whatever.
>
>I think you've demonstrated Hank's point quite nicely.

Ok fine Rick. But then I expect no comments about "the PNAC conspiracy",
the Republicans and Bush and Cheney in the same breath from you. >>

I have no idea what the **** you're talking about.

But whatever it is, don't forget to include the ultra right wing born-agains.

Holy smokes, did they just pull Clemens?

-R

[WillStG]

(R Krizman)
>So you've just been pretending to be stupid in order to misconstrue my
meaning?>

No Rick, I've been trying to let the matter drop, but OK. Although your
claim is that you weren't criticizing Republicans vs. Democrats, that you were
only criticizing President Bush not the Republican party and only _joking_ when
you made excuses for Bustamonte,

1. in public debate you always support guys like Hank and Scott Fraser who
make those kind of comments outright, and

2. In that support you have professed agreement with comments that are
clearly partisan. For example, in the below excepted thread you say "Scott,
as usual we are in political agreement", and then you quote Scott Fraser
"... The people were disenfranchised because they mistakenly thought this was
about Gray Davis' performance in office. It wasn't. It's about Republicans
overturning the electoral process, & it's about making Enron et al's crime
against California go away." ... "The one possible good outcome I see is
that Arnold's incompetence will do serious damage to the Republican Party both
in California & nationally."

Maybe you want to claim agreeing with those comments was also just the Bush
hater in you? (full posting below).

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
"Off the Morning Show and sleeping in" / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

R Krizman )
Subject: Re: Republicans take over CaliFORnia.... Rip: Common Sense
View: Complete Thread (51 articles)
Original FormatNewsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Date: 2003-10-09 12:11:24 PST
Scott, as usual we're in political agreement. I was against this whole thing,
but now that it's over I've decided to be (perhaps unrealistically) optimistic.
Or perhaps I'm just throwing up may hands and realizing that politics is
always about power and money rather than doing the people's will.

We need to find other, more effective ways to vote.

-R

<ScottFraser

<< The people were disenfranchised because they mistakenly thought this was
about
Gray Davis' performance in office. It wasn't. It's about Republicans
overturning the electoral process, & it's about making Enron et al's crime
against California go away.

<<It hurt to see this happen, but my hopes are that it will end up right, if
for
the wrong reasons. >>

<The one possible good outcome I see is that Arnold's incompetence will do
serious damage to the Republican Party both in California & nationally.>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[WillStG]

(R Krizman)
>So you've just been pretending to be stupid in order to misconstrue my
meaning?>

No Rick, I've been trying to let the matter drop, but OK. Although your
claim is that you weren't criticizing Republicans vs. Democrats, that you were
only criticizing President Bush not the Republican party and only _joking_ when
you made excuses for Bustamonte,

1. in public debate you always support guys like Hank and Scott Fraser who
make those kind of comments outright, and

2. In that support you have professed agreement with comments that are
clearly partisan. For example, in the below excepted thread you say "Scott,
as usual we are in political agreement", and then you quote Scott Fraser
"... The people were disenfranchised because they mistakenly thought this was
about Gray Davis' performance in office. It wasn't. It's about Republicans
overturning the electoral process, & it's about making Enron et al's crime
against California go away." ... "The one possible good outcome I see is
that Arnold's incompetence will do serious damage to the Republican Party both
in California & nationally."

Maybe you want to claim agreeing with those comments was also just the Bush
hater in you? (full posting below).

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
"Off the Morning Show and sleeping in" / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

R Krizman )
Subject: Re: Republicans take over CaliFORnia.... Rip: Common Sense
View: Complete Thread (51 articles)
Original FormatNewsgroups: rec.audio.pro
Date: 2003-10-09 12:11:24 PST
Scott, as usual we're in political agreement. I was against this whole thing,
but now that it's over I've decided to be (perhaps unrealistically) optimistic.
Or perhaps I'm just throwing up may hands and realizing that politics is
always about power and money rather than doing the people's will.

We need to find other, more effective ways to vote.

-R

<ScottFraser

<< The people were disenfranchised because they mistakenly thought this was
about
Gray Davis' performance in office. It wasn't. It's about Republicans
overturning the electoral process, & it's about making Enron et al's crime
against California go away.

<<It hurt to see this happen, but my hopes are that it will end up right, if
for
the wrong reasons. >>

<The one possible good outcome I see is that Arnold's incompetence will do
serious damage to the Republican Party both in California & nationally.>

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> Of course the movie star won. He was on Jay leno, Oprah, everything that the
> others couldn't get close to.

The bottom line is that the general public are very, very stupid.

You can wave your hands around all you want, and use words like
"repudiation" all you want, but the bottom line REALLY is that a whole
****load of dumb people went to the polls and said:

"Dude, we can TOTALLY have the TERMINATOR be our governor!", and they
yanked the handle.

Anyone who is under some delusion that people voted for Schwartzenegger
for his proven skill and talent as a politician and leader needs their
head examined.

CT

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
(EggHd) wrote:

> Of course the movie star won. He was on Jay leno, Oprah, everything that the
> others couldn't get close to.

The bottom line is that the general public are very, very stupid.

You can wave your hands around all you want, and use words like
"repudiation" all you want, but the bottom line REALLY is that a whole
****load of dumb people went to the polls and said:

"Dude, we can TOTALLY have the TERMINATOR be our governor!", and they
yanked the handle.

Anyone who is under some delusion that people voted for Schwartzenegger
for his proven skill and talent as a politician and leader needs their
head examined.

CT

[Romeo Rondeau]

Actually Charles, I don't think anyone thinks that the public voted for him
because of "his proven skill and talent as a politician and leader", they
voted for him because they are sick of politicians taking their money.
Schwarzeneggar was the lesser of two evils.


> Anyone who is under some delusion that people voted for Schwartzenegger
> for his proven skill and talent as a politician and leader needs their
> head examined.
>
> CT

[Romeo Rondeau]

Actually Charles, I don't think anyone thinks that the public voted for him
because of "his proven skill and talent as a politician and leader", they
voted for him because they are sick of politicians taking their money.
Schwarzeneggar was the lesser of two evils.


> Anyone who is under some delusion that people voted for Schwartzenegger
> for his proven skill and talent as a politician and leader needs their
> head examined.
>
> CT

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote:

> Actually Charles, I don't think anyone thinks that the public voted for him
> because of "his proven skill and talent as a politician and leader", they
> voted for him because they are sick of politicians taking their money.
> Schwarzeneggar was the lesser of two evils.

Fortunately I don't have to deal with the rammifcations of that
particular decision, and I'm quite certain that Californians will earn a
concrete understanding of the consequences of their choice in the
not-too-distant future.

CT

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote:

> Actually Charles, I don't think anyone thinks that the public voted for him
> because of "his proven skill and talent as a politician and leader", they
> voted for him because they are sick of politicians taking their money.
> Schwarzeneggar was the lesser of two evils.

Fortunately I don't have to deal with the rammifcations of that
particular decision, and I'm quite certain that Californians will earn a
concrete understanding of the consequences of their choice in the
not-too-distant future.

CT

[R Krizman]

Will wrote:

<< "Scott,
as usual we are in political agreement", and then you quote Scott Fraser >>


So now Scott is my straw dummy?

<< Maybe you want to claim agreeing with those comments was also just the Bush
hater in you? >>

Hate's a strong word. Almost sounds unpatriotic.

It's a word I wouldn't have used.

It's a word I don't allow in my house.

It's your word.

Through the magic of the internet, it seems to be coming out of my mouth.

What I said, in my discussion with Scott, which in fact was somewhat counter to
his view (leftwing conspiracy notwithstanding), was the following:

<<It hurt to see this happen, but my hopes are that it will end up right, if
for
the wrong reasons. >>

Don't choke on it.

-R

[R Krizman]

Will wrote:

<< "Scott,
as usual we are in political agreement", and then you quote Scott Fraser >>


So now Scott is my straw dummy?

<< Maybe you want to claim agreeing with those comments was also just the Bush
hater in you? >>

Hate's a strong word. Almost sounds unpatriotic.

It's a word I wouldn't have used.

It's a word I don't allow in my house.

It's your word.

Through the magic of the internet, it seems to be coming out of my mouth.

What I said, in my discussion with Scott, which in fact was somewhat counter to
his view (leftwing conspiracy notwithstanding), was the following:

<<It hurt to see this happen, but my hopes are that it will end up right, if
for
the wrong reasons. >>

Don't choke on it.

-R

[Romeo Rondeau]

I'm not gonna pretend to be able to predict the future. California is so
large and so entwined in our national economy that we will all have to deal
with the rammifications of the recall. I think that Arnold is smart enough
to hire the right people. That's what a good governor does. We'll see what
happens.

> > Actually Charles, I don't think anyone thinks that the public voted for
him
> > because of "his proven skill and talent as a politician and leader",
they
> > voted for him because they are sick of politicians taking their money.
> > Schwarzeneggar was the lesser of two evils.
>
> Fortunately I don't have to deal with the rammifcations of that
> particular decision, and I'm quite certain that Californians will earn a
> concrete understanding of the consequences of their choice in the
> not-too-distant future.
>
> CT

[Romeo Rondeau]

I'm not gonna pretend to be able to predict the future. California is so
large and so entwined in our national economy that we will all have to deal
with the rammifications of the recall. I think that Arnold is smart enough
to hire the right people. That's what a good governor does. We'll see what
happens.

> > Actually Charles, I don't think anyone thinks that the public voted for
him
> > because of "his proven skill and talent as a politician and leader",
they
> > voted for him because they are sick of politicians taking their money.
> > Schwarzeneggar was the lesser of two evils.
>
> Fortunately I don't have to deal with the rammifcations of that
> particular decision, and I'm quite certain that Californians will earn a
> concrete understanding of the consequences of their choice in the
> not-too-distant future.
>
> CT

[WillStG]

> (R Krizman)

>Will wrote:
>
><< "Scott,
>as usual we are in political agreement", and then you quote Scott Fraser
>>>

>So now Scott is my straw dummy?

How is he your straw dummy? You either are agreeing with his comment which
you then quote or you do not. ("... The people were disenfranchised because
they mistakenly thought this was
about Gray Davis' performance in office. It wasn't. It's about Republicans
overturning the electoral process, & it's about making Enron et al's crime
against California go away." ... "The one possible good outcome I see is
that Arnold's incompetence will do serious damage to the Republican Party both
in California & nationally.")

Fell free to issue a dieclaimer that in fact you didn't mean to imply FULL
agreement with what Scott said, or stand up up for you beleifs. Not that it
really matters to me one way or another.

>WillStG<< Maybe you want to claim agreeing with those comments was also just
the Bush hater in you? >>

>RKrizman<Hate's a strong word. Almost sounds unpatriotic. >

Let's call it dislike then. You said you were just criticizing Bush, not
all Republicans. Then all you have to do is issue a retraction on your having
said you ("as usual" in your own words) agree with Scott in his above quoted
comments.

>RKrizman>What I said, in my discussion with Scott, which in fact was somewhat
counter to his view (leftwing conspiracy notwithstanding), was the following:

><<It hurt to see this happen, but my hopes are that it will end up right, if
for the wrong reasons. >>

Sure, you did say you have come to accept the will of your fellow
citizens, because you lost at the polls. But you also said you were in
agreement with Scott and quoted his comments about a good result being damaging
the Republicans in California and nationally and that the recall being about
"the Republicans overturning the electoral process".

I am willing to accept that was unintentional or even evangelical on your
part, if you are willing to come out and say so. But whether you issue such a
disclaimer or not, I have had good reasons to consider your views on these
matters to be quite partisan, and you should retract flaming me for merely
taking you at your word.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[WillStG]

> (R Krizman)

>Will wrote:
>
><< "Scott,
>as usual we are in political agreement", and then you quote Scott Fraser
>>>

>So now Scott is my straw dummy?

How is he your straw dummy? You either are agreeing with his comment which
you then quote or you do not. ("... The people were disenfranchised because
they mistakenly thought this was
about Gray Davis' performance in office. It wasn't. It's about Republicans
overturning the electoral process, & it's about making Enron et al's crime
against California go away." ... "The one possible good outcome I see is
that Arnold's incompetence will do serious damage to the Republican Party both
in California & nationally.")

Fell free to issue a dieclaimer that in fact you didn't mean to imply FULL
agreement with what Scott said, or stand up up for you beleifs. Not that it
really matters to me one way or another.

>WillStG<< Maybe you want to claim agreeing with those comments was also just
the Bush hater in you? >>

>RKrizman<Hate's a strong word. Almost sounds unpatriotic. >

Let's call it dislike then. You said you were just criticizing Bush, not
all Republicans. Then all you have to do is issue a retraction on your having
said you ("as usual" in your own words) agree with Scott in his above quoted
comments.

>RKrizman>What I said, in my discussion with Scott, which in fact was somewhat
counter to his view (leftwing conspiracy notwithstanding), was the following:

><<It hurt to see this happen, but my hopes are that it will end up right, if
for the wrong reasons. >>

Sure, you did say you have come to accept the will of your fellow
citizens, because you lost at the polls. But you also said you were in
agreement with Scott and quoted his comments about a good result being damaging
the Republicans in California and nationally and that the recall being about
"the Republicans overturning the electoral process".

I am willing to accept that was unintentional or even evangelical on your
part, if you are willing to come out and say so. But whether you issue such a
disclaimer or not, I have had good reasons to consider your views on these
matters to be quite partisan, and you should retract flaming me for merely
taking you at your word.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote:

> I think that Arnold is smart enough
> to hire the right people.

That makes one of us.

CT

[Charles Thomas]

In article >,
"Romeo Rondeau" > wrote:

> I think that Arnold is smart enough
> to hire the right people.

That makes one of us.

CT

[R Krizman]

<< >WillStG<< Maybe you want to claim agreeing with those comments was also
just
the Bush hater in you? >>

>RKrizman<Hate's a strong word. Almost sounds unpatriotic. >

Let's call it dislike then. >>

Why make it personal at all? I don't even know the guy.

Once again you're putting words into my mouth.

There's no need to interpret or rephrase my comments. They are quite clear on
their own, and assuming anyone but you is reading this thread, which I highly
doubt, they are free to draw their own conclusions.

I think the person you really want to be arguing with is Scott, but perhaps
he's grown bored and has moved on.

As have I.

-R

[R Krizman]

<< >WillStG<< Maybe you want to claim agreeing with those comments was also
just
the Bush hater in you? >>

>RKrizman<Hate's a strong word. Almost sounds unpatriotic. >

Let's call it dislike then. >>

Why make it personal at all? I don't even know the guy.

Once again you're putting words into my mouth.

There's no need to interpret or rephrase my comments. They are quite clear on
their own, and assuming anyone but you is reading this thread, which I highly
doubt, they are free to draw their own conclusions.

I think the person you really want to be arguing with is Scott, but perhaps
he's grown bored and has moved on.

As have I.

-R

[RB]

"R Krizman" > wrote in message
...
> << >WillStG<< Maybe you want to claim agreeing with those comments was
also
> just
> the Bush hater in you? >>
>
> >RKrizman<Hate's a strong word. Almost sounds unpatriotic. >
>
> Let's call it dislike then. >>
>
> Why make it personal at all? I don't even know the guy.
>
> Once again you're putting words into my mouth.
>
> There's no need to interpret or rephrase my comments. They are quite
clear on
> their own, and assuming anyone but you is reading this thread, which I
highly
> doubt, they are free to draw their own conclusions.
>

Oh, I've no doubt that many are following this thread as I am. Remember,
everyone slows down to see a train wreck or car accident.

> I think the person you really want to be arguing with is Scott, but
perhaps
> he's grown bored and has moved on.
>
> As have I.
>
> -R
>
>
>


RB
--

[RB]

"R Krizman" > wrote in message
...
> << >WillStG<< Maybe you want to claim agreeing with those comments was
also
> just
> the Bush hater in you? >>
>
> >RKrizman<Hate's a strong word. Almost sounds unpatriotic. >
>
> Let's call it dislike then. >>
>
> Why make it personal at all? I don't even know the guy.
>
> Once again you're putting words into my mouth.
>
> There's no need to interpret or rephrase my comments. They are quite
clear on
> their own, and assuming anyone but you is reading this thread, which I
highly
> doubt, they are free to draw their own conclusions.
>

Oh, I've no doubt that many are following this thread as I am. Remember,
everyone slows down to see a train wreck or car accident.

> I think the person you really want to be arguing with is Scott, but
perhaps
> he's grown bored and has moved on.
>
> As have I.
>
> -R
>
>
>


RB
--

[Romeo Rondeau]

Actually it makes 1.2 million of us :-)


"Charles Thomas" > wrote in
message ...
> In article >,
> "Romeo Rondeau" > wrote:
>
> > I think that Arnold is smart enough
> > to hire the right people.
>
> That makes one of us.
>
> CT

[Romeo Rondeau]

Actually it makes 1.2 million of us :-)


"Charles Thomas" > wrote in
message ...
> In article >,
> "Romeo Rondeau" > wrote:
>
> > I think that Arnold is smart enough
> > to hire the right people.
>
> That makes one of us.
>
> CT

[LeBaron & Alrich]

R Krizman wrote:

> << >(R Krizman)

> >No, you genius. As you can see, I'm criticizing Bush, not "the Republicans".

> >You tried to make it out that I was tarring all the Republicans as the "bad
> >guys", or whatever.

> >I think you've demonstrated Hank's point quite nicely.

> <Will Miho wroted Ok fine Rick. But then I expect no comments about
> <"the PNAC conspiracy", the Republicans and Bush and Cheney in the same
> <breath from you. >>

> I have no idea what the **** you're talking about.

It's alright; neither does he.

> But whatever it is, don't forget to include the ultra right wing born-agains.

I wonder through what birth canal they really fit considering their
adult size and all?

> Holy smokes, did they just pull Clemens?

Was he on bass?

--
ha

[LeBaron & Alrich]

Tommy B wrote:

> OK How bout another thread even more topical:
> "China launches Rocket" or "Just what we needed,
> Take out in space"

See how they left him up there for less than a day? That's 'cause the
food wore off so quickly.

--
ha

[WillStG]

(R Krizman)
>Why make it personal at all? I don't even know the guy.>

Well, that didn't seem to deter you from making it personal with me Rick.

>Once again you're putting words into my mouth.

Characterizing your remarks is a different thing entirely from putting
words in your mouth. Let me help you out Rick, here's some examples of what
putting words in a person's mouth looks like -

<< (lanis lebaron & hank alrich) wrote>> << Should
Picaso have painted a Pot of Flowers instead of The Bombing of Guernica? (Will
Miho says, "Absolutely, because of Saddam Hussein!!!" > >>

Now THAT is what putting words in a person's mouth looks like Rick - I
didn't hear you criticize Hank for doing that.

>I think the person you really want to be arguing with is Scott, but perhaps
he's grown bored and has moved on.>

Athough Scott and I disagree on a lot of things politically, he hasn't
ever insulted me or attacked me personally ( at least as near as I can tell,
being a much smarter guy than me he could probably insult and it would go
totally over my head. ) And it takes a pretty sincere person to look up a guy
you have been arguing with when you come to town, to have a cup of tea and meet
face to face, as Scott did with me. "True Beleiver" or not, Scott's a class
act and good person in my book.

Will Miho
NY Music & TV Audio Guy
Off the Morning Show! & sleepin' In... / Fox News
"The large print giveth and the small print taketh away..." Tom Waits

[Garthrr]

In article >, (R
Krizman) writes:

>But odds are that if we met in person over tea we'd get along fine, and I for
>one would be happy to do so.

Thats the smartest and most courageous thing I've seen in this thread for quite
a while.

Garth~


"I think the fact that music can come up a wire is a miracle."
Ed Cherney

[Justin Ulysses Morse]

LeBaron & Alrich > wrote:

> Tommy B wrote:
>
> > OK How bout another thread even more topical:
> > "China launches Rocket" or "Just what we needed,
> > Take out in space"
>
> See how they left him up there for less than a day? That's 'cause the
> food wore off so quickly.

He was only up there for an hour.

Speaking of which, do Chinese children EVER get to go swimming?


ulysses