Rockers Unite to Oust Bush

[clamnebula]

I think it's worth noting here that even Merle Haggard recently recorded a
anti-war song. It'll be interesting to see if it gets any airplay, especially on
stations owned by the monolithic Clear Channel network, who are major Bush and
GOP supporters.

-Neb

---Original Text---
Rockers Unite to Oust Bush
http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=19029

Bruce Springsteen told a crowd of 50,000 New Yorkers on October 4th to "shout a
little louder if you want the president impeached." Two weeks later, John
Mellencamp posted an open letter to America on his Web site, declaring, "We have
been lied to and terrorized by our own government, and it is time to take
action." Meanwhile, Moby, Eddie Vedder and Michael Stipe are organizing a TV-ad
campaign that will run anti-Bush commercials during the week of the State of the
Union address in January; Dave Matthews is railing against the war in Iraq in
interviews; and at press time, at least three multiband rock tours planned to
take aim at Bush-administration policies. Green Day, NOFX, Tom Morello, Dixie
Chicks, Don Henley, Willie Nelson and Steve Earle have all played (or plan to
play) for political candidates or causes. Hip-hop stars have also gotten
involved. "We have a voice and a responsibility to speak out," says Jay-Z, a
member of Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit, which aims to register 4 million
voters before the 2004 election. "People listen to us."

Welcome to the increasingly partisan world of popular music -- where President
George W. Bush is a marked man. Thirty major artists interviewed for this story
cited many concerns: U.S. policy on Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Bush
administration's assault on the environment, the economy and the media. But they
all agreed that as the 2004 presidential election gets closer, it is time to
mobilize. "The America we believe in can't survive another four years of George
Bush," says Moby. Adds Lou Reed, "We must all unite and work for whomever
opposes Bush, regardless of whatever differences we may have. Our motto:
Anything but Bush."

Many artists aren't afraid to get their hands dirty in the democratic process,
either: At Punkvoter.com, more than 100 bands, including NOFX, Green Day and
Offspring, are creating voter-registration drives, a political action committee
and a Rock Against Bush Tour. Willie Nelson recently called Dennis Kucinich to
offer his time and a slogan, "Kucinich: His middle name is sin," and dozens of
other artists are contributing money to campaigns and performing in swing states
and in televised public-service announcements.

"Musicians have an obligation to get involved," says Henley, "not necessarily
because they have a forum but because they are citizens."

Donna Brazile, Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager, says that artists are important
to this campaign, because "musicians have reach that politicians need in order
to motivate people to take an active interest in their future." With that in
mind, eight Democratic candidates filmed ads for a November 4th Rock the Vote
event designed to woo young voters. In his spot, Wesley Clark even name-drops
OutKast.

It's not always easy for artists to speak out. Recently, New Jersey radio
station WCHR banned Jethro Tull after the band's lead singer, Ian Anderson, was
quoted in a local paper saying, "I hate to see the American flag hanging out of
every bloody station wagon. It's easy to confuse patriotism with nationalism.
Flag-waving ain't gonna do it."

Eight months ago, Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines told a London audience,
"Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from
Texas." More than fifty radio stations pulled the Dixie Chicks' songs off the
air, and DJs and fans launched protests. Says Maines, "I thought, 'Why am I, a
country singer who has never been involved in politics publicly, the one asking
questions?'"

In July, Dixie Chicks contributed $100,000 to Rock the Vote -- the largest
single band donation in the nonprofit's history. Maines says that she hopes the
London incident will help rally eighteen- to twenty-four-year-old women to vote.
"I had gotten too comfortable in my life," she says. "And I wasn't necessarily
active for things that I believed in. It inspired me." Maines' experience may
have scared some musicians away from speaking out, but it angered others enough
to get involved. Merle Haggard, who recorded his own anti-war song, "That's the
News," this year, says that the attacks on the Chicks "reminded me of things I'd
read about Berlin in 1938. It ****ed me off."

The notion that musicians shouldn't get involved in politics is "ridiculous,"
says Mike Burkett (a.k.a. Fat Mike), lead singer of NOFX and founder of
Punkvoter.com. "Everyone should be involved in politics: cabdrivers, lawyers . .
.. everyone." Artists are in a unique position to understand the mood of this
country, too. "We travel," says Henley. "We see what the economy is like in
every city. We take the temperature of between 10,000 and 20,000 people four
nights a week."

Musicians hope that by getting involved they will inspire their fans to do the
same. James Taylor, who has supported Sen. John Kerry, says that the
administration has benefited from "a failure of citizenship." "Americans are
asleep at the wheel," Taylor adds. "We're not getting involved in our own
political process."

Mellencamp says that the goal of his open letter and his song "To Washington" is
to turn such apathy into action. "My whole purpose of being here, to write songs
or write a letter like that, is to put the idea forward that some conversation
needs to take place here, as opposed to accepting the [government] line," he
says.

But can musicians actually tilt the electoral scale, especially at a time when
voter turnout among eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds is at an all-time low?
Republican strategists are skeptical. "People tend to choose candidates on the
issues that they stand for -- and not the position of their favorite musician,"
says Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.
Brazile begs to differ. "People come out because they're attracted not just to
[the candidate] but also because the candidate is being endorsed by their
favorite artist," she says. "It matters."

Artists clearly agree. Many say they are convinced that they're reflecting a
national mood that is "disturbed," in the words of Haggard, or "agitated," as
Morello puts it, and that fans can be motivated to get involved. "What you have
to realize," says Russell Simmons, "is that it's a cultural step, not only a
political step. It's in style to be at the rallies. It's in style to give money
back to education." Adds Fat Mike, "If we get a few hundred thousand kids
together, we will be a force to reckon with. If anybody wants our votes, they're
going to have to give us some of the things we want. If the NRA can do it, why
can't we?"

DAMIEN CAVE
(November 26, 2003)

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

'Rockers' should stick to playing music and sucking up to
record company execs, which is all they know how to do.

When I want political advice from the Dixie Chicks, I'll
squeeze their legs together.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:17:01 GMT,
wrote:

> 'Rockers' should stick to playing music and sucking up to
>record company execs, which is all they know how to do.
>
> When I want political advice from the Dixie Chicks, I'll
>squeeze their legs together.
>
>
>
>Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me

I suffer from cognitive dissonance on this point. One the one
hand, it ****es me off to watch celebrities espouse their opinions on
non-musical matters, no matter what their opinions are. But on the
other hand, I donate to various causes, and if I suddenly became
famous, I wouldn't mind using my fame to draw attention to a cause I
believe in.
In other words, as a private citizen, I can promote spaying
and neutering of pets, and donate my money and time to those causes
that feel the same way, but if I suddenly come into fame and fortune,
any gift of my time or money is likely going to be publicized, turning
me into exactly the kind of celebrity I'm annoyed by.

Scott Gardner

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:35:05 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:17:01 GMT,
>wrote:
>
>> 'Rockers' should stick to playing music and sucking up to
>>record company execs, which is all they know how to do.
>>
>> When I want political advice from the Dixie Chicks, I'll
>>squeeze their legs together.
>>
>>
>>
>>Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
>
> I suffer from cognitive dissonance on this point. One the one
>hand, it ****es me off to watch celebrities espouse their opinions on
>non-musical matters, no matter what their opinions are. But on the
>other hand, I donate to various causes, and if I suddenly became
>famous, I wouldn't mind using my fame to draw attention to a cause I
>believe in.
> In other words, as a private citizen, I can promote spaying
>and neutering of pets, and donate my money and time to those causes
>that feel the same way, but if I suddenly come into fame and fortune,
>any gift of my time or money is likely going to be publicized, turning
>me into exactly the kind of celebrity I'm annoyed by.
>
>Scott Gardner

And such is life.

It's a free country, and they have the right express their
opinions - I'll ignore their opinions on this topic just like I do on
what soda to drink or what car to buy, or how to dress or talk or
anything else.

Anyone whose opinions are formed by what some musician said,
where that musician only has a public spotlight by virtue of screaming
'baby, baby, baby' louder and longer than those around him, is an
idiot to begin with.

Luckily, the population segment they influence is in itself
uninfluential, so there's minimal harm done.




Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[clamnebula]

> wrote in message
...
>
> Anyone whose opinions are formed by what some musician said,
> where that musician only has a public spotlight by virtue of screaming
> 'baby, baby, baby' louder and longer than those around him, is an
> idiot to begin with.

Say, maybe you have a point here, Paul. From now on I'll only follow the
opinions of noted soft-spoken intellectuals like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly,
and Jesse Helms!

-Neb

[Michael Mckelvy]

"clamnebula" > wrote in message
...
> I think it's worth noting here that even Merle Haggard recently recorded a
> anti-war song. It'll be interesting to see if it gets any airplay,
especially on
> stations owned by the monolithic Clear Channel network, who are major Bush
and
> GOP supporters.

How is Clear Channel monolithic? They have 10% of the market.

>
> -Neb
>
> ---Original Text---
> Rockers Unite to Oust Bush
> http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=19029
>
> Bruce Springsteen told a crowd of 50,000 New Yorkers on October 4th to
"shout a
> little louder if you want the president impeached." Two weeks later, John
> Mellencamp posted an open letter to America on his Web site, declaring,
"We have
> been lied to and terrorized by our own government, and it is time to take
> action." Meanwhile, Moby, Eddie Vedder and Michael Stipe are organizing a
TV-ad
> campaign that will run anti-Bush commercials during the week of the State
of the
> Union address in January; Dave Matthews is railing against the war in Iraq
in
> interviews; and at press time, at least three multiband rock tours planned
to
> take aim at Bush-administration policies. Green Day, NOFX, Tom Morello,
Dixie
> Chicks, Don Henley, Willie Nelson and Steve Earle have all played (or plan
to
> play) for political candidates or causes. Hip-hop stars have also gotten
> involved. "We have a voice and a responsibility to speak out," says Jay-Z,
a
> member of Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit, which aims to register 4
million
> voters before the 2004 election. "People listen to us."
>
> Welcome to the increasingly partisan world of popular music -- where
President
> George W. Bush is a marked man. Thirty major artists interviewed for this
story
> cited many concerns: U.S. policy on Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Bush
> administration's assault on the environment, the economy and the media.
But they
> all agreed that as the 2004 presidential election gets closer, it is time
to
> mobilize. "The America we believe in can't survive another four years of
George
> Bush," says Moby. Adds Lou Reed, "We must all unite and work for whomever
> opposes Bush, regardless of whatever differences we may have. Our motto:
> Anything but Bush."
>
> Many artists aren't afraid to get their hands dirty in the democratic
process,
> either: At Punkvoter.com, more than 100 bands, including NOFX, Green Day
and
> Offspring, are creating voter-registration drives, a political action
committee
> and a Rock Against Bush Tour. Willie Nelson recently called Dennis
Kucinich to
> offer his time and a slogan, "Kucinich: His middle name is sin," and
dozens of
> other artists are contributing money to campaigns and performing in swing
states
> and in televised public-service announcements.
>
> "Musicians have an obligation to get involved," says Henley, "not
necessarily
> because they have a forum but because they are citizens."
>
> Donna Brazile, Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager, says that artists are
important
> to this campaign, because "musicians have reach that politicians need in
order
> to motivate people to take an active interest in their future." With that
in
> mind, eight Democratic candidates filmed ads for a November 4th Rock the
Vote
> event designed to woo young voters. In his spot, Wesley Clark even
name-drops
> OutKast.
>
> It's not always easy for artists to speak out. Recently, New Jersey radio
> station WCHR banned Jethro Tull after the band's lead singer, Ian
Anderson, was
> quoted in a local paper saying, "I hate to see the American flag hanging
out of
> every bloody station wagon. It's easy to confuse patriotism with
nationalism.
> Flag-waving ain't gonna do it."
>
> Eight months ago, Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines told a London
audience,
> "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is
from
> Texas." More than fifty radio stations pulled the Dixie Chicks' songs off
the
> air, and DJs and fans launched protests. Says Maines, "I thought, 'Why am
I, a
> country singer who has never been involved in politics publicly, the one
asking
> questions?'"
>
> In July, Dixie Chicks contributed $100,000 to Rock the Vote -- the largest
> single band donation in the nonprofit's history. Maines says that she
hopes the
> London incident will help rally eighteen- to twenty-four-year-old women to
vote.
> "I had gotten too comfortable in my life," she says. "And I wasn't
necessarily
> active for things that I believed in. It inspired me." Maines' experience
may
> have scared some musicians away from speaking out, but it angered others
enough
> to get involved. Merle Haggard, who recorded his own anti-war song,
"That's the
> News," this year, says that the attacks on the Chicks "reminded me of
things I'd
> read about Berlin in 1938. It ****ed me off."
>
> The notion that musicians shouldn't get involved in politics is
"ridiculous,"
> says Mike Burkett (a.k.a. Fat Mike), lead singer of NOFX and founder of
> Punkvoter.com. "Everyone should be involved in politics: cabdrivers,
lawyers . .
> . everyone." Artists are in a unique position to understand the mood of
this
> country, too. "We travel," says Henley. "We see what the economy is like
in
> every city. We take the temperature of between 10,000 and 20,000 people
four
> nights a week."
>
> Musicians hope that by getting involved they will inspire their fans to do
the
> same. James Taylor, who has supported Sen. John Kerry, says that the
> administration has benefited from "a failure of citizenship." "Americans
are
> asleep at the wheel," Taylor adds. "We're not getting involved in our own
> political process."
>
> Mellencamp says that the goal of his open letter and his song "To
Washington" is
> to turn such apathy into action. "My whole purpose of being here, to write
songs
> or write a letter like that, is to put the idea forward that some
conversation
> needs to take place here, as opposed to accepting the [government] line,"
he
> says.
>
> But can musicians actually tilt the electoral scale, especially at a time
when
> voter turnout among eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds is at an all-time
low?
> Republican strategists are skeptical. "People tend to choose candidates on
the
> issues that they stand for -- and not the position of their favorite
musician,"
> says Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.
> Brazile begs to differ. "People come out because they're attracted not
just to
> [the candidate] but also because the candidate is being endorsed by their
> favorite artist," she says. "It matters."
>
> Artists clearly agree. Many say they are convinced that they're reflecting
a
> national mood that is "disturbed," in the words of Haggard, or "agitated,"
as
> Morello puts it, and that fans can be motivated to get involved. "What you
have
> to realize," says Russell Simmons, "is that it's a cultural step, not only
a
> political step. It's in style to be at the rallies. It's in style to give
money
> back to education." Adds Fat Mike, "If we get a few hundred thousand kids
> together, we will be a force to reckon with. If anybody wants our votes,
they're
> going to have to give us some of the things we want. If the NRA can do it,
why
> can't we?"
>
> DAMIEN CAVE
> (November 26, 2003)
>
>

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:50:42 GMT,
wrote:

>
> And such is life.
>
> It's a free country, and they have the right express their
>opinions - I'll ignore their opinions on this topic just like I do on
>what soda to drink or what car to buy, or how to dress or talk or
>anything else.
>
> Anyone whose opinions are formed by what some musician said,
>where that musician only has a public spotlight by virtue of screaming
>'baby, baby, baby' louder and longer than those around him, is an
>idiot to begin with.
>
> Luckily, the population segment they influence is in itself
>uninfluential, so there's minimal harm done.
>
>
>
>
>Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me


Very true. I would never deny them their right to say what they want.
I guess in some cases, it's more their choice of venue that bothers
me. Whenever I see some celebrity talking politics on "The Tonight
Show", I think "The next time you find yourself on "Crossfire" or
"Meet the Press", feel free to talk politics. You're sitting next to
Leno solely because you're a celebrity, so sing us a song or plug your
next movie."

Scott Gardner

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:11:05 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:50:42 GMT,
>wrote:
>
>
>Very true. I would never deny them their right to say what they want.
>I guess in some cases, it's more their choice of venue that bothers
>me. Whenever I see some celebrity talking politics on "The Tonight
>Show", I think "The next time you find yourself on "Crossfire" or
>"Meet the Press", feel free to talk politics. You're sitting next to
>Leno solely because you're a celebrity, so sing us a song or plug your
>next movie."
>
>Scott Gardner

Oh, I purely agree ! Yes, they irritate me, too. So, I add
it to the list of things that irritate me about pop icons, whether
from music, sports, or other venues, and ignore it.

Some are worse that others - Bono, for instance. So
two-faced ! He's so busy talking about his AIDS thing, along with his
superstar musician buddies. If they want to be concerned about
helping on that issue, fine - but let them take those millions of
dollars they have in the bank and donate to the cause ! Let them sell
their mansions and Lear jets and such and put their money where their
overly large mouths are. Flying around on a chartered jet, being
waited on hand and foot, walking on stage for an hour, and patting
yourself on the back for doing it because you didn't charge your
usual '$ 100,000 + 50 % of the gate' appearance fee is not what I call
'charity work'.

It seems, in their world view, they get to keep their hundreds
of millions themselves, while they bitch and whine about ' evil
superpowers not doing enough to help', and then go off to some $1,000
/ head reception in the ritziest place in town, snort cocaine until
dawn, and call it 'charity work'.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Scott Gardner]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:36:15 GMT,
wrote:


> Oh, I purely agree ! Yes, they irritate me, too. So, I add
>it to the list of things that irritate me about pop icons, whether
>from music, sports, or other venues, and ignore it.
>
> Some are worse that others - Bono, for instance. So
>two-faced ! He's so busy talking about his AIDS thing, along with his
>superstar musician buddies. If they want to be concerned about
>helping on that issue, fine - but let them take those millions of
>dollars they have in the bank and donate to the cause ! Let them sell
>their mansions and Lear jets and such and put their money where their
>overly large mouths are. Flying around on a chartered jet, being
>waited on hand and foot, walking on stage for an hour, and patting
>yourself on the back for doing it because you didn't charge your
>usual '$ 100,000 + 50 % of the gate' appearance fee is not what I call
>'charity work'.
>
> It seems, in their world view, they get to keep their hundreds
>of millions themselves, while they bitch and whine about ' evil
>superpowers not doing enough to help', and then go off to some $1,000
>/ head reception in the ritziest place in town, snort cocaine until
>dawn, and call it 'charity work'.
>
>
>
>Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me

The ones I have a real cognitive problem with are the ones that are so
vocal in their opinions that they're almost as famous now for their
political views as they are for what made them celebrities in the
first place. I'm talking about people like Streisand, Fonda, and
Sarandon. When I see them in non-political surroundings, I really
can't begrudge them for talking about politics, because these days,
their political views have as much to do with their fame (notoriety?)
as their work in the entertainment industry.

Scott Gardner

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:03:31 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"clamnebula" > wrote in message
...
>> I think it's worth noting here that even Merle Haggard recently recorded a
>> anti-war song. It'll be interesting to see if it gets any airplay,
>especially on
>> stations owned by the monolithic Clear Channel network, who are major Bush
>and
>> GOP supporters.
>
>How is Clear Channel monolithic? They have 10% of the market.

Which market?

[George M. Middius]

Scott Gardner said:

> The ones I have a real cognitive problem with are the ones that are so
> vocal in their opinions that they're almost as famous now for their
> political views as they are for what made them celebrities in the
> first place. I'm talking about people like Streisand, Fonda, and
> Sarandon.

You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.

[Scott Gardner]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:53:33 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> The ones I have a real cognitive problem with are the ones that are so
>> vocal in their opinions that they're almost as famous now for their
>> political views as they are for what made them celebrities in the
>> first place. I'm talking about people like Streisand, Fonda, and
>> Sarandon.
>
>You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
>himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.


Very good example. He initially garnered fame as a
bodybuilder, then later as an actor. In addition, part of his fame
comes from being a conservative in a family famous for being liberal
democrats. Now he's famous for getting the governorship of California
after a political circus of a recall election.
So if I were to see him talking politics on "The Tonight
Show", I'd feel he has more right to do so than someone that's only
famous for being an entertainer, even though he received his fame
initially as a performer.

Scott Gardner

[Ed Foster]

In article >,
> wrote:

> On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:35:05 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:17:01 GMT,
> >wrote:
> >
> >> 'Rockers' should stick to playing music and sucking up to
> >>record company execs, which is all they know how to do.
> >>
> >> When I want political advice from the Dixie Chicks, I'll
> >>squeeze their legs together.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
> >
> > I suffer from cognitive dissonance on this point. One the one
> >hand, it ****es me off to watch celebrities espouse their opinions on
> >non-musical matters, no matter what their opinions are. But on the
> >other hand, I donate to various causes, and if I suddenly became
> >famous, I wouldn't mind using my fame to draw attention to a cause I
> >believe in.
> > In other words, as a private citizen, I can promote spaying
> >and neutering of pets, and donate my money and time to those causes
> >that feel the same way, but if I suddenly come into fame and fortune,
> >any gift of my time or money is likely going to be publicized, turning
> >me into exactly the kind of celebrity I'm annoyed by.
> >
> >Scott Gardner
>
> And such is life.
>
> It's a free country, and they have the right express their
> opinions - I'll ignore their opinions on this topic just like I do on
> what soda to drink or what car to buy, or how to dress or talk or
> anything else.
>
> Anyone whose opinions are formed by what some musician said,
> where that musician only has a public spotlight by virtue of screaming
> 'baby, baby, baby' louder and longer than those around him, is an
> idiot to begin with.


True, but they're allowed to vote anyway.

> Luckily, the population segment they influence is in itself
> uninfluential, so there's minimal harm done.


Not quite, they could be influential if they voted, but fortunately
they don't. I'm agreeing with you but saying it differently.

I did like the bit about Willie Nelson recently calling Dennis Kucinich
to offer his time and a slogan, "Kucinich: His middle name is sin,".
That's sure to be a winner. :-)

[Ed Foster]

In article >, clamnebula
> wrote:

> > wrote in message
> ...
> >
> > Anyone whose opinions are formed by what some musician said,
> > where that musician only has a public spotlight by virtue of screaming
> > 'baby, baby, baby' louder and longer than those around him, is an
> > idiot to begin with.
>
> Say, maybe you have a point here, Paul. From now on I'll only follow the
> opinions of noted soft-spoken intellectuals like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly,
> and Jesse Helms!


And you can't see the difference between those whose job is to discuss
politics and Barbra Striesand types?

[Ed Foster]

In article >,
> wrote:

> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:11:05 GMT, (Scott Gardner)
> wrote:
>
> >On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 23:50:42 GMT,
> >wrote:
> >
> >
> >Very true. I would never deny them their right to say what they want.
> >I guess in some cases, it's more their choice of venue that bothers
> >me. Whenever I see some celebrity talking politics on "The Tonight
> >Show", I think "The next time you find yourself on "Crossfire" or
> >"Meet the Press", feel free to talk politics. You're sitting next to
> >Leno solely because you're a celebrity, so sing us a song or plug your
> >next movie."
> >
> >Scott Gardner
>
> Oh, I purely agree ! Yes, they irritate me, too. So, I add
> it to the list of things that irritate me about pop icons, whether
> from music, sports, or other venues, and ignore it.
>
> Some are worse that others - Bono, for instance.

I vote for Barbra Streisand. She bitches about gas guzzling SUVs while
she occupies a 9 or 10 thousand square foot mansion. How much oil do
you think it takes to heat and cool that?

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:03:31 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"clamnebula" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> I think it's worth noting here that even Merle Haggard recently
recorded a
> >> anti-war song. It'll be interesting to see if it gets any airplay,
> >especially on
> >> stations owned by the monolithic Clear Channel network, who are major
Bush
> >and
> >> GOP supporters.
> >
> >How is Clear Channel monolithic? They have 10% of the market.
>
> Which market?

Radio.

[George M. Middius]

Ed Foster said:

> I vote for Barbra Streisand. She bitches about gas guzzling SUVs while
> she occupies a 9 or 10 thousand square foot mansion. How much oil do
> you think it takes to heat and cool that?

I'd bet her heating bill for an entire year is less than one SUV
tankful. Besides, she might be in a nuclear zone. Isn't there a reactor
somewhere east of L.A.?

[ScottW]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Ed Foster said:
>
> > I vote for Barbra Streisand. She bitches about gas guzzling SUVs while
> > she occupies a 9 or 10 thousand square foot mansion. How much oil do
> > you think it takes to heat and cool that?
>
> I'd bet her heating bill for an entire year is less than one SUV
> tankful. Besides, she might be in a nuclear zone. Isn't there a reactor
> somewhere east of L.A.?

San Onofre is south of LA. So Cal electricity is predominantly
sourced from natural gas burning plants.

ScottW

[dave weil]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:07:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>
>"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
>> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:03:31 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"clamnebula" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> >> I think it's worth noting here that even Merle Haggard recently
>recorded a
>> >> anti-war song. It'll be interesting to see if it gets any airplay,
>> >especially on
>> >> stations owned by the monolithic Clear Channel network, who are major
>Bush
>> >and
>> >> GOP supporters.
>> >
>> >How is Clear Channel monolithic? They have 10% of the market.
>>
>> Which market?
>
>Radio.

Well, sorta.

I only mentioned it to highlight what a one-dimensional thinker you
are.

First of all, they have 10% of the ENTIRE radio market in the states,
but they have 50% of the POPULAR MUSIC stations in the country.

Not only that, they control a substantial proportion of the concert
seats in the US.

The synergy between those two markets (radio and concerts) well
exceeds the parts.

They are far and away the largest players in the game. There's NOBODY
that's even close. I maintain that makes them monolithic.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:14:41 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Ed Foster said:
>
>> I vote for Barbra Streisand. She bitches about gas guzzling SUVs while
>> she occupies a 9 or 10 thousand square foot mansion. How much oil do
>> you think it takes to heat and cool that?
>
>I'd bet her heating bill for an entire year is less than one SUV
>tankful. Besides, she might be in a nuclear zone. Isn't there a reactor
>somewhere east of L.A.?

You really *are* joking, right George? My heating bill for next month
will easily be double the price of an SUV tankful. Admittedly, I live
in a porous old house with a floor furnace, but it's only 1200 sq ft.
for god's sake. My heating bill for last year ran something $700 or
$800 dollars easily. My worst month was $250. Talk about a shock. of
that, *maybe* $20 was for my water heater.

[George M. Middius]

The Idiot said:

> > I'd bet her heating bill for an entire year is less than one SUV
> > tankful. Besides, she might be in a nuclear zone. Isn't there a reactor
> > somewhere east of L.A.?
>
> San Onofre is south of LA. So Cal electricity is predominantly
> sourced from natural gas burning plants.

Sorry, didn't mean to wake you from your stupor.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >I'd bet her heating bill for an entire year is less than one SUV
> >tankful. Besides, she might be in a nuclear zone. Isn't there a reactor
> >somewhere east of L.A.?
>
> You really *are* joking, right George? My heating bill for next month
> will easily be double the price of an SUV tankful.

Do you live in SoCal?

> Admittedly, I live
> in a porous old house with a floor furnace, but it's only 1200 sq ft.

In Tennesee, if I haven't become completely disoriented.

> for god's sake. My heating bill for last year ran something $700 or
> $800 dollars easily. My worst month was $250. Talk about a shock. of
> that, *maybe* $20 was for my water heater.

They run the AC ten months per year in LA. Average temperature is
69. Yours is 58.

I did forget about hot water, though, so maybe two SUV tankfuls.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:31:21 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> >I'd bet her heating bill for an entire year is less than one SUV
>> >tankful. Besides, she might be in a nuclear zone. Isn't there a reactor
>> >somewhere east of L.A.?
>>
>> You really *are* joking, right George? My heating bill for next month
>> will easily be double the price of an SUV tankful.
>
>Do you live in SoCal?

Good point.

>> Admittedly, I live
>> in a porous old house with a floor furnace, but it's only 1200 sq ft.
>
>In Tennesee, if I haven't become completely disoriented.

Another good point.

>> for god's sake. My heating bill for last year ran something $700 or
>> $800 dollars easily. My worst month was $250. Talk about a shock. of
>> that, *maybe* $20 was for my water heater.
>
>They run the AC ten months per year in LA. Average temperature is
>69. Yours is 58.

>I did forget about hot water, though, so maybe two SUV tankfuls.

I *knew* I was right.

(just kidding)

Still, I'll bet ya that on those cool nights, 10,000 sq ft. ain't
cheap to warm up. And I'll bet Barb doesn't cotton to no chilly
drafts.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >I did forget about hot water, though, so maybe two SUV tankfuls.
>
> I *knew* I was right.
> (just kidding)

Scottie says natural gas is the most likely fuel.

> Still, I'll bet ya that on those cool nights, 10,000 sq ft. ain't
> cheap to warm up. And I'll bet Barb doesn't cotton to no chilly
> drafts.

God, yes. Just think of how many Vulcans a restaurant could power
with the gas she burns up.

I'd bet she has solar heating to a large extent. Maybe Scottie will
research that for us.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 22:54:42 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> >I did forget about hot water, though, so maybe two SUV tankfuls.
>>
>> I *knew* I was right.
>> (just kidding)
>
>Scottie says natural gas is the most likely fuel.

It's amazing how expensive natural gas is these days.

That $250 that I talked about for one month was from a *single* floor
furnace in the middle of my house. yes, I know that it's not the most
efficient use of the fuel, but still...

>> Still, I'll bet ya that on those cool nights, 10,000 sq ft. ain't
>> cheap to warm up. And I'll bet Barb doesn't cotton to no chilly
>> drafts.
>
>God, yes. Just think of how many Vulcans a restaurant could power
>with the gas she burns up.

1?

>I'd bet she has solar heating to a large extent. Maybe Scottie will
>research that for us.

Probably. If that's the case, then you have to factor in the $30,000
that would be required as a startup for a house that size.

Then there's the greenhouse, the pool, the spas, the hot tubs and all
of that. I think she lives on top of a small mountain, so it's
probably a bit drafty in January.

[Ed Foster]

In article >, George M.
Middius > wrote:

> Ed Foster said:
>
> > I vote for Barbra Streisand. She bitches about gas guzzling SUVs while
> > she occupies a 9 or 10 thousand square foot mansion. How much oil do
> > you think it takes to heat and cool that?
>
> I'd bet her heating bill for an entire year is less than one SUV
> tankful.

And her cooling bill?

[David Phillips]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:14:41 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Ed Foster said:
>
>> I vote for Barbra Streisand. She bitches about gas guzzling SUVs while
>> she occupies a 9 or 10 thousand square foot mansion. How much oil do
>> you think it takes to heat and cool that?
>
>I'd bet her heating bill for an entire year is less than one SUV
>tankful. Besides, she might be in a nuclear zone. Isn't there a reactor
>somewhere east of L.A.?

So, Babs' mansion cools itself without any external power?

[Bender]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:36:15 GMT,
wrote:


> Some are worse that others - Bono, for instance. So
>two-faced ! He's so busy talking about his AIDS thing, along with his
>superstar musician buddies. If they want to be concerned about
>helping on that issue, fine - but let them take those millions of
>dollars they have in the bank and donate to the cause !

"We really got started, Jimmy. Bono knows what he's doing."
-- U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-NC, in 2002

He was speaking to his chief of staff, Jimmy Broughton, right after he
met with U2 band member Bono to discuss ways to stop the AIDS epidemic
in Africa. The issue was one of Helms's projects toward the end of his
tenure in the Senate. Helms insisted in his conversation with Bono
that the international private sector, not just Americans, must get
involved.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:16:44 GMT, Bender >
wrote:

>On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 00:36:15 GMT,
>wrote:
>
>
>> Some are worse that others - Bono, for instance. So
>>two-faced ! He's so busy talking about his AIDS thing, along with his
>>superstar musician buddies. If they want to be concerned about
>>helping on that issue, fine - but let them take those millions of
>>dollars they have in the bank and donate to the cause !
>
>"We really got started, Jimmy. Bono knows what he's doing."
> -- U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-NC, in 2002
>
>He was speaking to his chief of staff, Jimmy Broughton, right after he
>met with U2 band member Bono to discuss ways to stop the AIDS epidemic
>in Africa. The issue was one of Helms's projects toward the end of his
>tenure in the Senate. Helms insisted in his conversation with Bono
>that the international private sector, not just Americans, must get
>involved.

A) How many millions do you figure Bono has ?

B) How many more millions does he make very year ?

C) How many does he donate to the cause he espouses ?



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[dave weil]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 14:25:55 GMT,
wrote:

>>> Some are worse that others - Bono, for instance. So
>>>two-faced ! He's so busy talking about his AIDS thing, along with his
>>>superstar musician buddies. If they want to be concerned about
>>>helping on that issue, fine - but let them take those millions of
>>>dollars they have in the bank and donate to the cause !
>>
>>"We really got started, Jimmy. Bono knows what he's doing."
>> -- U.S. Sen. Jesse Helms, R-NC, in 2002
>>
>>He was speaking to his chief of staff, Jimmy Broughton, right after he
>>met with U2 band member Bono to discuss ways to stop the AIDS epidemic
>>in Africa. The issue was one of Helms's projects toward the end of his
>>tenure in the Senate. Helms insisted in his conversation with Bono
>>that the international private sector, not just Americans, must get
>>involved.
>
> A) How many millions do you figure Bono has ?

> B) How many more millions does he make very year ?

> C) How many does he donate to the cause he espouses ?

Since you can't answer the last qustion, the first two are sort of
moot.

[Tom Disque]

On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:58:44 -0500, "clamnebula"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>>
>> Anyone whose opinions are formed by what some musician said,
>> where that musician only has a public spotlight by virtue of screaming
>> 'baby, baby, baby' louder and longer than those around him, is an
>> idiot to begin with.
>
>Say, maybe you have a point here, Paul. From now on I'll only follow the
>opinions of noted soft-spoken intellectuals like Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly,
>and Jesse Helms!
>
>-Neb

Or, you could form your own opinions. Is that too much work?

[Tom Disque]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:53:33 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Scott Gardner said:
>
>> The ones I have a real cognitive problem with are the ones that are so
>> vocal in their opinions that they're almost as famous now for their
>> political views as they are for what made them celebrities in the
>> first place. I'm talking about people like Streisand, Fonda, and
>> Sarandon.
>
>You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
>himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.

What crimes are those?

[Tom Disque]

On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 21:14:41 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>Ed Foster said:
>
>> I vote for Barbra Streisand. She bitches about gas guzzling SUVs while
>> she occupies a 9 or 10 thousand square foot mansion. How much oil do
>> you think it takes to heat and cool that?
>
>I'd bet her heating bill for an entire year is less than one SUV
>tankful.

How about that private jet she uses to fly to Washington and bitch
about pollution?

>Besides, she might be in a nuclear zone. Isn't there a reactor
>somewhere east of L.A.?

If she's anything like her counterparts, she should refuse to use
energy generated by nuclear power plants, since so many of that crowd
are anti-nuke kooks, but I doubt she does.

[Edward M. Kennedy]

"David Phillips" > wrote:

> >Ed Foster said:
> >
> >> I vote for Barbra Streisand. She bitches about gas guzzling SUVs while

SHE STEPS OUT OF A CHAUFFERED LIMO!

> >> she occupies a 9 or 10 thousand square foot mansion. How much oil do
> >> you think it takes to heat and cool that?
> >
> >I'd bet her heating bill for an entire year is less than one SUV
> >tankful. Besides, she might be in a nuclear zone. Isn't there a reactor
> >somewhere east of L.A.?

Irrelevant. It's a power grid and electrons are fungible.
Besides, if California was producing enough of it's own
energy, they never would have had the power crisis.

> So, Babs' mansion cools itself without any external power?

It's powered by those incredible eyelashes she has. You
should see the look on her face when she is using her
vibrator.

--Ted

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:33:12 -0500, Tom Disque >
wrote:

>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:53:33 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>Scott Gardner said:
>>
>>> The ones I have a real cognitive problem with are the ones that are so
>>> vocal in their opinions that they're almost as famous now for their
>>> political views as they are for what made them celebrities in the
>>> first place. I'm talking about people like Streisand, Fonda, and
>>> Sarandon.
>>
>>You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
>>himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.
>
>What crimes are those?

He grabbed a little handful of booty and ta-ta 20 or 30 years
ago from some slut that was sticking it in his face, wrapped in a pair
of sprayed-on short-shorts. Haven't you been keeping up ?



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 18:07:35 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"dave weil" > wrote in message
> ...
> >> On Tue, 2 Dec 2003 16:03:31 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"clamnebula" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >> I think it's worth noting here that even Merle Haggard recently
> >recorded a
> >> >> anti-war song. It'll be interesting to see if it gets any airplay,
> >> >especially on
> >> >> stations owned by the monolithic Clear Channel network, who are
major
> >Bush
> >> >and
> >> >> GOP supporters.
> >> >
> >> >How is Clear Channel monolithic? They have 10% of the market.
> >>
> >> Which market?
> >
> >Radio.
>
> Well, sorta.
>
> I only mentioned it to highlight what a one-dimensional thinker you
> are.
>
> First of all, they have 10% of the ENTIRE radio market in the states,
> but they have 50% of the POPULAR MUSIC stations in the country.
>
> Not only that, they control a substantial proportion of the concert
> seats in the US.
>
> The synergy between those two markets (radio and concerts) well
> exceeds the parts.
>
> They are far and away the largest players in the game. There's NOBODY
> that's even close. I maintain that makes them monolithic.
>
Then realize you are an idiot by your own admission.

50% and significant portion do not equal monolithic.

[dave weil]

On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:51:19 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> wrote:

>> First of all, they have 10% of the ENTIRE radio market in the states,
>> but they have 50% of the POPULAR MUSIC stations in the country.
>>
>> Not only that, they control a substantial proportion of the concert
>> seats in the US.
>>
>> The synergy between those two markets (radio and concerts) well
>> exceeds the parts.
>>
>> They are far and away the largest players in the game. There's NOBODY
>> that's even close. I maintain that makes them monolithic.
>>
>Then realize you are an idiot by your own admission.
>
>50% and significant portion do not equal monolithic.

Sure it does. Besides, I didn't say "significant".

Learn to read.

Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"dave weil" > wrote in message
...
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2003 16:51:19 -0800, "Michael Mckelvy"
> > wrote:
>
> >> First of all, they have 10% of the ENTIRE radio market in the states,
> >> but they have 50% of the POPULAR MUSIC stations in the country.
> >>
> >> Not only that, they control a substantial proportion of the concert
> >> seats in the US.
> >>
> >> The synergy between those two markets (radio and concerts) well
> >> exceeds the parts.
> >>
> >> They are far and away the largest players in the game. There's NOBODY
> >> that's even close. I maintain that makes them monolithic.
> >>
> >Then realize you are an idiot by your own admission.
> >
> >50% and significant portion do not equal monolithic.
>
> Sure it does. Besides, I didn't say "significant".
>
> Learn to read.
>
> Oh wait, I forgot who I was talking to.

And I forgot to add you're a nit-picking asshole.

Learn to think.

[AAA]

Firstly,

No way big business will allow Bush to not be reelected.

Secondly,

As a DESPISER of AMERICA, I WANT bush reelected. What's not to like?
Americans dying, huge budget deficit, plunder of the environment, lack
of democracy and guns for all.

BUSH FOREVER

clamnebula wrote:
>
> I think it's worth noting here that even Merle Haggard recently recorded a
> anti-war song. It'll be interesting to see if it gets any airplay, especially on
> stations owned by the monolithic Clear Channel network, who are major Bush and
> GOP supporters.
>
> -Neb
>
> ---Original Text---
> Rockers Unite to Oust Bush
> http://www.rollingstone.com/news/newsarticle.asp?nid=19029
>
> Bruce Springsteen told a crowd of 50,000 New Yorkers on October 4th to "shout a
> little louder if you want the president impeached." Two weeks later, John
> Mellencamp posted an open letter to America on his Web site, declaring, "We have
> been lied to and terrorized by our own government, and it is time to take
> action." Meanwhile, Moby, Eddie Vedder and Michael Stipe are organizing a TV-ad
> campaign that will run anti-Bush commercials during the week of the State of the
> Union address in January; Dave Matthews is railing against the war in Iraq in
> interviews; and at press time, at least three multiband rock tours planned to
> take aim at Bush-administration policies. Green Day, NOFX, Tom Morello, Dixie
> Chicks, Don Henley, Willie Nelson and Steve Earle have all played (or plan to
> play) for political candidates or causes. Hip-hop stars have also gotten
> involved. "We have a voice and a responsibility to speak out," says Jay-Z, a
> member of Russell Simmons' Hip-Hop Summit, which aims to register 4 million
> voters before the 2004 election. "People listen to us."
>
> Welcome to the increasingly partisan world of popular music -- where President
> George W. Bush is a marked man. Thirty major artists interviewed for this story
> cited many concerns: U.S. policy on Iraq, the Patriot Act, the Bush
> administration's assault on the environment, the economy and the media. But they
> all agreed that as the 2004 presidential election gets closer, it is time to
> mobilize. "The America we believe in can't survive another four years of George
> Bush," says Moby. Adds Lou Reed, "We must all unite and work for whomever
> opposes Bush, regardless of whatever differences we may have. Our motto:
> Anything but Bush."
>
> Many artists aren't afraid to get their hands dirty in the democratic process,
> either: At Punkvoter.com, more than 100 bands, including NOFX, Green Day and
> Offspring, are creating voter-registration drives, a political action committee
> and a Rock Against Bush Tour. Willie Nelson recently called Dennis Kucinich to
> offer his time and a slogan, "Kucinich: His middle name is sin," and dozens of
> other artists are contributing money to campaigns and performing in swing states
> and in televised public-service announcements.
>
> "Musicians have an obligation to get involved," says Henley, "not necessarily
> because they have a forum but because they are citizens."
>
> Donna Brazile, Al Gore's 2000 campaign manager, says that artists are important
> to this campaign, because "musicians have reach that politicians need in order
> to motivate people to take an active interest in their future." With that in
> mind, eight Democratic candidates filmed ads for a November 4th Rock the Vote
> event designed to woo young voters. In his spot, Wesley Clark even name-drops
> OutKast.
>
> It's not always easy for artists to speak out. Recently, New Jersey radio
> station WCHR banned Jethro Tull after the band's lead singer, Ian Anderson, was
> quoted in a local paper saying, "I hate to see the American flag hanging out of
> every bloody station wagon. It's easy to confuse patriotism with nationalism.
> Flag-waving ain't gonna do it."
>
> Eight months ago, Dixie Chicks singer Natalie Maines told a London audience,
> "Just so you know, we're ashamed the president of the United States is from
> Texas." More than fifty radio stations pulled the Dixie Chicks' songs off the
> air, and DJs and fans launched protests. Says Maines, "I thought, 'Why am I, a
> country singer who has never been involved in politics publicly, the one asking
> questions?'"
>
> In July, Dixie Chicks contributed $100,000 to Rock the Vote -- the largest
> single band donation in the nonprofit's history. Maines says that she hopes the
> London incident will help rally eighteen- to twenty-four-year-old women to vote.
> "I had gotten too comfortable in my life," she says. "And I wasn't necessarily
> active for things that I believed in. It inspired me." Maines' experience may
> have scared some musicians away from speaking out, but it angered others enough
> to get involved. Merle Haggard, who recorded his own anti-war song, "That's the
> News," this year, says that the attacks on the Chicks "reminded me of things I'd
> read about Berlin in 1938. It ****ed me off."
>
> The notion that musicians shouldn't get involved in politics is "ridiculous,"
> says Mike Burkett (a.k.a. Fat Mike), lead singer of NOFX and founder of
> Punkvoter.com. "Everyone should be involved in politics: cabdrivers, lawyers . .
> . everyone." Artists are in a unique position to understand the mood of this
> country, too. "We travel," says Henley. "We see what the economy is like in
> every city. We take the temperature of between 10,000 and 20,000 people four
> nights a week."
>
> Musicians hope that by getting involved they will inspire their fans to do the
> same. James Taylor, who has supported Sen. John Kerry, says that the
> administration has benefited from "a failure of citizenship." "Americans are
> asleep at the wheel," Taylor adds. "We're not getting involved in our own
> political process."
>
> Mellencamp says that the goal of his open letter and his song "To Washington" is
> to turn such apathy into action. "My whole purpose of being here, to write songs
> or write a letter like that, is to put the idea forward that some conversation
> needs to take place here, as opposed to accepting the [government] line," he
> says.
>
> But can musicians actually tilt the electoral scale, especially at a time when
> voter turnout among eighteen- to twenty-four-year-olds is at an all-time low?
> Republican strategists are skeptical. "People tend to choose candidates on the
> issues that they stand for -- and not the position of their favorite musician,"
> says Christine Iverson, spokeswoman for the Republican National Committee.
> Brazile begs to differ. "People come out because they're attracted not just to
> [the candidate] but also because the candidate is being endorsed by their
> favorite artist," she says. "It matters."
>
> Artists clearly agree. Many say they are convinced that they're reflecting a
> national mood that is "disturbed," in the words of Haggard, or "agitated," as
> Morello puts it, and that fans can be motivated to get involved. "What you have
> to realize," says Russell Simmons, "is that it's a cultural step, not only a
> political step. It's in style to be at the rallies. It's in style to give money
> back to education." Adds Fat Mike, "If we get a few hundred thousand kids
> together, we will be a force to reckon with. If anybody wants our votes, they're
> going to have to give us some of the things we want. If the NRA can do it, why
> can't we?"
>
> DAMIEN CAVE
> (November 26, 2003)

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:42:03 -0500, AAA > wrote:

>Firstly,
>
>No way big business will allow Bush to not be reelected.

Maybe in whatever squalid little ******** wannabe country you
live in, business gets to decide that. Here, if we can keep the
Hollywood liberals, lawyers associations, and unions at bay ( and we
usually do ), the *people* decide. Otherwise, we get another
DemocRat.

>Secondly,
>
>As a DESPISER of AMERICA,

Despise *this*, mother****er. Chances are, whatever mud hut
you live in only has freedom *because* of the USA, so shut your whiny
little cake-hole.

> I WANT bush reelected. What's not to like?
>Americans dying, huge budget deficit, plunder of the environment, lack
>of democracy and guns for all.

You must live in one of those Socialist third-world ********s
like Germany, England, France, or Nigeria ( pick any one ) that dream
of being the USA, but never will be.

Now, go turn your neighbor in to your government for having a
gun so he can be disarmed.

>BUSH FOREVER

No, just another 5 years. That's our system.

Of course, there *is* *another* Bush in the wings .... :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[George M. Middius]

said:

> >No way big business will allow Bush to not be reelected.
>
> Maybe in whatever squalid little ******** wannabe country you
> live in, business gets to decide that. Here, if we can keep the
> Hollywood liberals, lawyers associations, and unions at bay ( and we
> usually do ), the *people* decide. Otherwise, we get another
> DemocRat.

Hola! You must have lost a tooth today. Or did you blow out all the
candles on your birthday cake?

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 18:20:14 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
said:
>
>> >No way big business will allow Bush to not be reelected.
>>
>> Maybe in whatever squalid little ******** wannabe country you
>> live in, business gets to decide that. Here, if we can keep the
>> Hollywood liberals, lawyers associations, and unions at bay ( and we
>> usually do ), the *people* decide. Otherwise, we get another
>> DemocRat.
>
>Hola! You must have lost a tooth today. Or did you blow out all the
>candles on your birthday cake?
>

Oh, I'm sorry, I forgot all about getting rid of George Soros.
Yeh, he has to go. I know you were upset that I left him off the
list :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Ed Foster]

In article >,
> wrote:

> On Thu, 04 Dec 2003 17:42:03 -0500, AAA > wrote:
>
> >Firstly,
> >
> >No way big business will allow Bush to not be reelected.
>
> Maybe in whatever squalid little ******** wannabe country you
> live in, business gets to decide that.



.:\:/:.
+-------------------+ .:\:\:/:/:.
| PLEASE DO NOT | :.:\:\:/:/:.:
| FEED THE TROLLS | :=.' - - '.=:
| | '=(\ 9 9 /)='
| Thank you, | ( (_) )
| Management | /`-vvv-'\
+-------------------+ / \
| | @@@ / /|,,,,,|\ \
| | @@@ /_// /^\ \\_\
@x@@x@ | | |/ WW( ( ) )WW
\||||/ | | \| __\,,\ /,,/__
\||/ | | | jgs (______Y______)
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\//\/\\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\

[Ray Fischer]

> wrote:
> AAA > wrote:
>
>>Firstly,
>>
>>No way big business will allow Bush to not be reelected.
>
> Maybe in whatever squalid little ******** wannabe country you
>live in, business gets to decide that. Here, if we can keep the
>Hollywood liberals, lawyers associations, and unions at bay ( and we
>usually do ), the *people* decide.

The usual right-wing disconnect from reality.

>>Secondly,
>>
>>As a DESPISER of AMERICA,
>
> Despise *this*, mother****er.

Impressive response.

> Chances are, whatever mud hut
>you live in only has freedom *because* of the USA,

The US, where people can be thrown into prison and left to rot just
because Bush says so. Where corporate profits are more important than
people's lives.

--
Ray Fischer

[George M. Middius]

PD said:

> > You must live in one of those Socialist third-world ********s
> >like Germany, England, France, or Nigeria ( pick any one ) that dream
> >of being the USA, but never will be.
>
> This is the typical arrogance and lack of awareness we see from a
> proportion of people in the US.

Ooh, now you've done it. You misused "proportion" (should be
percentage, segment, bloc, or whatever). You presumed to speak for an
unknown audience ("we see"). You assumed facts not in evidence
("typical arrogance and lack of awareness").

Naughty little limey drunkard.

[George M. Middius]

PD said:

> >> This is the typical arrogance and lack of awareness we see from a
> >> proportion of people in the US.
> >
> >Ooh, now you've done it. You misused "proportion" (should be
> >percentage, segment, bloc, or whatever). You presumed to speak for an
> >unknown audience ("we see"). You assumed facts not in evidence
> >("typical arrogance and lack of awareness").
>
> Have you ever considered that you might, on extremely rare occasions,
> exude a somewhat pedantic approach to chitty-chat? Is this a friggin'
> library or wot.

I restrained myself, didn't I. Anyway, you need to work on your
groveling for forgiveness.


> >Naughty little limey drunkard.
>
> I haven't bloody started yet!

My mistake. :-(

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 00:33:35 +0000, G.S. Nail >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> Despise *this*, mother****er. Chances are, whatever mud hut
>>you live in only has freedom *because* of the USA, so shut your whiny
>>little cake-hole.
>
>USA - saviour of the free world!

Eloquently put :-) And I must give credit, your own UK does
stand by us, despite what a bunch of screaming socialist loonies on &
at the BBC would have you believe.

>>> I WANT bush reelected. What's not to like?
>>>Americans dying, huge budget deficit, plunder of the environment, lack
>>>of democracy and guns for all.
>>
>> You must live in one of those Socialist third-world ********s
>>like Germany, England, France, or Nigeria ( pick any one ) that dream
>>of being the USA, but never will be.
>
>This is the typical arrogance and lack of awareness we see from a
>proportion of people in the US.

In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.

>Some experts project that over the next couple of decades power and
>wealth will ebb away from the USA to countries which still have
>significant oil reserves. That seems intuitive - the way things stand

Not even to delve into our own IMMENSE energy reserves and
resources ( which, BTW, you don't have ) - but it takes more than some
stuff underground. That is not what makes a people great, nor what
makes a country the leader of the free world.

>right now your country would face a major crisis if the oil flow is
>interrupted, let alone stopped abruptly. More sources *are* required

So would yours. In fact, the UK would fold about an order of
magnitude faster.

>obtained from elsewhere to sustain the US's gluttonous and overbearing
>requirement on oil reserves, and the "squeeze" can only increase over
>time effectively causing a shift in power. If this picture is true,
>the standard of living in the US is likely to diminish rapidly, and I
>would like to see come back and mouth off in the quite same way under
>those circumstances.

Well, so many thanks for your kind regards. But the scenario
your drool over will never happen.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 01:21:09 +0000, G.S. Nail >
wrote:

>George M. Middius > wrote:
>
>>> > You must live in one of those Socialist third-world ********s
>>> >like Germany, England, France, or Nigeria ( pick any one ) that dream
>>> >of being the USA, but never will be.
>>>
>>> This is the typical arrogance and lack of awareness we see from a
>>> proportion of people in the US.
>>
>>Ooh, now you've done it. You misused "proportion" (should be
>>percentage, segment, bloc, or whatever). You presumed to speak for an
>>unknown audience ("we see"). You assumed facts not in evidence
>>("typical arrogance and lack of awareness").
>
>Have you ever considered that you might, on extremely rare occasions,
>exude a somewhat pedantic approach to chitty-chat? Is this a friggin'
>library or wot.
>
>>Naughty little limey drunkard.
>
>I haven't bloody started yet!

Look ear, mate !

{ insert unintelligable British babble and quaint
colloquialisms here }

Right ! Now off with you then !



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[George M. Middius]

PD said:

> >I restrained myself, didn't I.
>
> No, you are wrong about that.

Next one's on me.


> >Anyway, you need to work on your groveling for forgiveness.
>
> N/A.

Truth anyway.


> >> >Naughty little limey drunkard.
> >>
> >> I haven't bloody started yet!
> >
> >My mistake. :-(
>
> Yes your mistake. I'm probably taller than you, too.

Irrelevant.


> So whilst we're on the subject, how many times did you beat up your
> boyfriend last week?

That gorilla? You've definitely got your bottles upside down now.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:16:06 +0000, G.S. Nail >
wrote:

>> In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
>>' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.
>
>Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..

Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)

>If your reserves are so IMMENSE, why do you rely so heavily on
>imported oil?

Whose should we use up first, ours, or someone else's ? :-)

>If your resources are so great, how come you came so
>near to crisis point when the Venezuelan flow was interrupted? You
>only had *hours* of stock left to maintain normal levels of
>consumption, a pretty close shave.

Interesting story. I'm not familiar with the basis for it.

I also don't know how many millions of bbl's are in our
National Reserve, but I know it's huge.

>Incidently you say we (UK) don't have such reserves, but IIRC UK oil
>reserves are greater than USA per capita, not to mention that we also
>consume far less per capita.

Yeh - because it's priced out of reach, you can't afford what
we can.

>> So would yours. In fact, the UK would fold about an order of
>>magnitude faster.
>
>Why would this be? We have a reliance on oil, but our demands are
>less.

Because you don't have the reserves. We do. And where your
demand is already minimzed due to high costs you can't afford, ours
has lots of room to be reduced if needed. We've done it before, we
can do it again.

Also, you are descended as a people from a race of miniature
little Celtics and Picts and such, who ran around the woods naked
worshipping rocks. The fact that you survived as anything more than
housepets is in itself astonishing :-)

>No I don't "drool over" that prospect, but you are wrong to think it
>could never happen. For a start, what is your superb plan for when the
>oil drys up completely? It is going to happen, you know. Let's see you
>work backwards from there.

Sorry, I'm not in charge of long range global planning. :-)

But when it's gone ( long after I'm dead ), we'll have other
resources, and you won't. Coal, gas, nuclear, ethanol, wind, hydro,
solar - and more yet to be invented, I'm sure.

You, on the other hand, will be scrambling about the bog for a
nice piece of mammoth dung to cook dinner over :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[ScottW]

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...
>
> No I don't "drool over" that prospect, but you are wrong to think it
> could never happen. For a start, what is your superb plan for when the
> oil drys up completely? It is going to happen, you know. Let's see you
> work backwards from there.

Fuel cells with alcohol sourced hydrogen.
We still have immense agricultural reserves.

Hybrid cars will aid the transition.

We may see a resurgence in nuclear power for
electricity.

Meanwhile we continue to import as much as possible
and minimize domestic development. I don't know if
it is dumb luck or well thought out strategy but there
is no reason to consume our own reserves when others
will sell theirs at reasonable prices.

ScottW

[George M. Middius]

PD said:

> >> >> >Naughty little limey drunkard.
> >> >>
> >> >> I haven't bloody started yet!
> >> >
> >> >My mistake. :-(
> >>
> >> Yes your mistake. I'm probably taller than you, too.
> >
> >Irrelevant.
>
> You might be fatter.

No, you may not meet my boyfriend.

[pudentame]

George M. Middius wrote:
>
> Scott Gardner said:
>
>
>>The ones I have a real cognitive problem with are the ones that are so
>>vocal in their opinions that they're almost as famous now for their
>>political views as they are for what made them celebrities in the
>>first place. I'm talking about people like Streisand, Fonda, and
>>Sarandon.
>
>
> You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
> himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.

It's different when right-wing celebrities spout off. Everyone knows by
now that the right of free speech is now reserved solely for ditto heads.

[pudentame]

wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:33:12 -0500, Tom Disque >
> wrote:
>
>
>>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:53:33 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Scott Gardner said:
>>>
>>>
>>>>The ones I have a real cognitive problem with are the ones that are so
>>>>vocal in their opinions that they're almost as famous now for their
>>>>political views as they are for what made them celebrities in the
>>>>first place. I'm talking about people like Streisand, Fonda, and
>>>>Sarandon.
>>>
>>>You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
>>>himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.
>>
>>What crimes are those?
>
>
> He grabbed a little handful of booty and ta-ta 20 or 30 years
> ago from some slut that was sticking it in his face, wrapped in a pair
> of sprayed-on short-shorts. Haven't you been keeping up ?

Not to mention all the various other females who had the misfortune to
cross his path in the intervening period. He was still playing grabass
as recently as his publicity tour for T3.

But hipocracy is the right-wing virtue.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:55:11 GMT, pudentame >
wrote:

>> You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
>> himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.
>
>It's different when right-wing celebrities spout off. Everyone knows by
>now that the right of free speech is now reserved solely for ditto heads.
>
>

More leftist bull****.

Just because the overwhleming majority disagrees with the
left-wing liberals and DemocRats in general, that by no strech means
they don't have the right to say what they want. And be ignored by
ayone who chooses to ignore them. That, too, is part of 'freedom of
speech'.

Your right to speak does not impose on me an obligation to
listen and agree.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:58:44 GMT, pudentame >
wrote:

wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Dec 2003 11:33:12 -0500, Tom Disque >
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>On Tue, 02 Dec 2003 19:53:33 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>Scott Gardner said:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>The ones I have a real cognitive problem with are the ones that are so
>>>>>vocal in their opinions that they're almost as famous now for their
>>>>>political views as they are for what made them celebrities in the
>>>>>first place. I'm talking about people like Streisand, Fonda, and
>>>>>Sarandon.
>>>>
>>>>You left out Ah-nold. His political position is that he can forgive
>>>>himself for crimes committed in an earlier phase of his fantastic life.
>>>
>>>What crimes are those?
>>
>>
>> He grabbed a little handful of booty and ta-ta 20 or 30 years
>> ago from some slut that was sticking it in his face, wrapped in a pair
>> of sprayed-on short-shorts. Haven't you been keeping up ?
>
>Not to mention all the various other females who had the misfortune to
>cross his path in the intervening period. He was still playing grabass
>as recently as his publicity tour for T3.
>
>But hipocracy is the right-wing virtue.

More leftist bull****. Bill Clinton is the leader of the
liberals, the DemocRats, and his presence strips them of any right to
bleed self-righteously about 'respect for women'.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[dave weil]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:58:44 GMT, pudentame >
wrote:

>But hipocracy is the right-wing virtue.

And hip-hopcracy is the hallmark of the left.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:59:00 GMT,
wrote:

>More leftist bull****.
>
> Just because the overwhleming majority disagrees with the
>left-wing liberals and DemocRats in general, that by no strech means
>they don't have the right to say what they want. And be ignored by
>ayone who chooses to ignore them. That, too, is part of 'freedom of
>speech'.
>
> Your right to speak does not impose on me an obligation to
>listen and agree.

Or even listen. That's the problem.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:07:08 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:59:00 GMT,
>wrote:
>
>>More leftist bull****.
>>
>> Just because the overwhleming majority disagrees with the
>>left-wing liberals and DemocRats in general, that by no strech means
>>they don't have the right to say what they want. And be ignored by
>>ayone who chooses to ignore them. That, too, is part of 'freedom of
>>speech'.
>>
>> Your right to speak does not impose on me an obligation to
>>listen and agree.
>
>Or even listen. That's the problem.

No, that's no problem at all. Most especially when you
obviously imply that listening equals at least partial agreement.

I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[dave weil]

On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:19:39 GMT,
wrote:

>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:07:08 -0600, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:59:00 GMT,
>>wrote:
>>
>>>More leftist bull****.
>>>
>>> Just because the overwhleming majority disagrees with the
>>>left-wing liberals and DemocRats in general, that by no strech means
>>>they don't have the right to say what they want. And be ignored by
>>>ayone who chooses to ignore them. That, too, is part of 'freedom of
>>>speech'.
>>>
>>> Your right to speak does not impose on me an obligation to
>>>listen and agree.
>>
>>Or even listen. That's the problem.
>
> No, that's no problem at all. Most especially when you
>obviously imply that listening equals at least partial agreement.

You weren't listening again. You should stop that.

<chuckle>

> I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
>anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.

Stay with Fox where you can hear what you want to hear. Fine with me.

[George M. Middius]

PD said:

> >No, you may not meet my boyfriend.
>
> What me and your boyfriend get up to is none of your business.

Good thing he's allergic to drunks.

[Ray Fischer]

> wrote:
> I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
>anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.

You're tired of hearing the truth.

Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.

He doesn't bother you with the truth.

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

> wrote:
>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:16:06 +0000, G.S. Nail >
>wrote:
>
>>> In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
>>>' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.
>>
>>Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..
>
> Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)

That explains why you're a stupid hypocrite.

>>If your reserves are so IMMENSE, why do you rely so heavily on
>>imported oil?
>
> Whose should we use up first, ours, or someone else's ? :-)

Neither?

>>If your resources are so great, how come you came so
>>near to crisis point when the Venezuelan flow was interrupted? You
>>only had *hours* of stock left to maintain normal levels of
>>consumption, a pretty close shave.
>
> Interesting story. I'm not familiar with the basis for it.

Of course not. You're Republican.

> I also don't know how many millions of bbl's are in our
>National Reserve, but I know it's huge.

A couple weeks wirth, maybe. None it intended for the likes of you.

>>Incidently you say we (UK) don't have such reserves, but IIRC UK oil
>>reserves are greater than USA per capita, not to mention that we also
>>consume far less per capita.
>
> Yeh - because it's priced out of reach, you can't afford what
>we can.

No, it's because they don't subsidize oil consumption like the US.

--
Ray Fischer

[George M. Middius]

PD said:

> >Good thing he's allergic to drunks.
>
> That's what he says to you. He could be telling me the exact opposite!

> METHYPHOBIA:

If only it were that simple. Like you. :-)

[Ed Foster]

In article >, Ray Fischer
> wrote:

> > wrote:
> >On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 03:16:06 +0000, G.S. Nail >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>> In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
> >>>' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.
> >>
> >>Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..
> >
> > Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)
>
> That explains why you're a stupid hypocrite.

I love it. Underating your opponent is what why the DemocRATs let the
GOP win in 2000 and 2002. Keep it up and they'll win in 2004.

[Ed Foster]

In article >, Ray Fischer
> wrote:

> > wrote:
> > I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
> >anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.
>
> You're tired of hearing the truth.
>
> Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.
>
> He doesn't bother you with the truth.

Does any politician? Get serious! Do you believe Dean, or Kerry, or
Lieberman tells the truth? Boy, you are naive.

[GeoSynch]

Dormer sobbed:

> Some experts project that over the next couple of decades power and
> wealth will ebb away from the USA to countries which still have
> significant oil reserves. That seems intuitive - the way things stand
> right now your country would face a major crisis if the oil flow is
> interrupted, let alone stopped abruptly. More sources *are* required
> obtained from elsewhere to sustain the US's gluttonous and overbearing
> requirement on oil reserves, and the "squeeze" can only increase over
> time effectively causing a shift in power. If this picture is true,
> the standard of living in the US is likely to diminish rapidly, and I
> would like to see come back and mouth off in the quite same way under
> those circumstances.

Jealous that British hegemony long ago faded, while that of the U. S. of A.
continues unabated and shall do so for the foreseeable future?

You can always go cry in your beer, poor baby.

(Far as oil goes, we have an ace in the hole - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.)


GeoSynch

[Marie A.]

dave weil > wrote in message >...
> On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 21:19:39 GMT,
> wrote:
>
> >On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 15:07:08 -0600, dave weil >
> >wrote:
> >
> >>On Sat, 06 Dec 2003 20:59:00 GMT,
> >>wrote:
> >>
> >>>More leftist bull****.
> >>>
> >>> Just because the overwhleming majority disagrees with the
> >>>left-wing liberals and DemocRats in general, that by no strech means
> >>>they don't have the right to say what they want. And be ignored by
> >>>ayone who chooses to ignore them. That, too, is part of 'freedom of
> >>>speech'.
> >>>
> >>> Your right to speak does not impose on me an obligation to
> >>>listen and agree.
> >>
> >>Or even listen. That's the problem.
> >
> > No, that's no problem at all. Most especially when you
> >obviously imply that listening equals at least partial agreement.
>
> You weren't listening again. You should stop that.
>
> <chuckle>
>
> > I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
> >anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.
>
> Stay with Fox where you can hear what you want to hear. Fine with me

Well, Twinky, we complained for thirty years about the dominance of
leftist, network news before FOX and Rush came along, and your crowd
told us to stick it up our ass. We hope you don't mind if we tell you
to stay tuned to those old, leftist network stations, because when
people have a choice, leftists always lose. Do you really think anyone
listens to the likes of people like Koppel, Donahue, Rather, Jennings,
Cronkite, 60 Minutes and all that leftist crap when they have a
choice?

Sorry, sir, but your crowd is not against one side being heard, per
se, but against the other side being heard as well. It's now happening
and you people are mad as wet hens.

Cordially, Marie

[[email protected]]

What you always wanted to know regarding Prescott Bush, Samuel Bush
and George Herbert Walker - but did not a) dare, b) appreciate to ask?

http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelian_legacy.pdf

Check the epilogue "Sins of the Fathers" in my A0-sized pdf-poster
entitled

"Haeckelian Legacy of Popularization: Vertebrate Embryos and the
Survival of the Fakest".


Pauli Ojala
Helsinki
Finland


PS. Be patient, the A0 -pdf evidence of mine is 1.8 megabytes.
Another version, with an emphasis on Ernst Haeckel's race biological
assault:

http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Asian_bioethics.pdf

[Ray Fischer]

Ed Foster > wrote:
> Ray Fischer
>> > wrote:

>> >>> In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
>> >>>' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.
>> >>
>> >>Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..
>> >
>> > Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)
>>
>> That explains why you're a stupid hypocrite.
>
>I love it. Underating your opponent is what why the DemocRATs let the
>GOP win in 2000 and 2002.

Who'd ever thought that they'd stoop so low as to steal an election?
Or shamelessly profit from the deaths of 3,000 Americans?

--
Ray Fischer

[ScottW]

"G.S. Nail" > wrote in message
...
> "ScottW" > wrote:
>
> >> No I don't "drool over" that prospect, but you are wrong to think it
> >> could never happen. For a start, what is your superb plan for when the
> >> oil drys up completely? It is going to happen, you know. Let's see you
> >> work backwards from there.
> >
> >Fuel cells with alcohol sourced hydrogen.
> >We still have immense agricultural reserves.
> >
> >Hybrid cars will aid the transition.
>
> The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US market
> but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are people going to start
> taking this seriously?

When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
energy efficient vehicle. Many Americans will do it when they
"have to" and not before. Still the number of hybrid
vehicles on the road are increasing rapidly.
They may soon become a viable economic alternative.
I even read a hybrid SUV may soon be available
Why is this such a big deal?

Go hate the Russians for rejecting Kyoto.

>
> >We may see a resurgence in nuclear power for
> >electricity.
>
> Oil is 90% about transportation, dude.

We are heavily dependent on natural gas for electricity production
and rapidly moving to import quantities of liquified NG.
Those reserves will eventually be exhausted as well.

>
> >Meanwhile we continue to import as much as possible
> >and minimize domestic development. I don't know if
> >it is dumb luck or well thought out strategy but there
> > is no reason to consume our own reserves when others
> > will sell theirs at reasonable prices.
>
> Projections I've seen put US reserves in the US at about 50% of
> current levels in 10 years, the same in the UK. You say you are not
> using your reserves? Discovery rates are poor in the US, reserves in
> decline.

Significant untapped reserves exist in Alaska and off shore
(Ca. for example). What you say is all true but we may well be
one of the last countries to have "any" reserves simply because
we no longer aggressively develop our own.

> You *have* to outsource to maintain your elephantine per
> capita demand.

And, IMO, outsourcing supplies to meet that demand is
a good long term strategic move.

> The only places where discovery rates and reserves are
> of real significance is in the Middle East.

Which are as dependent on Western oil revenue as we are
on their oil supply.
But that is changing slightly.
Russia and some former Soviet Republics are quickly becoming significant
producers to asian markets.

ScottW

[The Ghost In The Machine]

In talk.abortion, Ed Foster
>
wrote
on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:35:22 GMT
>:
> In article >, Ray Fischer
> > wrote:
>
>> > wrote:
>> > I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
>> >anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.
>>
>> You're tired of hearing the truth.
>>
>> Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.
>>
>> He doesn't bother you with the truth.
>
> Does any politician? Get serious! Do you believe Dean, or Kerry, or
> Lieberman tells the truth? Boy, you are naive.

If you're arguing that we should vote in Bush just because everyone
else is a liar too you'll have to show a little more work. :-)

As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
(I'm not sure I really care.)

Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
come up with a better answer at present either, although
Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for
our country, especially since Bush's tax plan seems
to be working, despite its massive deficits and lack
of cost-cutting, to restart our economy; we're at the
forefront of what should be a nice recovery, although
joblessness is still a problem.

This strongly suggests Bush will be reelected in 2004,
possibly by a landslide if the economy gets strong enough
by midyear. If Bush gets back in by a sufficient margin
he'll interpret it as a vindication of most, if not all,
of his policies -- including an abortion ban attempt.
Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.

Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.

We'll survive Bush.

--
#191,
It's still legal to go .sigless.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 05:02:21 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> wrote:

>As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
>it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
>(I'm not sure I really care.)

Then you can't tell much. You're just letting your
psychopathic hatred of all things Bush color everything you see.

>Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
>come up with a better answer at present either, although
>Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for

How about Dean sealing **ALL** records from his tenure in
Vermont ? He started out asking for **24 YEARS** of seal, and
eventually settled for 10 ! And he sealed *anything with his name on
it that he could seal* ! And he *refuses to let anyone see all those
records* !!!

Talk about making Nixon look honest ....

>Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
>Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
>grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
>on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
>Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.

Grilled by DemocRats and Republicans alike.

>Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
>We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
>We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
>him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
>the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
>We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
>short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
>We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.

We survived Clinton, we can survive anything.

Except maybe another Clinton.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Bruce J. Richman]

pjm wrote:


>On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 05:02:21 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> wrote:
>
>>As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
>>it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
>>(I'm not sure I really care.)
>
> Then you can't tell much. You're just letting your
>psychopathic hatred of all things Bush color everything you see.
>
>>Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
>>come up with a better answer at present either, although
>>Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for
>
> How about Dean sealing **ALL** records from his tenure in
>Vermont ? He started out asking for **24 YEARS** of seal, and
>eventually settled for 10 ! And he sealed *anything with his name on
>it that he could seal* ! And he *refuses to let anyone see all those
>records* !!!
>
> Talk about making Nixon look honest ....
>
>>Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
>>Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
>>grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
>>on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
>>Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.
>
> Grilled by DemocRats and Republicans alike.
>
>>Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
>>We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
>>We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
>>him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
>>the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
>>We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
>>short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
>>We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.
>
> We survived Clinton, we can survive anything.
>
> Except maybe another Clinton.
>
>
>
>Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
>'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
>ya know ?'
>
>HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
>Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
>Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

So which candidate do you guys think has the best audio system?

I just thought I'd make this an audio-related post since RAO has occasionally
been accused of not posting audio-related posts. Not that there's anything
wrong with that.



Bruce J. Richman

[Ed Foster]

In article >, Ray Fischer
> wrote:

> Ed Foster > wrote:
> > Ray Fischer
> >> > wrote:
>
> >> >>> In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
> >> >>>' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.
> >> >>
> >> >>Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..
> >> >
> >> > Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)
> >>
> >> That explains why you're a stupid hypocrite.
> >
> >I love it. Underating your opponent is what why the DemocRATs let the
> >GOP win in 2000 and 2002.
>
> Who'd ever thought that they'd stoop so low as to steal an election?

Oh goodie another whiner. If enough DemocRATs believe they lost in
2000 (and 2002?) because the election was stolen they'll never address
their real problems and the GOP will win again in 2004. But you'll be
OK, Ray, you can just reparrot your stale stolen election mantra.

[Ed Foster]

In article >, The Ghost In
The Machine > wrote:

> In talk.abortion, Ed Foster
> >
> wrote
> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:35:22 GMT
> >:
> > In article >, Ray Fischer
> > > wrote:
> >
> >> > wrote:
> >> > I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
> >> >anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.
> >>
> >> You're tired of hearing the truth.
> >>
> >> Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.
> >>
> >> He doesn't bother you with the truth.
> >
> > Does any politician? Get serious! Do you believe Dean, or Kerry, or
> > Lieberman tells the truth? Boy, you are naive.
>
> If you're arguing that we should vote in Bush just because everyone
> else is a liar too...

It's not.


> As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
> it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
> (I'm not sure I really care.)
>
> Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
> come up with a better answer at present either, although
> Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for
> our country, especially since Bush's tax plan seems
> to be working,...


Sort of an odd reaction to something that works.


> ...despite its massive deficits and lack
> of cost-cutting,


I go along with you about the lack of cost-cutting.


> to restart our economy; we're at the
> forefront of what should be a nice recovery, although
> joblessness is still a problem.

Economists claim that job recovery always lags business recovery.
Businesses like to be sure that the economy really is on an upswing
before they commit to taking on more workers.


> This strongly suggests Bush will be reelected in 2004,
> possibly by a landslide if the economy gets strong enough
> by midyear.


As Clinton said "it's the economy".

> If Bush gets back in by a sufficient margin
> he'll interpret it as a vindication of most, if not all,
> of his policies -- including an abortion ban attempt.
> Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
> Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
> grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
> on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
> Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.
>
> Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
> We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
> We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
> him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
> the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
> We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
> short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
> We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.


You left out the biggest disaster, LBJ.

[Ed Foster]

In article >,
> wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 05:02:21 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
> > wrote:
>
> >As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
> >it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
> >(I'm not sure I really care.)
>
> Then you can't tell much. You're just letting your
> psychopathic hatred of all things Bush color everything you see.


It's called BDS. See
<http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37125-2003Dec4.html>

[John Anderson]

"Marie A." > wrote in message >
> Sorry, sir, but your crowd is not against one side being heard, per
> se, but against the other side being heard as well. It's now happening
> and you people are mad as wet hens.
>
> Cordially, Marie

One BIG difference, When Clinton was in office protesters were allowed INTO
his speeches. With Bush they are banned to predefined areas 1/2 mile away.
Who is against the other side being heard?????? There goes free
speech.......
-JA

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:51:24 GMT, "John Anderson"
> wrote:

>
>"Marie A." > wrote in message >
>> Sorry, sir, but your crowd is not against one side being heard, per
>> se, but against the other side being heard as well. It's now happening
>> and you people are mad as wet hens.
>>
>> Cordially, Marie
>
>One BIG difference, When Clinton was in office protesters were allowed INTO
>his speeches. With Bush they are banned to predefined areas 1/2 mile away.
>Who is against the other side being heard?????? There goes free
>speech.......
>-JA
>

Bull****.

The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

The protestors *get* their chance to speak, get on camera,
etc, all they want, except there is no such thing as 'all they want',
because what they want is to totally take over everything, disrupt
everything, and silence anyone they disagree with, including the
leaders who were elected by the people under the American system.

'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[George M. Middius]

said:

> The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
> try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

Aren't you worried that JEE-zus will stop loving you for being such a
flaming asshole?

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 11:29:51 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
said:
>
>> The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
>> try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.
>
>Aren't you worried that JEE-zus will stop loving you for being such a
>flaming asshole?
>

Even if I believed in 'him', no. I'd be much more concerned
that 'he' would stop loving you, because you make all 'his' creations
look like **** by association.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Mike Webster]

Ed Foster > wrote in
:

> In article >,
> > wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 05:02:21 GMT, The Ghost In The Machine
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or
>> >perhaps it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not
>> >really sure. (I'm not sure I really care.)
>>
>> Then you can't tell much. You're just letting your
>> psychopathic hatred of all things Bush color everything you see.
>
>
> It's called BDS. See
> <http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A37125-2003Dec4.html

Krauthammer is being dishonest at least in part here. He quotes Dean
out of context:

Chris Matthews: "Would you break up Fox?"

Howard Dean: "On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but . . . I
don't want to answer whether I would break up Fox or not. . . . What
I'm going to do is appoint people to the FCC that believe democracy
depends on getting information from all portions of the political
spectrum, not just one."

The actual transcript of that show reads:

OFFICIAL MSNBC TRANSCRIPT:

MATTHEWS: Travel, the Democrats’ Ted Kennedy was part of that
deregulation, the deregulation of radio. There are so many things
that have been deregulated. Is that wrong trend and would you reverse
it?

DEAN: I would reverse in some areas.
First of all, 11 companies in this country control 90 percent
of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their
television. That’s wrong. We need to have a wide variety of opinions
in every community. We don’t have that because of Michael Powell and
what George Bush has tried to do to the FCC.
MATTHEWS: Would you break up Fox?
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: I’m serious.
DEAN: I’m keeping a...
MATTHEWS: Would you break it up? Rupert Murdoch has “The
Weekly Standard.” It has got a lot of other interests. It has got
“The New York Post.” Would you break it up?
DEAN: On ideological grounds, absolutely yes, but...
(LAUGHTER)
MATTHEWS: No, seriously. As a public policy, would you bring
industrial policy to bear and break up these conglomerations of
power?
DEAN: I don’t want to answer whether I would break up Fox or
not,
because, obviously
(CROSSTALK)
MATTHEWS: Well, how about large media enterprises?
DEAN: Let me-yes, let me get...
(LAUGHTER)
DEAN: The answer to that is yes.
I would say that there is too much penetration by single
corporations in media markets all over this country. We need locally-
owned radio stations. There are only two or three radio stations left
in the state of Vermont where you can get local news anymore. The
rest of it is read and ripped from the AP.
MATTHEWS: So what are you going to do about it? You’re going
to be president of the United States, what are you going to do?
DEAN: What I’m going to do is appoint people to the FCC that
believe democracy depends on getting information from all portions of
the political spectrum, not just one.
ENDQUOTE

By leaving out the (laughter) and Matthews responding with "No,
seriously," Krauthammer leads us to believe that Dean was talking
about breaking up Fox on ideological grounds with a completely
straight face. You're certainly left with the impression from
Krauthammer that were Dean to be elected, he'd exercise federal power
to break Fox up. In context, that's a ridiculous idea. What he does
support is regulation controlling the amount of media concentration.
He's against the fact that "11 companies in this country control 90
percent of what ordinary people are able to read and watch on their
television."

Mike

[Matt Pillsbury]

[--Follow-ups, for ****'s sake!--]

writes:

> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:51:24 GMT, "John Anderson"
> > wrote:
[...]
> >One BIG difference, When Clinton was in office protesters were
> >allowed INTO his speeches. With Bush they are banned to predefined
> >areas 1/2 mile away. Who is against the other side being
> >heard?????? There goes free speech.......

> Bull****.

> The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
> try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.

The President of the United States is a man whose right to free speech
is constantly threatened by protesters.
[...]
--
Matt Pillsbury "Your actions speak so loud I can't
hear a word you're saying."
--BR, "I Want to Conquer the World"

[John Anderson]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:51:24 GMT, "John Anderson"
> > wrote:
>
> >
> >"Marie A." > wrote in message >
> >> Sorry, sir, but your crowd is not against one side being heard, per
> >> se, but against the other side being heard as well. It's now happening
> >> and you people are mad as wet hens.
> >>
> >> Cordially, Marie
> >
> >One BIG difference, When Clinton was in office protesters were allowed
INTO
> >his speeches. With Bush they are banned to predefined areas 1/2 mile
away.
> >Who is against the other side being heard?????? There goes free
> >speech.......
> >-JA
> >
>
> Bull****.
>
> The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
> try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.
>
REALITY CHECK
Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to be
SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????

> The protestors *get* their chance to speak, get on camera,
> etc, all they want, except there is no such thing as 'all they want',
> because what they want is to totally take over everything, disrupt
> everything, and silence anyone they disagree with, including the
> leaders who were elected by the people under the American system.
>

All they want is for thier objections to Bushes policies to be seen by the
president!

> 'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
> up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
> time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.
>

No but free speech DOES mean that you should be able to display your
anti-bush sign as openly and freely ON PUBLIC STREETS as someone who has a
pro-bush sign. And GWB is banning them from doing it!
But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.

[Edward M. Kennedy]

"ScottW" > wrote

> > The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US market
> > but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are people going to start
> > taking this seriously?
>
> When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
> energy efficient vehicle.

In a few hundred years, when crude oil runs out.
At about $40/barrel, shale to oil becomes economical.
Look at the technological increase between 1800
and 2000, and quit yer whining.

--Ted

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:39:56 GMT, "John Anderson"
> wrote:

>> The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
>> try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.
>>
>REALITY CHECK
>Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
>president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to be
>SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????

Exactly. Yes it is !!!! No question about it !!!

It means 'they are allowed to speak, and so is he', and it
means 'they are not allowed to force their way in and shut him down'
and it means 'they are not allowed to take away *his* right to speak'.

You really don't understand it at all, do you ? Free speech
does not mean 'the right to barge in and take over and shut everyone
else up'.

>All they want is for thier objections to Bushes policies to be seen by the
>president!

That's a lie ! What they want is to take over the
Presidential podium and kick everyone else off it.

>No but free speech DOES mean that you should be able to display your
>anti-bush sign as openly and freely ON PUBLIC STREETS as someone who has a
>pro-bush sign. And GWB is banning them from doing it!

Bull****. They do it each and every day, it's on the news
every night. They will continue, and that is their right.

>But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.

Only because it's not.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[John Anderson]

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:39:56 GMT, "John Anderson"
> > wrote:
>
> >> The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
> >> try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.
> >>
> >REALITY CHECK
> >Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
> >president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to
be
> >SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????
>
> Exactly. Yes it is !!!! No question about it !!!
>
> It means 'they are allowed to speak, and so is he', and it
> means 'they are not allowed to force their way in and shut him down'

IT means if they don't agree with the president or like him, they have no
right to express thier opinion !

> and it means 'they are not allowed to take away *his* right to speak'.
>
> You really don't understand it at all, do you ? Free speech
> does not mean 'the right to barge in and take over and shut everyone
> else up'.
>

You really don't get it do you. People have been arrested for peacefully
carrying protest signs when the person right next to them had a pro bush
sign. For no other reason than the president did not like his message

This guy was arrested for not being in the bush assigned "free speech zone".
NOT for barging in, not for shouting anyone down - BUT BECAUSE GWB DOES NOT
LIKE HIS MESSAGE !!!!


Jun 19th 2003 | COLUMBIA, SOUTH CAROLINA=20
>From The Economist print edition

The Justice Department doesn't seem to know when to stop=20

BRETT BURSEY will be back in court again, fighting the forces of
reaction, on June 24th. The veteran protester was arrested last October
for trespassing at the Columbia Metropolitan Airport as he held a sign
("No War for Oil") while waiting for George Bush to arrive.=20

This was not a new experience for him. Thirty-three years earlier, at
almost the same spot, Mr Bursey was tossed in the paddy wagon for holding
a sign that criticised another war (Vietnam) while waiting for another
Republican president (Richard Nixon) to show up.=20

The 1969 case against Mr Bursey was dropped when the South Carolina
Supreme Court ruled that anti-war demonstrators could not be charged with
trespassing if they were on public property. Shortly after his most
recent arrest, the trespassing charge against Mr Bursey was also dropped.
But in March the local US attorney, Strom Thurmond junior, suddenly
brought federal charges against Mr Bursey under a little-known law that
allows the Secret Service to restrict access to areas the president is
visiting.

Mr Bursey's trial will take place in the new courthouse in Columbia,
named after the now 100-year-old Strom Thurmond senior (who, as it
happens, helped his son get his current job). If convicted, Mr Bursey,
who is 54, faces six months in jail and a $5,000 fine. Yet a growing
number of liberal sorts seem to think that the real issue is the
intolerance of John Ashcroft's Justice Department=F3and, in particular, its
intention to start using the rare Secret Service law to get rid of
protesters.

Last month, 11 members of Congress, including one Republican and several
members of the House Judiciary and Homeland Security committees, sent a
letter to Mr Ashcroft urging him to drop charges against Mr Bursey. They
insisted that "no plausible argument can be made that Mr Bursey was
threatening the president by holding a sign which the president found
politically offensive."

Indeed, it is extremely hard to see why Mr Thurmond has picked on Mr
Bursey out of all the people in the Secret Service zone. None of the
other protesters with him was arrested. Neither were any of the several
hundred supporters of the president who were holding equally dangerous
(but pro-Bush) signs as they stood near the hangar where the president
was to speak.

The prosecutors say that Mr Bursey was not in a special "free-speech
zone" that was set up for protesters half a mile from the hangar. The
pro-Bush people did not need to be there because they were not
protesting. Mr Bursey told the cops, defiantly, that he was under the
impression that the whole of America was a free-speech zone.

Bill Nettles, Mr Bursey's lawyer, claims that the case is being driven
not by the young Mr Thurmond but by higher-ups in Washington, who want a
new way to stifle dissent. "This is the type of small-brained decision
that could only have been made by bureaucrats inside the Beltway," says
the lanky Mr Nettles. Mr Thurmond's office declines to discuss the case.
A spokesman says the office is aware of the letter from the 11
congressmen, but "unless we get a directive from Attorney-General
Ashcroft's office [telling us to drop or settle the case], we shall
proceed."

Mr Bursey's supporters note that Mr Ashcroft's men have decided to test
their anti-protester law in a conservative stronghold, where the armed
forces tend to be viewed more generously than elderly hippies and where
the case will be heard by a judge without a jury. It is easy to see how
Mr Ashcroft might not warm to Mr Bursey, who heads a "progressive
network" of liberal organisations, used to edit an alternative newspaper,
and has organised protests against, among other things, American war
policy, nuclear power, racism and the Confederate flag.

In his various causes, both noble and foolish, Mr Bursey has been
arrested dozens of times. Three decades ago he spent nearly two years in
prison for spraying anti-war slogans on government property during the
Vietnam war. Whether he deserves to go to prison next week for waving a
sign is another matter entirely.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 21:49:01 GMT, "John Anderson"
> wrote:

>
> wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 20:39:56 GMT, "John Anderson"
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >> The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
>> >> try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.
>> >>
>> >REALITY CHECK
>> >Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
>> >president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to
>be
>> >SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????
>>
>> Exactly. Yes it is !!!! No question about it !!!
>>
>> It means 'they are allowed to speak, and so is he', and it
>> means 'they are not allowed to force their way in and shut him down'
>
>IT means if they don't agree with the president or like him, they have no
>right to express thier opinion !

Complete lie, and you know it.

I snipped the rest of your lies, too. You're welcome.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Matt Pillsbury]

"Edward M. Kennedy" > writes:

> "ScottW" > wrote

> > > The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US
> > > market but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are people
> > > going to start taking this seriously?

> > When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
> > energy efficient vehicle.

> In a few hundred years, when crude oil runs out.
> At about $40/barrel, shale to oil becomes economical.

If converting shale to oil is economical, getting a high efficiency
is also economical.
[...]
--
Matt Pillsbury "Your actions speak so loud I can't
hear a word you're saying."
--BR, "I Want to Conquer the World"

[John Anderson]

> wrote in message

> >IT means if they don't agree with the president or like him, they have no
> >right to express thier opinion !
>
> Complete lie, and you know it.
>
> I snipped the rest of your lies, too. You're welcome.

There are none so blind as those who refuse to see......

[George M. Middius]

John Anderson said:

> > I snipped the rest of your lies, too. You're welcome.
>
> There are none so blind as those who refuse to see......

Except Republicans. Oh, wait......

[pudentame]

John Anderson wrote:
> "Marie A." > wrote in message >
>
>>Sorry, sir, but your crowd is not against one side being heard, per
>>se, but against the other side being heard as well. It's now happening
>>and you people are mad as wet hens.
>>
>>Cordially, Marie
>
>
> One BIG difference, When Clinton was in office protesters were allowed INTO
> his speeches. With Bush they are banned to predefined areas 1/2 mile away.

They should be so lucky and get that close.

[Lawrence E. McKnight]

On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:41:43 GMT, Ed Foster
> wrote:

>In article >, The Ghost In
>The Machine > wrote:
>
>> In talk.abortion, Ed Foster
>> >
>> wrote
>> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:35:22 GMT
>> >:
>> > In article >, Ray Fischer
>> > > wrote:
>> >
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> > I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
>> >> >anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.
>> >>
>> >> You're tired of hearing the truth.
>> >>
>> >> Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.
>> >>
>> >> He doesn't bother you with the truth.
>> >
>> > Does any politician? Get serious! Do you believe Dean, or Kerry, or
>> > Lieberman tells the truth? Boy, you are naive.
>>
>> If you're arguing that we should vote in Bush just because everyone
>> else is a liar too...
>
>It's not.
>
>
>> As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
>> it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
>> (I'm not sure I really care.)
>>
>> Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
>> come up with a better answer at present either, although
>> Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for
>> our country, especially since Bush's tax plan seems
>> to be working,...
>
>
>Sort of an odd reaction to something that works.
>
>
>> ...despite its massive deficits and lack
>> of cost-cutting,
>
>
>I go along with you about the lack of cost-cutting.
>
>
>> to restart our economy; we're at the
>> forefront of what should be a nice recovery, although
>> joblessness is still a problem.
>
>Economists claim that job recovery always lags business recovery.
>Businesses like to be sure that the economy really is on an upswing
>before they commit to taking on more workers.
>
>
>> This strongly suggests Bush will be reelected in 2004,
>> possibly by a landslide if the economy gets strong enough
>> by midyear.
>
>
>As Clinton said "it's the economy".
>
>> If Bush gets back in by a sufficient margin
>> he'll interpret it as a vindication of most, if not all,
>> of his policies -- including an abortion ban attempt.
>> Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
>> Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
>> grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
>> on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
>> Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.
>>
>> Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
>> We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
>> We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
>> him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
>> the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
>> We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
>> short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
>> We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.
>
>
>You left out the biggest disaster, LBJ.

Yep. LBJ thought he could have a major military action and not raise
taxes to pay for it. Bush didn't do that. He cut taxes.

-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email

[Bill]

In article >,
"John Anderson" > writes:
> wrote in message
...
>> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 15:51:24 GMT, "John Anderson"
>> > wrote:
snipages
>> >Who is against the other side being heard?????? There goes free
>> >speech.......
>> >-JA
>> >
>> Bull****.
>>
>> The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
>> try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.
>>
>REALITY CHECK
>Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
>president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to be
>SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????

I think you are confused, John. Protestors have the right
to their free speech, but no a right to be heard. They
also have the right to petition for change, but they's rather
rally and shout. Waste of time, IMO.

>> The protestors *get* their chance to speak, get on camera,
>> etc, all they want, except there is no such thing as 'all they want',
>> because what they want is to totally take over everything, disrupt
>> everything, and silence anyone they disagree with, including the
>> leaders who were elected by the people under the American system.
>
>All they want is for thier objections to Bushes policies to be seen by the
>president!

Then petition and send it in! All they *need* is some
reporters anyway. He'll get their message.

>> 'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
>> up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
>> time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.
>
>No but free speech DOES mean that you should be able to display your
>anti-bush sign as openly and freely ON PUBLIC STREETS as someone who has a
>pro-bush sign. And GWB is banning them from doing it!
>But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.

For safty sake, large groups of people, either protestors
or tourists, are kept at a distance. That only makes
sense, John. Sheez...




rm -rf X's 'n i's 4 repleyes

[Arny Krueger]

<bIX XXcoop@unii ix.sas.com (Bill)> wrote in message

> In article >,
> "John Anderson" > writes:
>> > wrote in message

>>> 'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
>>> up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
>>> time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.

Point well taken.

>> No but free speech DOES mean that you should be able to display your
>> anti-bush sign as openly and freely ON PUBLIC STREETS as someone who
>> has a pro-bush sign.

I don't believe so.It's not that simple. For a practical eduction in this
matter, try showing up at a picket line in front of an auto plant with an
anti-strike banner. There are a number of legitimate exercises of police
power that restrict free speech in practical ways.

>>And GWB is banning them from doing it!
>> But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.

Civil rights and free speech means that at the end of the day, everybody has
a fair say. It does not mean that every public spot can be used for any
purpose at any time.

> For safety sake, large groups of people, either protestors
> or tourists, are kept at a distance. That only makes
> sense, John. Sheez...

Agreed.

[Edward M. Kennedy]

"Matt Pillsbury" > wrote:

> "Edward M. Kennedy" > writes:
>
> > "ScottW" > wrote
>
> > > > The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US
> > > > market but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are people
> > > > going to start taking this seriously?
>
> > > When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
> > > energy efficient vehicle.
>
> > In a few hundred years, when crude oil runs out.
> > At about $40/barrel, shale to oil becomes economical.
>
> If converting shale to oil is economical, getting a high efficiency
> is also economical.

Obviously. Market forces will push that invisible hand
wherever it is wont to go. I was just heading off any
sort of claim that we're running out of oil at an alarming
rate and there's no alternatives.

http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

Btw, I'll assume there was no disingenuous reason for
setting the followups to talk.abortion.

--Ted

[Matt Pillsbury]

"Edward M. Kennedy" > writes:

> "Matt Pillsbury" > wrote:

> > "Edward M. Kennedy" > writes:

> > > "ScottW" > wrote

> > > > > The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US
> > > > > market but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are
> > > > > people going to start taking this seriously?

> > > > When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
> > > > energy efficient vehicle.

> > > In a few hundred years, when crude oil runs out.
> > > At about $40/barrel, shale to oil becomes economical.

> > If converting shale to oil is economical, getting a high
> > efficiency is also economical.

> Obviously. Market forces will push that invisible hand wherever it
> is wont to go. I was just heading off any sort of claim that we're
> running out of oil at an alarming rate and there's no alternatives.

Well, oil exploration and imports both have costs associated with them
(drilling in wildlife preserves, continued involvement with the House
of Saud, and so on). Neither are purely governed by market concerns.

> http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/

> Btw, I'll assume there was no disingenuous reason for
> setting the followups to talk.abortion.

The newsgroup line makes no sense, and I'm reading in talk.abortion?

--
Matt Pillsbury "Your actions speak so loud I can't
hear a word you're saying."
--BR, "I Want to Conquer the World"

[Edward M. Kennedy]

"Matt Pillsbury" > wrote in message ...
> "Edward M. Kennedy" > writes:
>
> > "Matt Pillsbury" > wrote:
>
> > > "Edward M. Kennedy" > writes:
>
> > > > "ScottW" > wrote
>
> > > > > > The Big Four tried producing high efficiency cars for the US
> > > > > > market but the preference is for gas guzzlers. When are
> > > > > > people going to start taking this seriously?
>
> > > > > When the market (price of fuel) forces the consumer into an
> > > > > energy efficient vehicle.
>
> > > > In a few hundred years, when crude oil runs out.
> > > > At about $40/barrel, shale to oil becomes economical.
>
> > > If converting shale to oil is economical, getting a high
> > > efficiency is also economical.
>
> > Obviously. Market forces will push that invisible hand wherever it
> > is wont to go. I was just heading off any sort of claim that we're
> > running out of oil at an alarming rate and there's no alternatives.
>
> Well, oil exploration and imports both have costs associated with them
> (drilling in wildlife preserves, continued involvement with the House
> of Saud, and so on). Neither are purely governed by market concerns.

They are market concerns, but not purely *free*
market concerns.

> > http://www.discover.com/issues/may-03/features/featoil/
>
> > Btw, I'll assume there was no disingenuous reason for
> > setting the followups to talk.abortion.
>
> The newsgroup line makes no sense, and I'm reading in talk.abortion?

I'm not. Just be aware people often use that
tactic so that any refutation of their argument
will not be seen by the majority of the audience,
hence they get to "win" in those newsgroups.

--Ted

[John Anderson]

<bIX XXcoop@unii ix.sas.com (Bill)> wrote in message
...
>
> In article >,
..
> >
> >No but free speech DOES mean that you should be able to display your
> >anti-bush sign as openly and freely ON PUBLIC STREETS as someone who has
a
> >pro-bush sign. And GWB is banning them from doing it!
> >But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.
>
> For safty sake, large groups of people, either protestors
> or tourists, are kept at a distance. That only makes
> sense, John. Sheez...
>
>
>
But this is exactly the point. IF your sign says "I love GWB" you get a
front row seat to the motorcade. You are NOT "kept at a distance". If
your sign says something like "no war for oil" You are assigned a spot 1/2
mile away. Where not only can you not see the motorcade, neither the media
or GWB can see you.
That IS restricting your rights to free speech based on WHAT you have to
say.
- Sheez.....

[Arny Krueger]

"John Anderson" > wrote in message
. com

> But this is exactly the point. IF your sign says "I love GWB" you
> get a front row seat to the motorcade. You are NOT "kept at a
> distance". If your sign says something like "no war for oil" You
> are assigned a spot 1/2 mile away. Where not only can you not see
> the motorcade, neither the media or GWB can see you.
> That IS restricting your rights to free speech based on WHAT you have
> to say.

Your rights to free speech may be legally restricted, in any number of
different ways. Time to learn to live with it!

[Edward M. Kennedy]

"John Anderson" > wrote:

> But this is exactly the point. IF your sign says "I love GWB" you get a
> front row seat to the motorcade. You are NOT "kept at a distance". If
> your sign says something like "no war for oil" You are assigned a spot 1/2
> mile away. Where not only can you not see the motorcade, neither the media
> or GWB can see you.
> That IS restricting your rights to free speech based on WHAT you have to
> say.

I don't think you express your point any better than
that, so if they don't get it now, I wouldn't waste any
more time on 'em.

They also have a habit of arresting hecklers in the friendly
crowd. They usually just take you downtown and realease
you later, but it accomplishes what they want.

--Tedward

[Matt Pillsbury]

"Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote in message >...

> "Matt Pillsbury" > wrote in message ...

> > "Edward M. Kennedy" > writes:
[...]
> > > Obviously. Market forces will push that invisible hand wherever it
> > > is wont to go. I was just heading off any sort of claim that we're
> > > running out of oil at an alarming rate and there's no alternatives.

> > Well, oil exploration and imports both have costs associated with them
> > (drilling in wildlife preserves, continued involvement with the House
> > of Saud, and so on). Neither are purely governed by market concerns.

> They are market concerns, but not purely *free*
> market concerns.

I don't think I can argue with that.

I do think I can say that such a position doesn't neccessarily refute
(or support) a statement like, "People should drive high efficiency
vehicles," or even, "The government should subsidize high efficiency
vehicles or penalize low efficiency vehicles." It does give a useful
framework for discussing such a statement, though.
[...]
> > > Btw, I'll assume there was no disingenuous reason for
> > > setting the followups to talk.abortion.

> > The newsgroup line makes no sense, and I'm reading in talk.abortion?

> I'm not.

<nod> I usually just add my group to the line when I see a follow-up,
instead of perpetuating a cross-posting cluster****.

Horses for courses, I guess.

> Just be aware people often use that
> tactic so that any refutation of their argument
> will not be seen by the majority of the audience,
> hence they get to "win" in those newsgroups.

But that's a *very stupid* tactic.

--
Matt Pillsbury

[George M. Middius]

OD said:

> >> >Good thing he's allergic to drunks.
> >>
> >> That's what he says to you. He could be telling me the exact opposite!
> >
> >> METHYPHOBIA:
> >
> >If only it were that simple. Like you. :-)
>
> Hey.. that's nice!!

Thank you.

> If only I had multiple complexes. Like you. :-)

Multiple apartment complexes, I expect you mean. Tenants are a bore.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 00:09:28 +0000, G.S. Nail >
wrote:

>
>>You can always go cry in your beer, poor baby.
>
>Have you got any booze for t' baby?
>You can't give a baby booze!!

Unless you're a stewardess, in which case you can at least slip a
Valium in it's OJ :-)

>>(Far as oil goes, we have an ace in the hole - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.)
>
>You should flatten it, cover it in concrete, build a massive
>McDonald's on top.

It would still have the same amount of oil - but encased in
French Fries.


Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Edward M. Kennedy]

"Matt Pillsbury" > wrote in message
m...
> "Edward M. Kennedy" > wrote in message >...
>
> > "Matt Pillsbury" > wrote in message ...
>
> > > "Edward M. Kennedy" > writes:
> [...]
> > > > Obviously. Market forces will push that invisible hand wherever it
> > > > is wont to go. I was just heading off any sort of claim that we're
> > > > running out of oil at an alarming rate and there's no alternatives.
>
> > > Well, oil exploration and imports both have costs associated with them
> > > (drilling in wildlife preserves, continued involvement with the House
> > > of Saud, and so on). Neither are purely governed by market concerns.
>
> > They are market concerns, but not purely *free*
> > market concerns.
>
> I don't think I can argue with that.
>
> I do think I can say that such a position doesn't neccessarily refute
> (or support) a statement like, "People should drive high efficiency
> vehicles," or even, "The government should subsidize high efficiency
> vehicles or penalize low efficiency vehicles." It does give a useful
> framework for discussing such a statement, though.

Relative agreement....must resist the urge...to follow up...

The funny part is that they subsidize the production of
oil, fight wars and base foreign policy around oil, and
then tax the hell out of the finished product. Talking
about greasing the economy...

--Ted

[Ed Foster]

In article >, Lawrence E.
McKnight > wrote:

> On Mon, 08 Dec 2003 14:41:43 GMT, Ed Foster
> > wrote:
>
> >In article >, The Ghost In
> >The Machine > wrote:
> >
> >> In talk.abortion, Ed Foster
> >> >
> >> wrote
> >> on Sun, 07 Dec 2003 03:35:22 GMT
> >> >:
> >> > In article >, Ray Fischer
> >> > > wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> > wrote:
> >> >> > I've listened to all of the liberal DemocRat Anti-Bush
> >> >> >anti-America One-World-Run-By-The-UN rant that I care to hear.
> >> >>
> >> >> You're tired of hearing the truth.
> >> >>
> >> >> Which is, no doubt, why you like Bush.
> >> >>
> >> >> He doesn't bother you with the truth.
> >> >
> >> > Does any politician? Get serious! Do you believe Dean, or Kerry, or
> >> > Lieberman tells the truth? Boy, you are naive.
> >>
> >> If you're arguing that we should vote in Bush just because everyone
> >> else is a liar too...
> >
> >It's not.
> >
> >
> >> As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
> >> it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
> >> (I'm not sure I really care.)
> >>
> >> Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
> >> come up with a better answer at present either, although
> >> Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for
> >> our country, especially since Bush's tax plan seems
> >> to be working,...
> >
> >
> >Sort of an odd reaction to something that works.
> >
> >
> >> ...despite its massive deficits and lack
> >> of cost-cutting,
> >
> >
> >I go along with you about the lack of cost-cutting.
> >
> >
> >> to restart our economy; we're at the
> >> forefront of what should be a nice recovery, although
> >> joblessness is still a problem.
> >
> >Economists claim that job recovery always lags business recovery.
> >Businesses like to be sure that the economy really is on an upswing
> >before they commit to taking on more workers.
> >
> >
> >> This strongly suggests Bush will be reelected in 2004,
> >> possibly by a landslide if the economy gets strong enough
> >> by midyear.
> >
> >
> >As Clinton said "it's the economy".
> >
> >> If Bush gets back in by a sufficient margin
> >> he'll interpret it as a vindication of most, if not all,
> >> of his policies -- including an abortion ban attempt.
> >> Worse, he'll be able to appoint at least one, probably two,
> >> Supreme Court justices, and those justices will probably be
> >> grilled, not until lightly tender, but burnt to a crisp,
> >> on the question of whether they would vote to overturn
> >> Roe vs. Wade and other such decisions.
> >>
> >> Still, our country has survived bad policy before.
> >> We survived Harding, for example -- Teapot Dome and all.
> >> We survived Coolidge. (I'm not sure if one can blame
> >> him for the Great Depression, admittedly. Probably not;
> >> the Depression was caused by a multitude of factors.)
> >> We survived JFK, who apparently had a *very* corrupt (and
> >> short) administration, despite JFK's vision and charisma.
> >> We survived Nixon, Watergate and all.
> >
> >
> >You left out the biggest disaster, LBJ.
>
> Yep. LBJ thought he could have a major military action and not raise
> taxes to pay for it. Bush didn't do that. He cut taxes.


You really think the scale of Iraq and Viet Nam are at all close?

[Mike Webster]

Ed Foster > wrote in
:

> In article >, Lawrence
> E. McKnight > wrote:
>>
>> Yep. LBJ thought he could have a major military action and not
>> raise taxes to pay for it. Bush didn't do that. He cut taxes.
>
>
> You really think the scale of Iraq and Viet Nam are at all close?

If you're talking about the economics of it, yes, they are close.
Inflation-adjusted average per-month cost of Vietnam was $5.15 billion.
Monthly cost currently in Iraq is $4 billion.

http://poughkeepsiejournal.gannettonline.com/gns/iraq/20031017-
31512.shtml

http://www.commondreams.org/headlines03/0908-01.htm

The biggest difference is comparing the costs vs. percentage of GDP.
Vietnam was eating up to 12% of our GDP, Iraq is sitting at 0.5%.

Mike

[GeoSynch]

Dormer nibbled:

> >Jealous that British hegemony long ago faded, while that of the U. S. of A.
> >continues unabated and shall do so for the foreseeable future?

> Yes, very much so.

Someday, someone, somewhere *may* actually believe this ludicrously
transparent reverse psychology ploy of yours. :-)

> >You can always go cry in your beer, poor baby.

> Have you got any booze for t' baby?
> You can't give a baby booze!!

That ain't what your mama said when you'd caterwaul for hours on end.

> >(Far as oil goes, we have an ace in the hole - the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge.)

> You should flatten it, cover it in concrete, build a massive McDonald's on top.

Have we exported enough of them over there in merry olde?

What do you make of this British Medical Association report titled "Adolescent Health"?
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=36035


GeoSynch

[Ray Fischer]

> wrote:
> "John Anderson"

>>> The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
>>> try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.
>>>
>>REALITY CHECK
>>Protester ARE NOT ALLOWED WITHIN 1/2 MILE no way they can shout down the
>>president from there, much less barge in. They are not even allowed to be
>>SEEN by GWB. Is that your idea of free speech??????
>
> Exactly. Yes it is !!!! No question about it !!!

The freedom to speak only those positions you deem acceptable.

> It means 'they are allowed to speak, and so is he', and it
>means 'they are not allowed to force their way in and shut him down'
>and it means 'they are not allowed to take away *his* right to speak'.

Snicker. Some people are more free than others, it seems.

> You really don't understand it at all, do you ?

The United States is not a manarchy.

> Free speech
>does not mean 'the right to barge in and take over and shut everyone
>else up'.

Unless you're a Republican president.

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

> wrote:
> The Ghost In The Machine

>>As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
>>it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
>>(I'm not sure I really care.)
>
> Then you can't tell much. You're just letting your
>psychopathic hatred of all things Bush color everything you see.

Well, gee, there's an original neocon approach to debate.

>>Unfortunately, I'm not sure if the Democrats have yet to
>>come up with a better answer at present either, although
>>Dean is currently the front runner. I feel sorry for
>
> How about Dean sealing **ALL** records from his tenure in
>Vermont ?

How about Bush doing exactly the same, and for Reagan and his father as
well? How about the Bush administration being the most secretive in
recent history?

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

Ed Foster > wrote:
> wrote:
>> Ed Foster > wrote:
>> > Ray Fischer
>> >> > wrote:
>>
>> >> >>> In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
>> >> >>>' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.
>> >> >>
>> >> >>Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..
>> >> >
>> >> > Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)
>> >>
>> >> That explains why you're a stupid hypocrite.
>> >
>> >I love it. Underating your opponent is what why the DemocRATs let the
>> >GOP win in 2000 and 2002.
>>
>> Who'd ever thought that they'd stoop so low as to steal an election?
>
>Oh goodie another whiner. If enough DemocRATs believe they lost in

Are you _still_ whining?

Bush stole the election. Get over it.

--
Ray Fischer

[GeoSynch]

Ray sourgraped:

> Bush stole the election. Get over it.

Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

First, we fleeced Gore and this year we purloined the
California governership. Easier than taking candy from a baby.


GeoSynch

[Ray Fischer]

GeoSynch > wrote:
>Ray
>
>> Bush stole the election. Get over it.
>
>Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
>swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.

--
Ray Fischer

[GeoSynch]

Ray rationalized:

> >> Bush stole the election. Get over it.

> >Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
> >swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

> I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
> stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.

Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket!

We "stupid"ly stumbled and stole our way into the White House.

But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.

And after we've racked up a filibuster-proof Senate, we're going to
install a lot more Anthony Scalias and Clarence Thomases into the
judiciary and goosestep all you loony radical leftists into the secretly
prepared concentration camps for cultural re-education!


GeoSynch

[Ray Fischer]

GeoSynch > wrote:
>Ray rationalized:
>
>> >> Bush stole the election. Get over it.
>
>> >Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
>> >swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.
>
>> I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
>> stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.
>
>Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket!
>
>We "stupid"ly stumbled and stole our way into the White House.

No, you stupidly refuse to understand how Bush stole the election.

>But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.

Last I checked the US is still a democracy.

--
Ray Fischer

[GeoSynch]

Ray keeps reliving "Groundhog Day":

> >> >> Bush stole the election. Get over it.

> >> >Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
> >> >swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

> >> I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
> >> stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.

> >Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket!

> >We "stupid"ly stumbled and stole our way into the White House.

> No, you stupidly refuse to understand how Bush stole the election.

You're beginning to sound like a broken record.
Maybe if we just had one more recount.

> >But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.

> Last I checked the US is still a democracy.

Wrong again dweeb, it's a republic.
Didn't they teach you that in school?


GeoSynch

[Bill]

In article >,
"John Anderson" > writes:
><bIX XXcoop@unii ix.sas.com (Bill)> wrote in message
snips
>> >pro-bush sign. And GWB is banning them from doing it!
>> >But you fail to see this as trampling on civil rights.
>>
>> For safty sake, large groups of people, either protestors
>> or tourists, are kept at a distance. That only makes
>> sense, John. Sheez...
>>
>But this is exactly the point. IF your sign says "I love GWB" you get a
>front row seat to the motorcade. You are NOT "kept at a distance". If
>your sign says something like "no war for oil" You are assigned a spot 1/2
>mile away. Where not only can you not see the motorcade, neither the media
>or GWB can see you.
>That IS restricting your rights to free speech based on WHAT you have to
>say.
>- Sheez.....

Well, if that's true it would IMO be wrong, but I'd like
some cites to back it up, as I have not heard that. IF
it's true, it is a wrongful thing, but it would not change
my vote to one of the Democrat losers either. ;^))


rm X's 'n i's 4 rpleyes

[Tom Disque]

On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 10:58:41 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:

>GeoSynch > wrote:
>>Ray rationalized:
>>
>>> >> Bush stole the election. Get over it.
>>
>>> >Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
>>> >swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.
>>
>>> I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
>>> stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.

I agree. They *still* act as if the Democrats are the majority party.

>>Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket!
>>
>>We "stupid"ly stumbled and stole our way into the White House.
>
>No, you stupidly refuse to understand how Bush stole the election.

I don't understand why Gore didn't call for a statewide recount. Can
you explain why he went to the courts instead? I've heard the claim
that he couldn't expect to win a state controlled by a Republican
governor, but I find that hard to believe since both the Fllorida
house and senate were under Democrat control.

>>But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.
>
>Last I checked the US is still a democracy.

Last I checked, it was a representative republic.

[GeoSynch]

Tom Disque wrote:

> >>> >> Bush stole the election. Get over it.

> >>> >Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
> >>> >swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.

> >>> I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
> >>> stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.

> I agree. They *still* act as if the Democrats are the majority party.

They don't want to see Little Tommy Daschle throw another temper tantrum.

> >>Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket!

> >>We "stupid"ly stumbled and stole our way into the White House.

> >No, you stupidly refuse to understand how Bush stole the election.

> I don't understand why Gore didn't call for a statewide recount. Can
> you explain why he went to the courts instead? I've heard the claim
> that he couldn't expect to win a state controlled by a Republican
> governor, but I find that hard to believe since both the Fllorida
> house and senate were under Democrat control.

> >>But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.

> >Last I checked the US is still a democracy.

> Last I checked, it was a representative republic.

Poor Ray seems to have gone strangely silent on this point.

Hey Ray, you remember this?

"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
and to the *republic* for which it stands, one nation under God,
indivisible, with justice and liberty for all."

And you may also remember one of this nation's founding fathers
having said to the effect that:
'Democracies are as short in their durations, as they are violent in their demise.'


GeoSynch

[Greg Bernath]

Tom Disque > wrote:
>I don't understand why Gore didn't call for a statewide recount.

He did ask for a statewide recount, the night of the election, on
national TV. The Bush team, headed by Katherine Harris, refused, even
though Florida law mandated a statewide recount.

>Can you explain why he went to the courts instead?

Because the Republicans wouldn't count many of the votes even once, as
they knew they'd lose if they did. Therefore, Gore sued to have them
counted. According to Florida law, he could only sue county by
country, not statewide. Having limited resources, he could only do
that in a few counties, and therefore picked the counties he thought
would give the best results.

>I've heard the claim
>that he couldn't expect to win a state controlled by a Republican
>governor, but I find that hard to believe since both the Fllorida
>house and senate were under Democrat control.

Gore took it by about 1500, regardless of how the chads were counted.
Overvotes with clear voter intent (punching the hole and writing the
same name) are legal votes under Florida law. If those votes had been
counted, Gore would have won. Bush deliberately stopped them from
being counted. That's election stealing.

Greg Bernath

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:21:52 GMT, Greg Bernath
> wrote:

>Tom Disque > wrote:
>>I don't understand why Gore didn't call for a statewide recount.
>
>He did ask for a statewide recount, the night of the election, on
>national TV. The Bush team, headed by Katherine Harris, refused, even
>though Florida law mandated a statewide recount.

Bull**** on both counts. Gore and his hundreds of lawyers
tried every trick in the book ( which all failed ) and quite a few
*out of the book*, which also failed.

They were accorded every option and facility under the law,
and for a brief time until the SC stepped in, even a few outside the
law.

>>Can you explain why he went to the courts instead?

Because he figured if he whined like a little baby long
enough, some judge would change the law after-the-fact to suit him,
just to get him to STFU. Almost worked, but not quite.

>Because the Republicans wouldn't count many of the votes even once, as
>they knew they'd lose if they did. Therefore, Gore sued to have them
>counted. According to Florida law, he could only sue county by
>country, not statewide. Having limited resources, he could only do
>that in a few counties, and therefore picked the counties he thought
>would give the best results.

'Limited resources' ?? The entire campaign warchest of the
DemocRat party, hundreds of lawyers flown in over night, is 'limited
resources' ?

That's about the funniest one yet !!!!

The thing he was limited in having was * actual facts*. A
pnoply of judges, from local to SC, told him that, and he *still*
doesn't believe it !!!

What he picked was those counties carefully calculated by him
and the hundreds working on it with him to give him the edge. At the
same time, they were working equally as hard, filing suit after suit,
to disallow absentee ballots from our military folks, because they
figured those votes were leaning Republican.

That was perhaps the most disgusting, the most unforgettable
part of it - Gore & Co screaming 'count all the votes ! Except the
ones from our men and women in the Armed Forces !

>>I've heard the claim
>>that he couldn't expect to win a state controlled by a Republican
>>governor, but I find that hard to believe since both the Fllorida
>>house and senate were under Democrat control.

Not to mention the Florida SC !

>
>Gore took it by about 1500, regardless of how the chads were counted.
>Overvotes with clear voter intent (punching the hole and writing the
>same name) are legal votes under Florida law. If those votes had been
>counted, Gore would have won. Bush deliberately stopped them from
>being counted. That's election stealing.
>

That's bull****.

Let me explain something to you here - it's very simple -
neither Bush ( Prez or Gov ) nor the Bush campaign nor the political
parties got to decide anything. The law did that, judges did that,
and ultimately the Supreme Court did that.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Ray Fischer]

GeoSynch > wrote:
>Ray keeps reliving "Groundhog Day":

>> >> >> Bush stole the election. Get over it.
>
>> >> >Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
>> >> >swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.
>
>> >> I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed". In fact, the only people too
>> >> stupid to realize what happened are Republicans.
>
>> >Yeah, that's it - that's the ticket!
>
>> >We "stupid"ly stumbled and stole our way into the White House.
>
>> No, you stupidly refuse to understand how Bush stole the election.
>
>You're beginning to sound like a broken record.

You're sounding like a Republican: Stupid and uninterested in the
truth.

>> >But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.
>
>> Last I checked the US is still a democracy.
>
>Wrong again dweeb, it's a republic.

What kind of republic?

A democratic republic.

>Didn't they teach you that in school?

Evidently I managed to learn far more than did you.

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

GeoSynch > wrote:
>Tom Disque wrote:

>> >>But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.
>
>> >Last I checked the US is still a democracy.
>
>> Last I checked, it was a representative republic.
>
>Poor Ray seems to have gone strangely silent on this point.

You seem to be an idiot.

>Hey Ray, you remember this?

The United States is a democratic republic. Stating that it's a
"representative republic" is stupid because republics are, by
definition, representative.

>"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
>and to the *republic* for which it stands, one nation under God,
>indivisible, with justice and liberty for all."

And?

Do you even know what "democracy" means?

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

> wrote:
>On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:21:52 GMT, Greg Bernath
> wrote:
>
>>Tom Disque > wrote:
>>>I don't understand why Gore didn't call for a statewide recount.
>>
>>He did ask for a statewide recount, the night of the election, on
>>national TV. The Bush team, headed by Katherine Harris, refused, even
>>though Florida law mandated a statewide recount.
>
> Bull**** on both counts. Gore and his hundreds of lawyers
>tried every trick in the book ( which all failed ) and quite a few
>*out of the book*, which also failed.

Typica; Republican" You care more about your church than you care
about the truth.

> They were accorded every option and facility under the law,

Which is why they were denied a recount.

-----------------------------------------------

Here's an easy-to-read analysis of the Supreme Court decision
attributed to California attorney Mark Levine.

Q: I'm not a lawyer and I don't understand the recent Supreme Court
decision in Bush v. Gore. Can you explain it to me?
A: Sure. I'm a lawyer. I read it. It says Bush wins, even if Gore
got the most votes.

Q: But wait a second. The US Supreme Court has to give a reason,
right?
A: Right.

Q: So Bush wins because hand-counts are illegal?
A: Oh no. Six of the justices (two-thirds majority) believed the
hand-counts were legal and should be done.

Q: Oh. So the justices did not believe that the hand-counts would
find any legal ballots?
A. Nope. The five conservative justices clearly held (and all nine
justices agreed) "that punch card balloting machines can produce an
unfortunate number of ballots which are not punched in a clean,
complete way by the voter." So there are legal votes that should be
counted but can't be.

Q: Oh. Does this have something to do with states' rights? Don't
conservatives love that?
A: Yes. These five justices have held that the federal government
has no business telling a sovereign state university it can't steal
trade secrets just because such stealing is prohibited by law. Nor
does the federal government have any business telling a state that it
should bar guns in schools. Nor can the federal government use the
equal protection clause to force states to take measures to stop
violence against women.

Q: Is there an exception in this case?
A: Yes, the "Gore exception." States have no rights to control
their own state elections when it can result in Gore being elected
President. This decision is limited to only this situation.

Q: C'mon. The Supremes didn't really say that. You're exaggerating.
A: Nope. They held "Our consideration is limited to the present
circumstances, as the problem of equal protection in election
processes generally presents many complexities."

Q: What complexities?
A: They didn't say.

Q: I'll bet I know the reason. I heard Jim Baker say this. The
votes can't be counted because the Florida Supreme Court "changed the
rules of the election after it was held." Right?
A. Wrong. The US Supreme Court made clear that the Florida Supreme
Court did not change the rules of the election. But the US Supreme
Court found the failure of the Florida Court to change the rules was
wrong.

Q: Huh?
A: The Legislature declared that the only legal standard for
counting vote is "clear intent of the voter." The Florida Court was
condemned for not adopting a clearer standard.

Q: I thought the Florida Court was not allowed to change the
Legislature's law after the election.
A: Right.

Q: So what's the problem?
A: They should have. The US Supreme Court said the Florida Supreme
Court should have "adopt[ed] adequate statewide standards for
determining what is a legal vote."

Q: I thought only the Legislature could "adopt" new law.
A: Right.

Q: So if the Court had adopted new standards, I thought it would
have been overturned.
A: Right. You're catching on.

Q: If the Court had adopted new standards, it would have been
overturned for changing the rules. And if it didn't, it's overturned
for not changing the rules. That means that no matter what the
Florida Supreme Court did, legal votes could never be counted if they
would end up with a possible Gore victory.
A: Right. Next question.

Q: Wait, wait. I thought the problem was "equal protection," that
some counties counted votes differently from others. Isn't that a
problem?
A: It sure is. Across the nation, we vote in a hodgepodge of
systems. Some, like the optical-scanners in largely
Republican-leaning counties record 99.7% of the votes. Some, like
the punchcard systems in largely Democratic-leaning counties record
only 97% of the votes. So approximately 3% of Democratic votes are
thrown in the trash can.

Q: Aha! That's a severe equal-protection problem!!!
A: No it's not. The Supreme Court wasn't worried about the 3% of
Democratic ballots thrown in the trashcan in Florida. That
"complexity" was not a problem.

Q: Was it the butterfly ballots that violated Florida law and
tricked more than 20,000 Democrats to vote for Buchanan or Gore and
Buchanan?
A: Nope. The Supreme Court has no problem believing that Buchanan
got his highest, best support in a precinct consisting of a Jewish
old age home with Holocaust survivors, who apparently have changed
their mind about Hitler.

Q: Yikes. So what was the serious equal protection problem?
A: The problem was neither the butterfly ballot nor the 3% of
Democrats (largely African-American) disenfranchised. The problem is
that somewhat less than .005% of the ballots (100 to 300 votes) may
have been determined under slightly different standards because
judges sworn to uphold the law and doing their best to accomplish the
legislative mandate of "clear intent of the voter" may have a
slightly opinion about the voter's intent, even though a single judge
was overseeing the entire process to resolve any disputes.

Q: A single judge? I thought the standards were different. I
thought that was the whole point of the Supreme Court opinion.
A: Judge Terry Lewis, who received the case upon remand from the
Florida Supreme Court, had already ordered each of the counties to
fax him their standards so he could be sure they were uniform when
the US Supreme Court stopped him from counting the uncounted votes
(favoring Gore). Republican activists did their best to send junk
faxes to Lewis in order to prevent him from standardizing the process
in a way that could justify the vote counting. They succeeded.

Q: Hmmm. Well, even if those .005% of difficult-to-tell votes are
thrown out, you can still count the votes where everyone agrees the
voter's intent is clear, right?
A: Nope.

Q: Why not?
A: No time.


Q: I thought the Supreme Court said that the Constitution was more
important than speed.
A: It did. It said, "The press of time does not diminish the
constitutional concern. A desire for speed is not a general excuse
for ignoring equal protection guarantees."

Q: Well that makes sense. So there's time to count the votes when
the intent is clear and everyone is treated equally then. Right?
A: No. The Supreme Court won't allow it.

Q: But they just said that the constitution is more important than
time!
A: You forget. There is the "Gore exception."

Q: No time to count legal votes where everyone, even Republicans,
agree the intent is clear? Why not?
A: Because December 12 was yesterday.

Q: Is December 12 a deadline for counting votes?
A: No. January 6, 2001 is the deadline. In the Election of 1960,
Hawaii's votes weren't counted until January 4, 1961

Q: So why is December 12 important?
A: December 12 is a deadline by which Congress can't challenge the
results.

Q: What does the Congressional role have to do with the Supreme
Court?
A: Nothing.

Q: But I thought --
A: The Florida Supreme Court had earlier held it would like to
complete its work by December 12 to make things easier for Congress.
The United States Supreme Court is trying to "help" the Florid
Supreme Court out by forcing the Florida court to abide by a deadline
that everyone agrees is not binding.

Q: But I thought the Florida Court was going to just barely have the
votes counted by December 12.
A: They would have made it, but the five conservative justices
stopped the recount last Saturday.

Q: Why?
A: Justice Scalia said some of the counts may not be legal.

Q: So why not separate the votes into piles -- indentations for
Gore, hanging chads for Bush, votes that everyone agrees went to one
candidate or the other -- so that we know exactly how Florida voted
before determining who won? Then, if some ballots (say,
indentations) have to be thrown out, the American people will know
right away who won Florida?
A. Great idea! An intelligent, rational solution to a difficult
problem! The US Supreme Court rejected it. (Gore exception) They
held that such counts would likely to produce election results
showing Gore won and Gore's winning would cause "public acceptance"
and that would "cast[] a cloud" over Bush's "legitimacy" that would
harm "democratic stability."

Q: In other words, if America knows the truth that Gore won, they
won't accept the US Supreme Court overturning Gore's victory?
A: Yes.

Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? Or a political one?
A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American
law, this reason has no basis in law. But that didn't stop the five
conservatives from creating new law out of thin air.

Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.

Q: Well, if the December 12 deadline is not binding, why not count
the votes afterward?
A: The US Supreme Court, after admitting the December 12 deadline is
not binding, set December 12 as a binding deadline at 10 p.m. on
December 12.

Q: Didn't the US Supreme Court condemn the Florida Supreme Court for
arbitrarily setting a deadline?
A: Yes.

Q: But, but --
A: Not to worry. The US Supreme Court does not have to follow laws
it sets for other courts.

Q: So who caused Florida to miss the December 12 deadline?
A: The Bush lawyers who first went to court to stop the recount, the
rent-a-mob in Miami that got paid Florida vacations for intimidating
officials, and the US Supreme Court for stopping the recount

Q: So who is punished for this behavior?
A: Gore, of course.

Q: Tell me this, are Florida's election laws unconstitutional?
A: Yes, according to the Supreme Court.

Q: And the laws of 50 states that allow votes to be cast or counted
differently are unconstitutional?
A: Yes, according to the logic of the Supreme Court opinion. And 33
states have the same "clear intent of the voter" standard that the US
Supreme Court found was illegal in Florida.

Q: Then why aren't the results of 33 states thrown out?
A: Um. Because...um...the Supreme Court doesn't say...

Q: But if Florida's certification includes counts expressly
declared by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional, we don't
know who really won the election there, right?
A: Right. But a careful analysis by the Miami Herald shows Gore won
Florida by about 20,000 votes (excluding the butterfly ballot errors).

Q: So, what do we do, have a re-vote? Throw out the entire state?
count under a single uniform standard?
A: No. We just don't count the votes that favor Gore.

Q: That's completely bizarre! That sounds like rank political
favoritism! Did the justices have any financial interest in the case?
A: Scalia's two sons are both lawyers working for Bush. Thomas's
wife is collecting applications for people who want to work in the
Bush administration.

[This story appeared after the article was written]

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was upset during an
election-night party when she heard erroneous reports that Florida
had been won by Vice President Al Gore, exclaiming, ``this is
terrible,'' according to a report in Newsweek magazine released
Sunday.

Quoting two witnesses, Newsweek said O'Connor then
declared that meant the election was ``over'' because Gore
had also won two other key states.

O'Connor reportedly then walked off to get a plate of food, and her
husband, John, explained to friends and acquaintances that she was
upset because they wanted to retire to Arizona and a Gore presidency
meant they would have to wait another four years because she did not
want a Democrat to name her successor.


Q: Why didn't they recuse themselves?
A: If either had recused himself, the vote would be 4-4, and the
Florida Supreme Court decision allowing recounts would have been
affirmed.

Q: I can't believe the justices acted in such a blatantly political
way.
A: Read the opinions for yourself:
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/supremecourt/00-949_dec12.fdf
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/00pdf/00%2D949.pdf

Q: So what are the consequences of this?
A: The guy who got the most votes in the US and in Florida and under
our Constitution (Al Gore) will lose to America's second choice
(Bush) who won the all important 5-4 Supreme Court vote, which trumps
America's choice

Q: I thought in a democracy, the guy with the most votes wins.
A: True, in a democracy. But America in 2000 is no longer a
democracy. In America in 2000, the guy with the most US Supreme
Court votes wins.

Q: So what will happen to the Supreme Court when Bush becomes
President?
A: He will appoint more justices in the mode of Thomas and Scalia to
ensure that the will of the people is less and less respected. Soon
lawless justices may constitute 6-3 or even 7-2 on the court.

Q: Is there any way to stop this?
A: YES. No federal judge can be confirmed without a vote in the
Senate. It takes 60 votes to break a filibuster. If only 41 of the
50 Democratic Senators stand up to Bush and his Supremes and say that
they will not approve a single judge appointed by him until a
President can be democratically elected in 2004, the judicial reign
of terror can end...and one day we can hope to return to the rule of
law and the will of the people.

Q: What do I do now?
A: Email this to everyone you know, and write or call your Senator,
reminding him or her that Gore beat Bush by several hundred thousand
votes (three times Kennedy's margin over Nixon) and that you believe
that VOTERS rather than JUDGES should determine who wins an election
by counting every vote. And to protect our judiciary from
overturning the will of the people, you want them to confirm NO NEW
JUDGES APPOINTED BY A NON-DEMOCRATICALLY ELECTED PRESIDENT until 2004
when a president is finally chosen by the American people, instead of
Antonin Scalia.

Mark H. Levine
Attorney at Law

P.S.

Q: Isn't anyone on the US Supreme Court a rational follower of the
rule of law?
A: Yes. Read the four dissents. Excerpts below:

Justice John Paul Stevens (Republican appointed by Ford):
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of
the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the
loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge
as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."

Justice David Souter (Republican appointed by Bush):
"Before this Court stayed the effort to [manually recount the
ballots] the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get
that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the
opportunity to try to count all the disputed ballots now.

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
Chief Justice Rehnquist would "disrupt" Florida's "republican
regime." [In other words, democracy in Florida is imperiled.] The
court should not let its "untested prophecy" that counting votes is
"impractical" "decide the presidency of the United States."

Justice Steven Breyer (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
"There is no justification for the majority's remedy....We "risk a
self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the court, but
the nation."
--
Ray Fischer

[GeoSynch]

Ray sniffed:

> >> No, you stupidly refuse to understand how Bush stole the election.

> >You're beginning to sound like a broken record.

> You're sounding like a Republican: Stupid and uninterested in the truth.

There's few things more laughable than a liberal uttering the word "truth"!

"I did not have sex with ... that woman - Monica Lewinsky," Bubba
solemnly stated whilst wagging his finger for emphasis.

"It all depends on what the definition of the word 'is' is," he later deadpanned.

> >> >But you'd better get used to it, cause we ain't leaving anytime soon.

> >> Last I checked the US is still a democracy.

> >Wrong again dweeb, it's a republic.

> What kind of republic?

> A democratic republic.

Sorry, Ray, you can't wiggle out of this one, for a democracy - as you stated -
is not the same as a "democratic republic," now is it?

> >Didn't they teach you that in school?

> Evidently I managed to learn far more than did you.

You're quite free to so delude yourself. ;-)


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

Ray hissed:

> GeoSynch > wrote:

> >Tom Disque wrote:

> >> >Last I checked the US is still a democracy.

> >> Last I checked, it was a representative republic.

> >Poor Ray seems to have gone strangely silent on this point.

> You seem to be an idiot.

What do trapped liberals do when cornered like rats?
Why they resort to namecalling. How imaginative!

> >Hey Ray, you remember this?

> The United States is a democratic republic. Stating that it's a
> "representative republic" is stupid because republics are, by
> definition, representative.

See below.

> >"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
> >and to the *republic* for which it stands, one nation under God,
> >indivisible, with justice and liberty for all."

> And?

> Do you even know what "democracy" means?

You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
A republic is rule of government by law.
A democracy is rule of government by mob.

Got it?


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

I wrote:

> Ray hissed:

> > GeoSynch > wrote:

> > >Tom Disque wrote:

> > >> >Last I checked the US is still a democracy.

> > >> Last I checked, it was a representative republic.

> > >Poor Ray seems to have gone strangely silent on this point.

> > You seem to be an idiot.

> What do trapped liberals do when cornered like rats?
> Why they resort to namecalling. How imaginative!

> > >Hey Ray, you remember this?

> > The United States is a democratic republic. Stating that it's a
> > "representative republic" is stupid because republics are, by
> > definition, representative.

> See below.

> > >"I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America,
> > >and to the *republic* for which it stands, one nation under God,
> > >indivisible, with justice and liberty for all."

> > And?

> > Do you even know what "democracy" means?

> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
> A republic is rule of government by law.
> A democracy is rule of government by mob.

Whoops! I should have said:
A republic is government by rule of law.
A democracy is government by rule of mob.

There. That's much better.


GeoSynch

[Ed Foster]

In article >, Ray Fischer
> wrote:

> Ed Foster > wrote:
> > wrote:
> >> Ed Foster > wrote:
> >> > Ray Fischer
> >> >> > wrote:
> >>
> >> >> >>> In response to the typical hysterical monotone tunnel-visioned
> >> >> >>>' hate Bush, and hate America' crap that was presented.
> >> >> >>
> >> >> >>Hang on to the moral high ground, why dontcha..
> >> >> >
> >> >> > Easily accomplished, I'm a Republican :-)
> >> >>
> >> >> That explains why you're a stupid hypocrite.
> >> >
> >> >I love it. Underating your opponent is what why the DemocRATs let the
> >> >GOP win in 2000 and 2002.
> >>
> >> Who'd ever thought that they'd stoop so low as to steal an election?
> >
> >Oh goodie another whiner. If enough DemocRATs believe they lost in
>
> Are you _still_ whining?
>
> Bush stole the election.


I like it.


> Get over it.


Nothing to get over. Life is good.

[Ed Foster]

In article >, Ray Fischer
> wrote:

> GeoSynch > wrote:
> >Ray
> >
> >> Bush stole the election. Get over it.
> >
> >Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
> >swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.
>
> I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed".

You must have missed 2002. That was when the "people" were going to
take revenge on Republicans for "stealing" the 2000 Presidential
election. Some revenge.

[Ed Foster]

In article >, Ray Fischer
> wrote:

> > wrote:
> > The Ghost In The Machine
>
> >>As far as I can tell Bush makes Nixon look like a saint. Or perhaps
> >>it's his Administration, not Bush himself -- I'm not really sure.
> >>(I'm not sure I really care.)
> >
> > Then you can't tell much. You're just letting your
> >psychopathic hatred of all things Bush color everything you see.
>
> Well, gee, there's an original neocon approach to debate.


Yep, as original as your apporoach.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 02:44:47 GMT, Ed Foster
> wrote:

>In article >, Ray Fischer
> wrote:
>
>> GeoSynch > wrote:
>> >Ray
>> >
>> >> Bush stole the election. Get over it.
>> >
>> >Yes, us dastardly Republicans have perfected the fine art of
>> >swiping elections from dumbfounded, flummoxed Democrats.
>>
>> I don't see many Democrats "flummoxed".
>
>You must have missed 2002. That was when the "people" were going to
>take revenge on Republicans for "stealing" the 2000 Presidential
>election. Some revenge.

Oh, I don't know - they sure threw one hell of a hissy-fit. I
felt very chastised, personally :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Greg Bernath]

wrote:
>Greg > wrote:

>>He did ask for a statewide recount, the night of the election, on
>>national TV. The Bush team, headed by Katherine Harris, refused, even
>>though Florida law mandated a statewide recount.

>Bull**** on both counts.

As I watched Gore on the TV screen asking for a statewide recount, I'm
wondering what you're trying to accomplish with such a statement so at
odds with reality.

>Gore and his hundreds of lawyers
>tried every trick in the book ( which all failed ) and quite a few
>*out of the book*, which also failed.

Since they were trying to get all the legal votes counted, why is that
bad? If someone is a loyal American, they'd want to count all the
legal votes, even if it did make their candidate lose.

>They were accorded every option and facility under the law,

Except for actually counting all the legal votes, as Florida law
mandated.

>At the
>same time, they were working equally as hard, filing suit after suit,
>to disallow absentee ballots from our military folks, because they
>figured those votes were leaning Republican.

There were no suits filed to stop absentee ballots from getting
counted. There was never anything more than a memo that said to
examine all absentee ballots closely to make sure they're legal. Is
stopping forged ballots really a bad thing?

>That was perhaps the most disgusting, the most unforgettable
>part of it - Gore & Co screaming 'count all the votes ! Except the
>ones from our men and women in the Armed Forces !

Never happened. What did happen is that Republicans trashed military
votes with any irregularities in Democrat districts, while letting the
same irregularities pass in Republican districts. Sleazy as hell, to
tamper with the military vote like that. As a veteran, I take personal
offense.

Don't worry, I understand how you feel. In the words of one of our
greatest Americans, "I feel your pain." If I had stolen an election,
I'd want to cover it up too. But you need to practice and do a better
job of it.

Greg Bernath

[Tom Disque]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:15:02 GMT, Greg Bernath
wrote:

[snip]
>Never happened. What did happen is that Republicans trashed military
>votes with any irregularities in Democrat districts, while letting the
>same irregularities pass in Republican districts. Sleazy as hell, to
>tamper with the military vote like that. As a veteran, I take personal
>offense.

How did the Republicans gain the power to do this in a state so
thoroughly under Democrat control? Why did the Democrats allow it?

[snip]

>Greg Bernath

[Bill]

In article >,
Greg Bernath > writes:
wrote:
>>Greg > wrote:
snips
>>>The Bush team, headed by Katherine Harris, refused, even
>>>though Florida law mandated a statewide recount.
>
>>Bull**** on both counts.
>
>As I watched Gore on the TV screen asking for a statewide recount, I'm
>wondering what you're trying to accomplish with such a statement so at
>odds with reality.
snips
>>They were accorded every option and facility under the law,
>
>Except for actually counting all the legal votes, as Florida law
>mandated.

The problem involved the time it would take to manually recount
all the votes cast in FL. There is a legislated deadline and
recounting the millions of votes manually would have been
impossible. It is time for THAT law to change, but not during
an election. It must change BEFORE the election. I do not
know if it has or not. That was, AFAIK, part of the arguments
before the Supreme Court, which denied the FL Supremes' act
of effectively changing the law which mandates a FULL recount
and not spotty ones after the fact. Does that help clear it
up for ya? IOW, FL needs to change their re-count laws, if it has
not already done so, before the next election takes place OR
the same thing might happen again. However, 2004 looks to be a
landslide for President Bush. ;^))



Bill
rem X's 'n i's 4 rpleyes

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:15:02 GMT, Greg Bernath
> wrote:

>Don't worry, I understand how you feel. In the words of one of our
>greatest Americans, "I feel your pain." If I had stolen an election,
>I'd want to cover it up too. But you need to practice and do a better
>job of it.

Yeh, I feel terrible we won :-)

You really do seem to have your DemocRat fanatasy complete
down to the smallest detail. Congrats :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[dave weil]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:37:12 -0500, Tom Disque >
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:15:02 GMT, Greg Bernath
>wrote:
>
>[snip]
>>Never happened. What did happen is that Republicans trashed military
>>votes with any irregularities in Democrat districts, while letting the
>>same irregularities pass in Republican districts. Sleazy as hell, to
>>tamper with the military vote like that. As a veteran, I take personal
>>offense.
>
>How did the Republicans gain the power to do this in a state so
>thoroughly under Democrat control?

How do you figure that the state was "under Democratic control"? Who
was the governor at the time and who was appointed Secretary of State,
the person ultimately responsible for ruling on irregularities?

>Why did the Democrats allow it?

They didn't have a heck of a lot of choice, did they? After Harris
scrubbed over 55,000 "felons" from the rolls, many of them found to be
wrong (one county later found a 95% incorrect rate). Who's Harris, you
ask? She was Secretary of State, responsible for conducting the
election and certifying the results. Oh yeah, she was co-chair of
Bush's campaign in Florida. Yep, Jeb Bush was going to deliver Florida
to his brother at all costs.

As Mary-Louise Parker said in a West Wing episode, "How do you like
*them* apples"?

>>Greg Bernath

[Greg Bernath]

bIX (Bill) wrote:
>The problem involved the time it would take to manually recount
>all the votes cast in FL.There is a legislated deadline and
>recounting the millions of votes manually would have been
>impossible.

Yes, and Jan. 6 is that deadline. There was plenty of time to count.
However, the U.S Supreme Court arbitrarily declared the deadline was
Dec. 12, and thus there was no time to count, and the election was
over.

>That was, AFAIK, part of the arguments
>before the Supreme Court, which denied the FL Supremes' act
>of effectively changing the law which mandates a FULL recount
>and not spotty ones after the fact.

As the Florida Supreme court ordered that all the ballots be counted
under a uniform standard, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The
supreme court struck down Florida on the grounds that, since they were
going to implement a uniform standard, that constituted changing the
law after the fact. Had Florida not done that, the Supremes would have
struck them down on the grounds the rules weren't uniform. Catch-22.

Greg Bernath

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 16:13:27 GMT, Greg Bernath
> wrote:

>bIX (Bill) wrote:
>>The problem involved the time it would take to manually recount
>>all the votes cast in FL.There is a legislated deadline and
>>recounting the millions of votes manually would have been
>>impossible.
>
>Yes, and Jan. 6 is that deadline. There was plenty of time to count.
>However, the U.S Supreme Court arbitrarily declared the deadline was
>Dec. 12, and thus there was no time to count, and the election was
>over.

No, 1/6 was not 'the deadline for counting votes'. The
deadline was set very clearly by the State Legislature, and the SC
simply required that Florida follow their own laws, even though the
DemocRats and their DemocRat F-SC thought it would be nice to just
kind of improvise for the sake of changing the results to their
liking.

>
>>That was, AFAIK, part of the arguments
>>before the Supreme Court, which denied the FL Supremes' act
>>of effectively changing the law which mandates a FULL recount
>>and not spotty ones after the fact.
>
>As the Florida Supreme court ordered that all the ballots be counted
>under a uniform standard, I'm not sure what you're talking about. The

With various provisos, like an extension of the time period,
that were in direct violation of State law. Seeing as the
Constitution states that election law is set by the state
*legislatures*, not the state *courts*, this was illegal, and was
struck down as such by the SC.

>supreme court struck down Florida on the grounds that, since they were
>going to implement a uniform standard, that constituted changing the
>law after the fact. Had Florida not done that, the Supremes would have
>struck them down on the grounds the rules weren't uniform. Catch-22.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Tom Disque]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:44:51 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:37:12 -0500, Tom Disque >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:15:02 GMT, Greg Bernath
>>wrote:
>>
>>[snip]
>>>Never happened. What did happen is that Republicans trashed military
>>>votes with any irregularities in Democrat districts, while letting the
>>>same irregularities pass in Republican districts. Sleazy as hell, to
>>>tamper with the military vote like that. As a veteran, I take personal
>>>offense.
>>
>>How did the Republicans gain the power to do this in a state so
>>thoroughly under Democrat control?
>
>How do you figure that the state was "under Democratic control"? Who
>was the governor at the time and who was appointed Secretary of State,
>the person ultimately responsible for ruling on irregularities?

That's two people. The Democrats had (still have, I think) control of
the state house and senate, and every one of the Florida supreme court
justices was a Democrat. And that translates down to a whole lot of
people on the local level; i.e., a lot more Democrat vote counters
than Republican. So how did Republicans trash military votes, and why
did the Democrats, who outnumbered them, allow it?

>>Why did the Democrats allow it?
>
>They didn't have a heck of a lot of choice, did they? After Harris
>scrubbed over 55,000 "felons" from the rolls, many of them found to be
>wrong (one county later found a 95% incorrect rate).

Incorrect votes or incorrect scrubs? If incorrect scrubs, why did it
take so long to confirm?

>Who's Harris, you ask?

No, I don't ask. I know. Her name was all over the place back then.
The knee-jerkers started trashing her before she'd even opened her
mouth.

>She was Secretary of State, responsible for conducting the
>election and certifying the results.

And she certified the results, right?

>Oh yeah, she was co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida.

What should she have done, then? If she hadn't certified the results,
to whom would the responsibility have falled?

> Yep, Jeb Bush was going to deliver Florida to his brother at all costs.

He said that, eh? Cite?

And Bill Clinton referred to his wife as the 'co-president'. Did you
complain about that?

JFK appointed his brother to the office of attorney general, IIRC.
Did you complain about that?

>As Mary-Louise Parker said in a West Wing episode, "How do you like
>*them* apples"?

I've never watched it.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:18:36 -0500, Tom Disque >
wrote:

>>Who's Harris, you ask?
>
>No, I don't ask. I know. Her name was all over the place back then.
>The knee-jerkers started trashing her before she'd even opened her
>mouth.

And , being the Desperate DemocRats that they are, they
focused on attacking her makeup. Talk about 'bottom of the barrel'
attacks !!!!

>>Oh yeah, she was co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida.

And, under law, her options were exactly zero. None. She had
no choice but to follow Florida law, regardless of her personal
affiliation.

The Florida SC failed to understand their own obligations in
thie regard, and they were justly chastised and humiliated by the SC
of the United States for it.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[dave weil]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:11:00 GMT,
wrote:

>>>Who's Harris, you ask?
>>
>>No, I don't ask. I know. Her name was all over the place back then.
>>The knee-jerkers started trashing her before she'd even opened her
>>mouth.
>
> And , being the Desperate DemocRats that they are, they
>focused on attacking her makeup. Talk about 'bottom of the barrel'
>attacks !!!!
>
>>>Oh yeah, she was co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida.
>
> And, under law, her options were exactly zero. None. She had
>no choice but to follow Florida law, regardless of her personal
>affiliation.

Sorry, but it's not that simple. She purged some 55,000 voters, many
of which shouldn't have been purged. She used some pretty flaky means
to do it. So, no, she wasn't a passive observer but an active
participant.

There is *no way* that the Secretary of State responsible for the
election of a president in her state should have been allowed to be
the co-chair of one of the candidates. If it's not illegal, it should
be. She should have recused herself as soon as she took the position.
It was a clear conflict of interest. If she had been a Democrat on
Gore's payroll, the Right would be howling.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:37:08 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:11:00 GMT,
>wrote:
>
>>>>Who's Harris, you ask?
>>>
>>>No, I don't ask. I know. Her name was all over the place back then.
>>>The knee-jerkers started trashing her before she'd even opened her
>>>mouth.
>>
>> And , being the Desperate DemocRats that they are, they
>>focused on attacking her makeup. Talk about 'bottom of the barrel'
>>attacks !!!!
>>
>>>>Oh yeah, she was co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida.
>>
>> And, under law, her options were exactly zero. None. She had
>>no choice but to follow Florida law, regardless of her personal
>>affiliation.
>
>Sorry, but it's not that simple. She purged some 55,000 voters, many
>of which shouldn't have been purged. She used some pretty flaky means

Not according to any of the failed lawsuits gainst her.

>to do it. So, no, she wasn't a passive observer but an active
>participant.
>
>There is *no way* that the Secretary of State responsible for the
>election of a president in her state should have been allowed to be
>the co-chair of one of the candidates. If it's not illegal, it should
>be. She should have recused herself as soon as she took the position.

Bull****. Every holder of elected office has Party
affiliations. That's how they got there. They are *all* involved in
the election campaigns of their party.

>It was a clear conflict of interest. If she had been a Democrat on
>Gore's payroll, the Right would be howling.

Not really. We have guns :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[dave weil]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:18:36 -0500, Tom Disque >
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:44:51 -0600, dave weil >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:37:12 -0500, Tom Disque >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:15:02 GMT, Greg Bernath
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>[snip]
>>>>Never happened. What did happen is that Republicans trashed military
>>>>votes with any irregularities in Democrat districts, while letting the
>>>>same irregularities pass in Republican districts. Sleazy as hell, to
>>>>tamper with the military vote like that. As a veteran, I take personal
>>>>offense.
>>>
>>>How did the Republicans gain the power to do this in a state so
>>>thoroughly under Democrat control?
>>
>>How do you figure that the state was "under Democratic control"? Who
>>was the governor at the time and who was appointed Secretary of State,
>>the person ultimately responsible for ruling on irregularities?
>
>That's two people. The Democrats had (still have, I think) control of
>the state house and senate, and every one of the Florida supreme court
>justices was a Democrat.

That didn't seem to make a lot of difference though, did it? We all
know what their ruling was.

>And that translates down to a whole lot of
>people on the local level; i.e., a lot more Democrat vote counters
>than Republican. So how did Republicans trash military votes, and why
>did the Democrats, who outnumbered them, allow it?

I don't know whether or not they did that (irt military voters). I
didn't address that issue, only your contention that Florida was under
'Democratic control". It clearly wasn't.

>>>Why did the Democrats allow it?
>>
>>They didn't have a heck of a lot of choice, did they? After Harris
>>scrubbed over 55,000 "felons" from the rolls, many of them found to be
>>wrong (one county later found a 95% incorrect rate).
>
>Incorrect votes or incorrect scrubs?

Incorrect scrubs.

> If incorrect scrubs, why did it take so long to confirm?

Because it just did. The whole process was accelerated in order to
make the deadline for the election. I seem to remember that the
Supreme Court got in just under the wire (within hours of the
deadline). There wasn't really time to do a thorough review of all
irregularities.

>>Who's Harris, you ask?
>
>No, I don't ask. I know. Her name was all over the place back then.
>The knee-jerkers started trashing her before she'd even opened her
>mouth.
>
>>She was Secretary of State, responsible for conducting the
>>election and certifying the results.
>
>And she certified the results, right?

Oh, yes she did, all right.

>>Oh yeah, she was co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida.
>
>What should she have done, then? If she hadn't certified the results,
>to whom would the responsibility have falled?

She should have recused herself *or* not been co-chair of Bush's
campaign in Florida.

>> Yep, Jeb Bush was going to deliver Florida to his brother at all costs.
>
>He said that, eh? Cite?

Did I *say* that he said it? It was clear that the pressure was on for
him to deliver the state for his brother. And that was my commentary,
not a quote.

>And Bill Clinton referred to his wife as the 'co-president'. Did you
>complain about that?

If he had said it, no I wouldn't have complained. Do you have a cite,
or are you quoting Gail Sheehy or any number of right-wing web sites?
Because if it's the latter, I can find plenty of cites about "Bush
delivering Florida for his brother". The only problem is, they're all
second hand quotes. So, you'll have to show me a credible source for a
direct quote by Clinton on that.

>JFK appointed his brother to the office of attorney general, IIRC.
>Did you complain about that?

And how is that the same?

>>As Mary-Louise Parker said in a West Wing episode, "How do you like
>>*them* apples"?
>
>I've never watched it.

Of course you haven't. It's not on Fox.

[[email protected]]

Do you have opinion on my "Epilogue: The White House Paper and the
'Sins of the Fathers'" in this
http://www.helsinki.fi/~pjojala/Haeckelian_legacy.pdf
?

(A0-poster, 1.5 Mb)

[themaltesebippy]

Who gives a **** about a bunch of smelly overpaid rockers?

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On 12 Dec 2003 14:46:46 -0800,
(themaltesebippy) wrote:

>Who gives a **** about a bunch of smelly overpaid rockers?

Cher ? Pamela Anderson ? They both gave a **** to a bunch of
smelly overpaid rockers ....



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:09:24 +0000, Sang Li >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
>>try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.
>>
>> The protestors *get* their chance to speak, get on camera,
>>etc, all they want, except there is no such thing as 'all they want',
>>because what they want is to totally take over everything, disrupt
>>everything, and silence anyone they disagree with, including the
>>leaders who were elected by the people under the American system.
>>
>> 'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
>>up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
>>time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.
>
>Tell that to the cocksucking right wing hunting fraternity. They
>threaten to bring the country to a complete standstill with motorway
>blockades if their olde ways are outlawed.

What planet did you say you were from ? Why do you feel like
mentioning 'cocksucking' here ? Is it a hobby of yours ?

>If people want to protest, they should be able to protest. That
>doesn't mean flaunting the laws. The circumstances you describe should
>be policed out of the equation.

And they usually are. When they are not, you get a real ugly
scene on the evening news.

> Bush, however, effectively supressed
>the nations ability to freely express itself by using excessive
>measures to isolate his visit. He is aware that the British public
>don't "go with the flow" and that most of us think he's a total c**t.

Bull****. The main thing that was on the news was all the
protests, the big statue getting pulled down, all that crap. The
people on that side of the issue *more* than 'got heard'.

BTW, I'm glad to say that a few noisy teenagers farting in the
street don't represent the sentiments of the country.




Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 23:43:46 +0000, Sang Li >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>>>> 'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
>>>>up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
>>>>time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.
>>>
>>>Tell that to the cocksucking right wing hunting fraternity. They
>>>threaten to bring the country to a complete standstill with motorway
>>>blockades if their olde ways are outlawed.
>>
>> What planet did you say you were from ? Why do you feel like
>>mentioning 'cocksucking' here ? Is it a hobby of yours ?
>
>No, it's a fact. They are in actual fact cocksuckers.

Then I guess you taught them well.

>>> Bush, however, effectively supressed
>>>the nations ability to freely express itself by using excessive
>>>measures to isolate his visit. He is aware that the British public
>>>don't "go with the flow" and that most of us think he's a total c**t.
>>
>> Bull****. The main thing that was on the news was all the
>>protests, the big statue getting pulled down, all that crap. The
>>people on that side of the issue *more* than 'got heard'.
>
>Really? Gosh, I am pleased to hear. When you say "the big statue" are
>you referring to the excellent effigy of George W. Bush?

Was there another ?

>> BTW, I'm glad to say that a few noisy teenagers farting in the
>>street don't represent the sentiments of the country.
>
>Whatever that means!

It means you Brit faggots and your protests against the
greatest nation on Earth, the one that threw your sorry little asses
out over 200 years ago.





Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 01:58:49 +0000, Sang Li >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>>>> BTW, I'm glad to say that a few noisy teenagers farting in the
>>>>street don't represent the sentiments of the country.
>>>
>>>Whatever that means!
>>
>> It means you Brit faggots and your protests against the
>>greatest nation on Earth, the one that threw your sorry little asses
>>out over 200 years ago.
>
>ROTFLMFAO!!!!
>
>Go ahead - show your true colours PJ. Wear that flag with such pride!!

Damn right ! If you had one that was worth being proud of,
you would, too. But you don't. So sad.

>Congratulations on using the homophobic term "faggot", btw. Are you a
>50's throwback?

Hey, don't congratulate me, I only took my lead from your use
of 'cocksucker'.

BTW, I'm not scared of faggots and cocksuckers ( of the male
type ), I just think they're a bunch of perverts and I don't like
them. There's no 'phobia' involved.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 02:42:56 +0000, Sang Li >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>> BTW, I'm not scared of faggots and cocksuckers ( of the male
>>type ), I just think they're a bunch of perverts and I don't like
>>them. There's no 'phobia' involved.
>
>Aaah.. you're a closet homosexual!!

The only thing in my closet you get to suck on is a
12 gauge :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[GeoSynch]

dave weil wrote:

> [Kathleen Harris] purged some 55,000 voters, many
> of which shouldn't have been purged. She used some pretty flaky means
> to do it. So, no, she wasn't a passive observer but an active
> participant.

Dave, please substantiate this claim of yours.

Of those 55,000, how many were :
1. Convicted felons not entitled to vote?
2. Illegal aliens or non-citizens also not entitled to vote?
3. Out-of-state students trucked in to illegally vote?


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

The Limey pantywaist turned up her nose:

> >>> BTW, I'm not scared of faggots and cocksuckers ( of the male
> >>>type ), I just think they're a bunch of perverts and I don't like
> >>>them. There's no 'phobia' involved.

> >>Aaah.. you're a closet homosexual!!

> > The only thing in my closet you get to suck on is a
> >12 gauge :-)

> Urrh.. why are you suggesting "simulated" sex acts with me? Sod off,
> you dirty creep, and take your deeply ingrained homo-erotic imagery
> with you.

Back to fantasizing about Oscar Wilde for you then, eh Paula?


GeoSynch

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:19:45 +0000, Sang Li >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>>>> BTW, I'm not scared of faggots and cocksuckers ( of the male
>>>>type ), I just think they're a bunch of perverts and I don't like
>>>>them. There's no 'phobia' involved.
>>>
>>>Aaah.. you're a closet homosexual!!
>>
>> The only thing in my closet you get to suck on is a
>>12 gauge :-)
>
>Urrh.. why are you suggesting "simulated" sex acts with me? Sod off,
>you dirty creep, and take your deeply ingrained homo-erotic imagery
>with you.

If you can't figure out why I'd like you to suck on my 12
gauge, then come on over here and I'll show you :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[dave weil]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 03:18:55 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> [Kathleen Harris] purged some 55,000 voters, many
>> of which shouldn't have been purged. She used some pretty flaky means
>> to do it. So, no, she wasn't a passive observer but an active
>> participant.
>
>Dave, please substantiate this claim of yours.
>
>Of those 55,000, how many were :
>1. Convicted felons not entitled to vote?
>2. Illegal aliens or non-citizens also not entitled to vote?
>3. Out-of-state students trucked in to illegally vote?

See short recapsulation below:

It comes from Greg Palast...

>GeoSynch

http://www.wanttoknow.info/buzzsaw10pg

In the months leading up to the November [2000] balloting, Florida
Governor Jeb Bush and his secretary of state, Katherine Harris,
ordered local elections supervisors to purge 58,000 voters from
registries on the grounds they were felons not entitled to vote in
Florida. As it turns out, only a handful of these voters were felons.
The voters were [about 54%] African Americans, and most of the others
were white and Hispanic Democrats. Three weeks after the election,
this extraordinary news ran on page one of the country’s leading
paper. Unfortunately, it was in the wrong country: Britain. In the
USA, it was not covered. It was given big network TV coverage. But
again, it was on the wrong continent—on BBC TV, London. P. 65

The office of the governor [also] illegally ordered the removal of
felons from the voter rolls—real felons—but with the right to vote
under Florida law. As a result, 50,000 of these voters could not vote.
The fact that 90% of these voters were Democrats should have made it
news because this maneuver alone more than accounted for Bush’s
victory. P. 66

In February 2001, I took my BBC film crew to Florida, having unearthed
a page marked “secret” and “confidential” from the company the state
had hired to make up the list of names to purge from voter rolls. I
took my camera crew into an agreed interview with Jeb Bush’s director
of the Department of Elections. When I pulled out the confidential
sheet, Bush’s man ripped off the microphone and did the fifty-yard
dash, locking himself in his office, all in front of our cameras. It
was killer television and wowed the British viewers. We even ran a
confession from the company. Newsworthy for the USA? Apparently not.
P. 72

A group of well-placed sources told my BBC team that before Sept. 11th
the US government had turned away evidence of Saudi billionaires
funding bin Laden’s network. We got our hands on documents that backed
up the story that FBI and CIA investigations had been slowed by the
Clinton administration, then killed by Bush Jr.’s. The story made top
of the news—in Britain. In the US, one TV reporter picked up the
report. He was called, he says, by network chiefs, and told to go no
further. He didn’t. P. 75


http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/events/newsnight/1174115.stm

Here's a "Fox Style" video for you:

http://www.ericblumrich.com/gta.html

http://www.wanttoknow.info/mediacover-up

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43295-2001Jun8

http://www.whoseflorida.com/felon_voting_rights.htm

There are plenty more references, but they all stem from Palast's
investigative reporting. Let's not forget that the final vote count
was something like 140 votes more for Bush than Gore.

Could there have been some possible votes for Bush that were
miscoounted? Perhaps. Over 7,000 (being conservative)? Perhaps not.

Here's a fairly well documented source (including sources *other* than
Palast:

http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2001_09/20010909.html

Are these all "left-wing" sites? Well, yeah (if you include the
Washington Post and the BBC, which I know that you guys do). You're
certainly not going to hear about this on "fair and balanced" Fox.
However, coincidentally, I saw your guy Bernard Goldberg railing about
bias in the media on Fox this evening. Why am I not surprised? In
fact, if you hurry, you can catch it.

BTW, that guy Colmes? Frankly, I don't want him batting for *my* side.
Where they dug him up, I'll never know.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:02:21 +0000, Sang Li >
wrote:

wrote:
>
>>>>>> BTW, I'm not scared of faggots and cocksuckers ( of the male
>>>>>>type ), I just think they're a bunch of perverts and I don't like
>>>>>>them. There's no 'phobia' involved.
>>>>>
>>>>>Aaah.. you're a closet homosexual!!
>>>>
>>>> The only thing in my closet you get to suck on is a
>>>>12 gauge :-)
>>>
>>>Urrh.. why are you suggesting "simulated" sex acts with me? Sod off,
>>>you dirty creep, and take your deeply ingrained homo-erotic imagery
>>>with you.
>>
>> If you can't figure out why I'd like you to suck on my 12
>>gauge, then come on over here and I'll show you :-)
>
>No, it's clearly some sort of homosexual fantasy. You could have just
>threaten to shoot, but instead you talk of simulating a sex act by
>putting your gun in my mouth. Urgh!! You freak!! I do not play those
>games!! Come anywhere near me with that and I shoot you.

No you won't, your government confiscated all the guns ;-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Ed Foster]

In article >, Greg Bernath
> wrote:

> wrote:
> >Greg > wrote:
>
> >>He did ask for a statewide recount, the night of the election, on
> >>national TV. The Bush team, headed by Katherine Harris, refused, even
> >>though Florida law mandated a statewide recount.
>
> >Bull**** on both counts.
>
> As I watched Gore on the TV screen asking for a statewide recount, I'm
> wondering what you're trying to accomplish with such a statement so at
> odds with reality.
>
> >Gore and his hundreds of lawyers
> >tried every trick in the book ( which all failed ) and quite a few
> >*out of the book*, which also failed.
>
> Since they were trying to get all the legal votes counted,

Except for the absentee military ballots.

[Ed Foster]

In article >, Sang Li
> wrote:

> wrote:
>
> > The ones who are against free speech are the protestors who
> >try to barge in and prevent others, like Bush, from speaking.
> >
> > The protestors *get* their chance to speak, get on camera,
> >etc, all they want, except there is no such thing as 'all they want',
> >because what they want is to totally take over everything, disrupt
> >everything, and silence anyone they disagree with, including the
> >leaders who were elected by the people under the American system.
> >
> > 'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
> >up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
> >time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.
>
> Tell that to the cocksucking right wing hunting fraternity. They
> threaten to bring the country to a complete standstill with motorway
> blockades if their olde ways are outlawed.
>
> If people want to protest, they should be able to protest. That
> doesn't mean flaunting the laws. The circumstances you describe should
> be policed out of the equation. Bush, however, effectively supressed
> the nations ability to freely express itself...


Must be why you're expressing yourself now.

[Ed Foster]

In article >, Sang Li
> wrote:

> wrote:
>
> >>> 'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
> >>>up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
> >>>time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.
> >>
> >>Tell that to the cocksucking right wing hunting fraternity. They
> >>threaten to bring the country to a complete standstill with motorway
> >>blockades if their olde ways are outlawed.
> >
> > What planet did you say you were from ? Why do you feel like
> >mentioning 'cocksucking' here ? Is it a hobby of yours ?
>
> No, it's a fact. They are in actual fact cocksuckers.


You're thinking of Monica.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 04:47:04 GMT, Ed Foster
> wrote:

>In article >, Greg Bernath
> wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>> >Greg > wrote:
>>
>> >>He did ask for a statewide recount, the night of the election, on
>> >>national TV. The Bush team, headed by Katherine Harris, refused, even
>> >>though Florida law mandated a statewide recount.
>>
>> >Bull**** on both counts.
>>
>> As I watched Gore on the TV screen asking for a statewide recount, I'm
>> wondering what you're trying to accomplish with such a statement so at
>> odds with reality.
>>
>> >Gore and his hundreds of lawyers
>> >tried every trick in the book ( which all failed ) and quite a few
>> >*out of the book*, which also failed.
>>
>> Since they were trying to get all the legal votes counted,
>
>Except for the absentee military ballots.

There were some 1000 improperly thrown out because they didn't have a
postmark. No idea about what the percentage of them were Demo vs.
Repub, but it's fair to say that they weren't predominately Democrat
(although I don't know if there are actually any statistics about the
percentages that are typically one way or the other - just some vague
statements about how *everyone* knows that the military tends to vote
Republican). So, I would certainly give Bush credit for another 800
votes if you give Gore the some 7,000 votes from the purged lists. And
we aren't even taling about hanging chads and the like.

And yes, there were some ballots that didn't get to the deployed
troops in time. There are allegations that the Clinton administration
might have caused ballots to be delayed, which is think is patently
absurd. How could he possibly do something like that by using a
Pentagon that supposedly "votes Republican" without it getting out?

No, as they say in the military, **** happens, especially when you're
trying to get ballots to bombed ships like the Cole and troops in
Bosnia.

[Ray Fischer]

GeoSynch > wrote:
>Ray sniffed:
>
>> >> No, you stupidly refuse to understand how Bush stole the election.
>
>> >You're beginning to sound like a broken record.
>
>> You're sounding like a Republican: Stupid and uninterested in the truth.
>
>There's few things more laughable than a liberal uttering the word "truth"!

"But for those who say we haven't found the banned manufacturing
devices or banned weapons, they're wrong. We found them."

George W. Bush
May 30, 2003

"Simply stated, there is no doubt that Saddam Hussein
now has weapons of mass destruction."

Dick Cheney
Speech to VFW National Convention
August 26, 2002


"Right now, Iraq is expanding and improving facilities
that were used for the production of biological weapons."

George W. Bush
Speech to UN General Assembly
September 12, 2002


"We know for a fact that there are weapons there."

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
January 9, 2003


"Our intelligence officials estimate that Saddam Hussein
had the materials to produce as much as 500 tons of sarin,
mustard and VX nerve agent."

George W. Bush
State of the Union Address
January 28, 2003



"We have sources that tell us that Saddam Hussein recently
authorized Iraqi field commanders to use chemical weapons --
the very weapons the dictator tells us he does not have."

George W. Bush
Radio Address
February 8, 2003



"Intelligence gathered by this and other governments leaves no
doubt that the Iraq regime continues to possess and conceal some
of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

George W. Bush
Address to the Nation
March 17, 2003


"Well, there is no question that we have evidence and information
that Iraq has weapons of mass destruction, biological and chemical
articularly . . . all this will be made clear in the course of the
operation, for whatever duration it takes."

Ari Fleisher
Press Briefing
March 21, 2003


"There is no doubt that the regime of Saddam Hussein possesses
weapons of mass destruction. And . . . as this operation continues,
those weapons will be identified, found, along with the people who
have produced them and who guard them."

Gen. Tommy Franks
Press Conference
March 22, 2003


"I have no doubt we're going to find big stores of
weapons of mass destruction."


Defense Policy Board member Kenneth Adelman
Washington Post, p. A27
March 23, 2003


"One of our top objectives is to find and destroy the WMD.
There are a number of sites."

Pentagon Spokeswoman Victoria Clark
Press Briefing
March 22, 2003


"We know where they are. They're in the area around Tikrit
and Baghdad and east, west, south and north somewhat."

Donald Rumsfeld
ABC Interview
March 30, 2003


"But make no mistake -- as I said earlier -- we have high
confidence that they have weapons of mass destruction.
That is what this war was about and it is about.
And we have high confidence it will be found."

Ari Fleischer
Press Briefing
April 10, 2003


"We are learning more as we interrogate or have discussions
with Iraqi scientists and people within the Iraqi structure,
that perhaps he destroyed some, perhaps he dispersed some.
And so we will find them."

George W. Bush
NBC Interview
April 24, 2003

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

GeoSynch > hissed:
>Ray
>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>
>You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>A republic is rule of government by law.
>A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>
>Got it?

Yup, you're an idiot alright.

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

Tom Disque > wrote:
> dave weil >

>>How do you figure that the state was "under Democratic control"? Who
>>was the governor at the time and who was appointed Secretary of State,
>>the person ultimately responsible for ruling on irregularities?
>
>That's two people.

No kidding?!?

> The Democrats had (still have, I think) control of
>the state house and senate,

So what? It's the executive branch which runs the state. Republicans
Bush as governer and Harris as Secretary of State.

> and every one of the Florida supreme court
>justices was a Democrat.

Overruled by the US Supreme Court.

>>>Why did the Democrats allow it?
>>
>>They didn't have a heck of a lot of choice, did they? After Harris
>>scrubbed over 55,000 "felons" from the rolls, many of them found to be
>>wrong (one county later found a 95% incorrect rate).
>
>Incorrect votes or incorrect scrubs?

(rolls eyes).

Incorrect scrubs. Once you're removed from the rolls you don't get to
vote.

> If incorrect scrubs, why did it
>take so long to confirm?

They had to wait until after the election, didn't they?

>>She was Secretary of State, responsible for conducting the
>>election and certifying the results.
>
>And she certified the results, right?
>
>>Oh yeah, she was co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida.
>
>What should she have done, then?

Ensured that the election was legitimate?

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

> wrote:
> Greg Bernath
>>bIX (Bill) wrote:

>>>The problem involved the time it would take to manually recount
>>>all the votes cast in FL.There is a legislated deadline and
>>>recounting the millions of votes manually would have been
>>>impossible.
>>
>>Yes, and Jan. 6 is that deadline. There was plenty of time to count.
>>However, the U.S Supreme Court arbitrarily declared the deadline was
>>Dec. 12, and thus there was no time to count, and the election was
>>over.
>
> No, 1/6 was not 'the deadline for counting votes'. The
>deadline was set very clearly by the State Legislature, and the SC
>simply required that Florida follow their own laws,

Which is why they overruled Florida's law saying that the "clear
intent" of the voter was what should be counted. And why they stopped
the recounts mandated by Florida law. And why they overruled the
FLORIDA supreme court.

Obviously they didn't have much regard for Florida law.

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

dave weil > wrote:
> Ed Foster
>> Greg Bernath

>>> Since they were trying to get all the legal votes counted,
>>
>>Except for the absentee military ballots.
>
>There were some 1000 improperly thrown out because they didn't have a
>postmark.

So much for Florida law. If the laws of the state require postmarks
or signatures but the Republicans want them counted anyway, it's
obvious what's important and what's not.

And if 50,000 people are denied the right to vote by the Secretary of
State, that's too bad.

Law and democracy are not important to Republicans.

--
Ray Fischer

[Arny Krueger]

"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message

> GeoSynch > hissed:
>> Ray
>>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>>
>> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>> A republic is rule of government by law.
>> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>>
>> Got it?
>
> Yup, you're an idiot alright.

Do you think that the US is a democracy?

[GeoSynch]

Ray Fischer hoisted the white flag:

> >> Do you even know what "democracy" means?

> >You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
> >A republic is government by rule of law.
> >A democracy is government by rule of mob.

> >Got it?

> Yup, you're an idiot alright.

Namecalling, and nothing more, is the last refuge of a
cornered - and intellectually bankrupt - rat, homey.

I graciously accept your abject surrender on this matter.


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

dave weil wrote:

> >> [Kathleen Harris] purged some 55,000 voters, many
> >> of which shouldn't have been purged. She used some pretty flaky means
> >> to do it. So, no, she wasn't a passive observer but an active
> >> participant.

> >Dave, please substantiate this claim of yours.

> >Of those 55,000, how many were :
> >1. Convicted felons not entitled to vote?
> >2. Illegal aliens or non-citizens also not entitled to vote?
> >3. Out-of-state students trucked in to illegally vote?

> It comes from Greg Palast...

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43295-2001Jun8

Of all the sources you cite (and I didn't bother looking at the rest of
them) this is the only that would merit legitimacy. Liberal though it
may be, the Washington Post is credible enough just because it doesn't
peddle the type of journalistic fraud as does the New York Times.
See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=230

And the only number of substance within the article is an extrapolation -
and a qualified one at that - of Salon (a notoriously liberal website)
research, as quoted from that article:

"Researchers from Salon.com who investigated the lists in 13 Florida
counties found that at least 15 percent of the names should not have
been there."

"If Salon's 15 percent error figure is right ... almost 9,000 of the 58,000
names on the scrub list belonged to rightful voters."

That Palast is published in "The Nation" magazine tells you pretty much
all you need to know about him, claiming "tens of thousands of eligible
Florida voters were wrongly prevented from casting their ballots...":
http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2

> Could there have been some possible votes for Bush that were
> miscoounted? Perhaps. Over 7,000 (being conservative)? Perhaps not.

Sure, let's play the "what if" game here. As you remember, all three liberal
media TV stations prematurely called the state in favor of Al Gore, which
probably discouraged a sizable number of predominantly Republican
voters from even bothering going to vote in the panhandle section of Florida
which is in a different time zone and where the polling booths would have
been open an extra hour longer due to the time difference. Although it's a
matter of silly conjecture now, the discouraged potential Republican voters
would have more than offset the disenfranchised potential Democrat ones.

> Here's a fairly well documented source (including sources *other* than
> Palast:

> http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2001_09/20010909.html

Sorry, but the very last sentence obliterates any objectivity and, hence,
credibility of the author:

"...political scientist Deb Cupples and several others addressed the crowd
about the stolen election of 2000 and discussed plans for the 2002 elections."

> However, coincidentally, I saw your guy Bernard Goldberg railing about
> bias in the media on Fox this evening. Why am I not surprised? In
> fact, if you hurry, you can catch it.

If you'd been paying close attention, you would have heard Bernard almost
come right out and blurt that he himself is a liberal. That's right. A fair-minded,
decent and honest liberal, which there are so few of today. And to tell you the
truth, this worries me because a vibrant Democratic opposition party is needed
to keep any Republican excesses in check, but when liberals seem to be more
concerned with Guantamo detainees than with American citizens, the only thing
left to surmise is that the Democrats are hellbent towards entropy.

> BTW, that guy Colmes? Frankly, I don't want him batting for *my* side.
> Where they dug him up, I'll never know.

Well, he does like he crawled out from under a rock.


GeoSynch

[dave weil]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:32:02 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:

>dave weil > wrote:
>> Ed Foster
>>> Greg Bernath
>
>>>> Since they were trying to get all the legal votes counted,
>>>
>>>Except for the absentee military ballots.
>>
>>There were some 1000 improperly thrown out because they didn't have a
>>postmark.
>
>So much for Florida law. If the laws of the state require postmarks
>or signatures but the Republicans want them counted anyway, it's
>obvious what's important and what's not.

Let's get this straight. Florida law doesn't require postmarks from
military ballots (AFAIK).

>And if 50,000 people are denied the right to vote by the Secretary of
>State, that's too bad.

Also, I didn't claim that 50,000 were *improperly* denied the right to
vote. I'm claiming that probably at least 9,000 were improperly
scrubbed. It might have been more, and some sites have stretched the
figure to 95% of 58,000 but that's not what Palast said. He said that
one county found up to 95% of their scrub list was wrong. Salon did an
audit and found about a 15% irregularity and Palast accepts that as an
acceptable figure. That's still 9,000 or so votes, which is
significant enough to outweigh the 1000 or so ballots improperly
tossed.

<snip>

[dave weil]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 13:59:48 GMT, "GeoSynch"
> wrote:

>dave weil wrote:
>
>> >> [Kathleen Harris] purged some 55,000 voters, many
>> >> of which shouldn't have been purged. She used some pretty flaky means
>> >> to do it. So, no, she wasn't a passive observer but an active
>> >> participant.
>
>> >Dave, please substantiate this claim of yours.
>
>> >Of those 55,000, how many were :
>> >1. Convicted felons not entitled to vote?
>> >2. Illegal aliens or non-citizens also not entitled to vote?
>> >3. Out-of-state students trucked in to illegally vote?
>
>> It comes from Greg Palast...
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43295-2001Jun8
>
>Of all the sources you cite (and I didn't bother looking at the rest of
>them)

This is why I made sure that you understood that they were all based
on the Palast report.

> this is the only that would merit legitimacy. Liberal though it
>may be, the Washington Post is credible enough just because it doesn't
>peddle the type of journalistic fraud as does the New York Times.
>See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=230

I'm sorry, but I consider the BBC a credible course. I know that US
conservatives apparently don't, but that's nuts because it's not
subject to the same claims of "US liberal media bias". It has the
benefit of being a little more objective about the US, and
conservatives don't like it at all when they post stories that the
conservatives don't agree with.
>
>And the only number of substance within the article is an extrapolation -
>and a qualified one at that - of Salon (a notoriously liberal website)

Well, yes. I said that already. However, you don't think that you're
going to read about this on WorldNewsDaily, do you? Sure, they covered
the 1000 thrown out military ballots, but they don't take on Palast's
claims. Or maybe they do, I haven't searched. I assume that you will
do that. Maybe they can discredit him, not on the basis of his
"politics" (which I really don't know since I haven't researched him
personally), but on the basis of the "facts" that he presents.

>research, as quoted from that article:
>
>"Researchers from Salon.com who investigated the lists in 13 Florida
>counties found that at least 15 percent of the names should not have
>been there."
>
>"If Salon's 15 percent error figure is right ... almost 9,000 of the 58,000
>names on the scrub list belonged to rightful voters."
>
>That Palast is published in "The Nation" magazine tells you pretty much
>all you need to know about him, claiming "tens of thousands of eligible
>Florida voters were wrongly prevented from casting their ballots...":
>http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2

So, you're saying that if a guy writes for a liberal magazine, his
research is automatically invalidated? I don't think I've ever said
anything close to that when I've bashed the sites that you quote,
since those things were "opinion pieces" not "factual" pieces based on
hard evidence. In fact, I actually quoted WorldNewsDaily yesterday
myself, because they offered facts.

>> Could there have been some possible votes for Bush that were
>> miscoounted? Perhaps. Over 7,000 (being conservative)? Perhaps not.
>
>Sure, let's play the "what if" game here. As you remember, all three liberal
>media TV stations prematurely called the state in favor of Al Gore, which
>probably discouraged a sizable number of predominantly Republican
>voters from even bothering going to vote in the panhandle section of Florida
>which is in a different time zone and where the polling booths would have
>been open an extra hour longer due to the time difference. Although it's a
>matter of silly conjecture now, the discouraged potential Republican voters
>would have more than offset the disenfranchised potential Democrat ones.

I TOTALLY agree that the news blew that call big time (although I'd
argue that in point of fact, they didn't really). However, you can't
talk about "theoretical voters" and what they did or didn't do. And
even if you could, you don't know whether there were enough
"disenfranchised voters" from the Republican side (assuming that if
there were Repubs not voting, you would also have to assume some Demo
voters stayed home as well) to counterbalance the at least 6,000
uncounted votes for Gore (the conservative 7,000 figure minus the
1,000 incorrectly tossed military absentee votes).

However, it *was* a sin that news outlets announce winners so early, I
totally agree with that. To declare a winner with 7% of the precincts
in is folly. Hopefully, they've learned their lessons.

And let's face it, the election was called with only 10 minutes left
in the Panhandle. Do you *seriously* think that thousands and
thousands of last minute voters were suddenly convinced on their way
out the door to get to their polling places in time to vote that they
didn't need to bother?

Tht doesn't mean that it was right to make such a statement while the
polls were open. It was a bonehead screwup of the highest order.

>> Here's a fairly well documented source (including sources *other* than
>> Palast:
>
>> http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2001_09/20010909.html
>
>Sorry, but the very last sentence obliterates any objectivity and, hence,
>credibility of the author:
>
>"...political scientist Deb Cupples and several others addressed the crowd
>about the stolen election of 2000 and discussed plans for the 2002 elections."

You know, that's fine to point out unobjectivity, because I've done
the same for WorldNewsDaily, however, you can't argue with the facts
that are presented. They are documented pretty well. If you want to
say that suddenly objectivity matters, then you have to discount all
of *your* sources entirely. My point is that, unless challenged by
other facts, facts are facts.

>> However, coincidentally, I saw your guy Bernard Goldberg railing about
>> bias in the media on Fox this evening. Why am I not surprised? In
>> fact, if you hurry, you can catch it.
>
>If you'd been paying close attention, you would have heard Bernard almost
>come right out and blurt that he himself is a liberal.

I saw that he was being a bit disingenuous by making that implication
without saying so. Has he claimed to currently be a liberal in his
books?

>That's right. A fair-minded,
>decent and honest liberal, which there are so few of today.

He sure didn't sound like a liberal last night, his coy little teaser
notwithstanding. If a duck quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck,
unless it's a sick goose, of course.

And no, I didn't recognize him at all. of course, I tend to know more
about NBC or ABC than CBS, when it comes to news.

>And to tell you the
>truth, this worries me because a vibrant Democratic opposition party is needed
>to keep any Republican excesses in check, but when liberals seem to be more
>concerned with Guantamo detainees than with American citizens, the only thing
>left to surmise is that the Democrats are hellbent towards entropy.

Don't you understand that being concerned for detainees *is* being
concerned for American citizens?

>> BTW, that guy Colmes? Frankly, I don't want him batting for *my* side.
>> Where they dug him up, I'll never know.
>
>Well, he does like he crawled out from under a rock.

I assume you meant to write "looks". I'd also say "talks" as well,
from the little exposure I've had to him. Yep, Fox really pulled a
coup there.

[dave weil]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 08:43:03 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>>Sure, let's play the "what if" game here. As you remember, all three liberal
>>media TV stations prematurely called the state in favor of Al Gore, which
>>probably discouraged a sizable number of predominantly Republican
>>voters from even bothering going to vote in the panhandle section of Florida
>>which is in a different time zone and where the polling booths would have
>>been open an extra hour longer due to the time difference. Although it's a
>>matter of silly conjecture now, the discouraged potential Republican voters
>>would have more than offset the disenfranchised potential Democrat ones.
>
>I TOTALLY agree that the news blew that call big time (although I'd
>argue that in point of fact, they didn't really). However, you can't
>talk about "theoretical voters" and what they did or didn't do. And
>even if you could, you don't know whether there were enough
>"disenfranchised voters" from the Republican side (assuming that if
>there were Repubs not voting, you would also have to assume some Demo
>voters stayed home as well) to counterbalance the at least 6,000
>uncounted votes for Gore (the conservative 7,000 figure minus the
>1,000 incorrectly tossed military absentee votes).

I meant to point out that Fox was also guilty of this, although they
actually did it with 8 minutes left, instead of 10.

And this despite having George W's first cousin running Fox's Election
Night Desk. Of course, he made up for it later by being the first to
call Bush the winner of Florida at 2am after many consulting calls to
his other cousin Jeb.

[Cleopatra]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>
> > GeoSynch > hissed:
> >> Ray
> >>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
> >>
> >> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
> >> A republic is rule of government by law.
> >> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
> >>
> >> Got it?
> >
> > Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>
> Do you think that the US is a democracy?

Amy, most liberals don't think, and that's generally the problem. Most
of them don't understand how a democratic republic works, confusing
the democracy part with the representative part. Neither do most of
them understand how the three branches operate or their respective
functions. And those liberals who DO understand this, simply don't
give a **** and abandon principle when they have an axe to grind, as
in Roe v Wade.

They love the idea of *democracy* when it comes to the government
extorting more taxes for their socialist schemes. Nope, no problem
with the government interfering in our lives on that one! Forget about
peeking into the bedroom - most liberals will GIVE them our bedrooms
to fund more of their social programs.

OTOH, when they want to trample on the rights of states to legislate
their own business, then they forget about things like sovereignty and
democracy and go running to the courts. Cleopatra

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On 13 Dec 2003 11:05:27 -0800, (Cleopatra)
wrote:

>"Arny Krueger" > wrote in message >...
>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>
>> > GeoSynch > hissed:
>> >> Ray
>> >>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>> >>
>> >> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>> >> A republic is rule of government by law.
>> >> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>> >>
>> >> Got it?
>> >
>> > Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>>
>> Do you think that the US is a democracy?
>
>Amy, most liberals don't think, and that's generally the problem. Most
>of them don't understand how a democratic republic works, confusing
>the democracy part with the representative part. Neither do most of
>them understand how the three branches operate or their respective
>functions. And those liberals who DO understand this, simply don't
>give a **** and abandon principle when they have an axe to grind, as
>in Roe v Wade.
>
>They love the idea of *democracy* when it comes to the government
>extorting more taxes for their socialist schemes. Nope, no problem
>with the government interfering in our lives on that one! Forget about
>peeking into the bedroom - most liberals will GIVE them our bedrooms
>to fund more of their social programs.
>
>OTOH, when they want to trample on the rights of states to legislate
>their own business, then they forget about things like sovereignty and
>democracy and go running to the courts. Cleopatra


You can clasp my asp to your breast anytime ! :-)



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Ken Denny]

Ed Foster > wrote in news:121220032351000926%
:

> In article >, Sang Li
> > wrote:
>>
>> No, it's a fact. They are in actual fact cocksuckers.
>
>
> You're thinking of Monica.

Why did Monica switch parties and become a republican?

Because Democrats left a bad taste in her mouth.

--
Ken Denny
http://www.kendenny.com/

[Ray Fischer]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message

>> GeoSynch > hissed:
>>> Ray
>>>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>>>
>>> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>>> A republic is rule of government by law.
>>> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>>>
>>> Got it?
>>
>> Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>
>Do you think that the US is a democracy?

It is without a doubt.

Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

GeoSynch > wrote:
>Ray Fischer hoisted the white flag:
>
>> >> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>
>> >You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>> >A republic is government by rule of law.
>> >A democracy is government by rule of mob.
>
>> >Got it?
>
>> Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>
>Namecalling, and nothing more, is the last refuge of a
>cornered -

You couldn't even answer the simple question:

Do you even know what "democracy" means?

That's why you're an idiot. Too stupid to know what it is and
too stupid to even look up the meaning of the word.

--
Ray Fischer

[Ray Fischer]

GeoSynch > wrote:
>dave weil wrote:

>> >Of those 55,000, how many were :
>> >1. Convicted felons not entitled to vote?
>> >2. Illegal aliens or non-citizens also not entitled to vote?
>> >3. Out-of-state students trucked in to illegally vote?
>
>> It comes from Greg Palast...
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43295-2001Jun8
>
>Of all the sources you cite (and I didn't bother looking at the rest of
>them) this is the only that would merit legitimacy. Liberal though it
>may be, the Washington Post is credible enough just because it doesn't
>peddle the type of journalistic fraud as does the New York Times.
>See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=230

ROFL! What an idiot! Whines about the New York times and then cites
the "WorldNetDaily"!!

More evidence that one has to be stupid in order to be Republican.

--
Ray Fischer

[George M. Middius]

Ray Fischer said to ****-for-Brains:

> >Do you think that the US is a democracy?

> It is without a doubt.
> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?

Apparently you're not familiar with the Krooborg. It didn't actually
claim the U.S. is *not* a democracy. It is merely trolling for
something to argue with. Its tactic is to provoke you into a Yes or
No answer, which it can then argue with as being not completely true
or not completely false. As long as you argue with it, it will
accumulate undeserved quantities of umbrage, eventually accusing you
of conspiring with its legions of enemies. That will most likely
anger you, and you will call it names, insult its character, or
otherwise give it a dose of what it deserves. Then the Beast will
reel out its "I'm such a victim" card and go whining to other people
about your "unprovoked attack". Thereafter, if it ever encounters
one of your posts again, it will unloose a blast of nastiness at
you. Presumably, you'll then realize you're dealing with a mentally
defective nerd whose entire life is on the Internet.

I know all this because the pattern has been played out dozens of
times before, if not hundreds of times. My advice is to ignore
****-for-Brains and don't get sucked into its antihuman circle of
self-loathing and acid spew of vengefulness.

[GeoSynch]

Ray Fischer keeps floundering in the dark:

> >> >> Do you even know what "democracy" means?

> >> >You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
> >> >A republic is government by rule of law.
> >> >A democracy is government by rule of mob.

> >> >Got it?

> >> Yup, you're an idiot alright.

> >Namecalling, and nothing more, is the last refuge of a
> >cornered -

> You couldn't even answer the simple question:

> Do you even know what "democracy" means?

> That's why you're an idiot. Too stupid to know what it is and
> too stupid to even look up the meaning of the word.

Sorry, slick, but you're the one who's mentally-challenged, because
my definition of a "democracy" is both accurate and succinct.


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

dave weil wrote:

> >> >> [Kathleen Harris] purged some 55,000 voters, many
> >> >> of which shouldn't have been purged. She used some pretty flaky means
> >> >> to do it. So, no, she wasn't a passive observer but an active
> >> >> participant.

> >> >Dave, please substantiate this claim of yours.

> >> >Of those 55,000, how many were :
> >> >1. Convicted felons not entitled to vote?
> >> >2. Illegal aliens or non-citizens also not entitled to vote?
> >> >3. Out-of-state students trucked in to illegally vote?

> >> It comes from Greg Palast...

> >> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn/A43295-2001Jun8

> >Of all the sources you cite (and I didn't bother looking at the rest of
> >them)

> This is why I made sure that you understood that they were all based
> on the Palast report.

Yes, I realized that, but I also know that the Washington Post would be
less likely to allow any egregious claims to slip in the story unnoticed

> > this is the only that would merit legitimacy. Liberal though it
> >may be, the Washington Post is credible enough just because it doesn't
> >peddle the type of journalistic fraud as does the New York Times.
> >See http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=230

> I'm sorry, but I consider the BBC a credible course. I know that US
> conservatives apparently don't, but that's nuts because it's not
> subject to the same claims of "US liberal media bias". It has the
> benefit of being a little more objective about the US, and
> conservatives don't like it at all when they post stories that the
> conservatives don't agree with.

But Palast writes for the London Observer, which is owned by the Guardian,
which has been decried as the most liberal rag in England.

> >And the only number of substance within the article is an extrapolation -
> >and a qualified one at that - of Salon (a notoriously liberal website)

> Well, yes. I said that already. However, you don't think that you're
> going to read about this on WorldNewsDaily, do you? Sure, they covered
> the 1000 thrown out military ballots, but they don't take on Palast's
> claims. Or maybe they do, I haven't searched. I assume that you will
> do that. Maybe they can discredit him, not on the basis of his
> "politics" (which I really don't know since I haven't researched him
> personally), but on the basis of the "facts" that he presents.

No mention of Palast searching http://www.worldnetdaily.com/search.asp

> >research, as quoted from that article:

> >"Researchers from Salon.com who investigated the lists in 13 Florida
> >counties found that at least 15 percent of the names should not have
> >been there."

> >"If Salon's 15 percent error figure is right ... almost 9,000 of the 58,000
> >names on the scrub list belonged to rightful voters."

> >That Palast is published in "The Nation" magazine tells you pretty much
> >all you need to know about him, claiming "tens of thousands of eligible
> >Florida voters were wrongly prevented from casting their ballots...":
> >http://www.gregpalast.com/detail.cfm?artid=27&row=2

> So, you're saying that if a guy writes for a liberal magazine, his
> research is automatically invalidated? I don't think I've ever said
> anything close to that when I've bashed the sites that you quote,
> since those things were "opinion pieces" not "factual" pieces based on
> hard evidence. In fact, I actually quoted WorldNewsDaily yesterday
> myself, because they offered facts.

The Nation is soooooo far left that not even longtime contributors like
Christopher Hitchins could, in good conscience, continue writing for them

I find WorldNetDaily credible and independent, as do a lot of others:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=33471
and they can't all be rabid right-wingers, can they?

> >> Could there have been some possible votes for Bush that were
> >> miscoounted? Perhaps. Over 7,000 (being conservative)? Perhaps not.

> >Sure, let's play the "what if" game here. As you remember, all three liberal
> >media TV stations prematurely called the state in favor of Al Gore, which
> >probably discouraged a sizable number of predominantly Republican
> >voters from even bothering going to vote in the panhandle section of Florida
> >which is in a different time zone and where the polling booths would have
> >been open an extra hour longer due to the time difference. Although it's a
> >matter of silly conjecture now, the discouraged potential Republican voters
> >would have more than offset the disenfranchised potential Democrat ones.

> I TOTALLY agree that the news blew that call big time (although I'd
> argue that in point of fact, they didn't really). However, you can't
> talk about "theoretical voters" and what they did or didn't do. And
> even if you could, you don't know whether there were enough
> "disenfranchised voters" from the Republican side (assuming that if
> there were Repubs not voting, you would also have to assume some Demo
> voters stayed home as well) to counterbalance the at least 6,000
> uncounted votes for Gore (the conservative 7,000 figure minus the
> 1,000 incorrectly tossed military absentee votes).

Yes, it's all a futile exercise in conjecture and overly moot by now, but we
just won't let this beast die and keep flogging at it every now and then.

> However, it *was* a sin that news outlets announce winners so early, I
> totally agree with that. To declare a winner with 7% of the precincts
> in is folly. Hopefully, they've learned their lessons.

I think they've instituted some sort of reforms at the Voter News Service,
or whatever it was called, that the networks based their projections on.

> And let's face it, the election was called with only 10 minutes left
> in the Panhandle. Do you *seriously* think that thousands and
> thousands of last minute voters were suddenly convinced on their way
> out the door to get to their polling places in time to vote that they
> didn't need to bother?

Maybe, maybe not, but it's no more - or less - conclusive than the
so-called "scrub."

> Tht doesn't mean that it was right to make such a statement while the
> polls were open. It was a bonehead screwup of the highest order.

Agreed.

> >> Here's a fairly well documented source (including sources *other* than
> >> Palast:

> >> http://www.afn.org/~iguana/archives/2001_09/20010909.html

> >Sorry, but the very last sentence obliterates any objectivity and, hence,
> >credibility of the author:

> >"...political scientist Deb Cupples and several others addressed the crowd
> >about the stolen election of 2000 and discussed plans for the 2002 elections."

> You know, that's fine to point out unobjectivity, because I've done
> the same for WorldNewsDaily, however, you can't argue with the facts
> that are presented. They are documented pretty well. If you want to
> say that suddenly objectivity matters, then you have to discount all
> of *your* sources entirely. My point is that, unless challenged by
> other facts, facts are facts.

No, you've jumped to an unwarranted conclusion there. Let me give you an example:
WorldNetDaily's Washington bureau chief Paul Sperry (who infuriated Bill Clinton at
a White House picnic when Sperry worked for Investor's Business Daily) has written
somewhat harsh and critical articles about Bush's national security and Cheney's oil
connections, including a book titled "Crude Politics." Here is a listing of the articles:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/archives.asp?AUTHOR_ID=139

So, no, WorldNetDaily is not a conservative or Republican lapdog
And, yes, they do report on the unblemished facts.

> >> However, coincidentally, I saw your guy Bernard Goldberg railing about
> >> bias in the media on Fox this evening. Why am I not surprised? In
> >> fact, if you hurry, you can catch it.

> >If you'd been paying close attention, you would have heard Bernard almost
> >come right out and blurt that he himself is a liberal.

> I saw that he was being a bit disingenuous by making that implication
> without saying so. Has he claimed to currently be a liberal in his books?

I don't know, I haven't read either of his books, but if he had so claimed, I'm sure
that Hannity would have pointed it out.

> >That's right. A fair-minded,
> >decent and honest liberal, which there are so few of today.

> He sure didn't sound like a liberal last night, his coy little teaser
> notwithstanding. If a duck quacks like a duck, it's probably a duck,
> unless it's a sick goose, of course.

He did seem to be a liberal reporter way back when, when I used to watch
CBS News and "60 Minutes."

> And no, I didn't recognize him at all. of course, I tend to know more
> about NBC or ABC than CBS, when it comes to news.

> >And to tell you the
> >truth, this worries me because a vibrant Democratic opposition party is needed
> >to keep any Republican excesses in check, but when liberals seem to be more
> >concerned with Guantamo detainees than with American citizens, the only thing
> >left to surmise is that the Democrats are hellbent towards entropy.

> Don't you understand that being concerned for detainees *is* being
> concerned for American citizens?

But most of those Guantanamo detainees are Taliban fighters from Afghanistan
and other assorted terrorists from Arab countries.

> >> BTW, that guy Colmes? Frankly, I don't want him batting for *my* side.
> >> Where they dug him up, I'll never know.

> >Well, he does like he crawled out from under a rock.

> I assume you meant to write "looks". I'd also say "talks" as well,
> from the little exposure I've had to him. Yep, Fox really pulled a
> coup there.

Yes, that's what I meant. But old Colmes was quite the ardent Clinton defender
during the Monicagate heydays, but perhaps he's gotten a little weary from
supporting the unsupportable and defending the indefensible. ;-)


GeoSynch

[GeoSynch]

dave weil wrote:

> >>Sure, let's play the "what if" game here. As you remember, all three liberal
> >>media TV stations prematurely called the state in favor of Al Gore, which
> >>probably discouraged a sizable number of predominantly Republican
> >>voters from even bothering going to vote in the panhandle section of Florida
> >>which is in a different time zone and where the polling booths would have
> >>been open an extra hour longer due to the time difference. Although it's a
> >>matter of silly conjecture now, the discouraged potential Republican voters
> >>would have more than offset the disenfranchised potential Democrat ones.

> >I TOTALLY agree that the news blew that call big time (although I'd
> >argue that in point of fact, they didn't really). However, you can't
> >talk about "theoretical voters" and what they did or didn't do. And
> >even if you could, you don't know whether there were enough
> >"disenfranchised voters" from the Republican side (assuming that if
> >there were Repubs not voting, you would also have to assume some Demo
> >voters stayed home as well) to counterbalance the at least 6,000
> >uncounted votes for Gore (the conservative 7,000 figure minus the
> >1,000 incorrectly tossed military absentee votes).

> I meant to point out that Fox was also guilty of this, although they
> actually did it with 8 minutes left, instead of 10.

They also relied on the Voter News Service projections.

> And this despite having George W's first cousin running Fox's Election
> Night Desk. Of course, he made up for it later by being the first to
> call Bush the winner of Florida at 2am after many consulting calls to
> his other cousin Jeb.

He had a *lot* to atone for! :-)


GeoSynch

[james g. keegan jr.]

"GeoSynch" > wrote in
ink.net:

> dave weil wrote:

>> I'm sorry, but I consider the BBC a credible course. I know
>> that US conservatives apparently don't, but that's nuts
>> because it's not subject to the same claims of "US liberal
>> media bias". It has the benefit of being a little more
>> objective about the US, and conservatives don't like it at
>> all when they post stories that the conservatives don't agree
>> with.
>
> But Palast writes for the London Observer, which is owned by
> the Guardian, which has been decried as the most liberal rag
> in England.

who was the source of that definition?

[Ray Fischer]

George M. Middius <glanbrok FORTY-FOUR at bonNOSPAMbon DOT net change to 44> wrote:
>Ray Fischer said to ****-for-Brains:

>> >Do you think that the US is a democracy?
>
>> It is without a doubt.
>> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?
>
>Apparently you're not familiar with the Krooborg. It didn't actually
>claim the U.S. is *not* a democracy. It is merely trolling for
>something to argue with. Its tactic is to provoke you into a Yes or
>No answer, which it can then argue with as being not completely true
>or not completely false.

Ah. One of those.

Noted. Thanks.

--
Ray Fischer

[Arny Krueger]

"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>
>>> GeoSynch > hissed:
>>>> Ray
>>>>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>>>>
>>>> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>>>> A republic is rule of government by law.
>>>> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>>>>
>>>> Got it?
>>>
>>> Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>>
>> Do you think that the US is a democracy?

> It is without a doubt.

Wrong. See the post from "Cleopatra" for relevant facts.

> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?

I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to vote in congress and the Supreme
Court. I can't even vote in elections that are held in the next town over.

[Ray Fischer]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> GeoSynch > hissed:
>>>>> Ray
>>>>>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>>>>>
>>>>> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>>>>> A republic is rule of government by law.
>>>>> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got it?
>>>>
>>>> Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>>>
>>> Do you think that the US is a democracy?
>
>> It is without a doubt.
>
>Wrong.

People don't vote in the United States?!?

> See the post from "Cleopatra" for relevant facts.

LOL! Get real.

>> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?
>
>I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to vote in congress and the Supreme
>Court.

That's not what I asked.

--
Ray Fischer

[Bob]

"Arny Krueger" > wrote in
:

> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> GeoSynch > hissed:
>>>>> Ray
>>>>>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>>>>>
>>>>> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>>>>> A republic is rule of government by law.
>>>>> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got it?
>>>>
>>>> Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>>>
>>> Do you think that the US is a democracy?
>
>> It is without a doubt.
>
> Wrong. See the post from "Cleopatra" for relevant facts.
>
>> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?
>
> I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to vote in congress and the
> Supreme Court. I can't even vote in elections that are held in the
> next town over.
>
Tell us, how did someone as stupid as you manage to use a computer?
>
>

[Arny Krueger]

"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> GeoSynch > hissed:
>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>>>>>> A republic is rule of government by law.
>>>>>> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Got it?
>>>>>
>>>>> Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>>>>
>>>> Do you think that the US is a democracy?
>>
>>> It is without a doubt.
>>
>> Wrong.
>
> People don't vote in the United States?!?
>
>> See the post from "Cleopatra" for relevant facts.
>
> LOL! Get real.
>
>>> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?
>>
>> I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to vote in congress and the
>> Supreme Court.

> That's not what I asked.

That's not all of what I wrote. Thanks for proving that you're yet another
deceptive sleezeball. If I need that kind of deception, I'll just troll
Middius or Weil.

[Ray Fischer]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> GeoSynch > hissed:
>>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>>>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>>>>>>> A republic is rule of government by law.
>>>>>>> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Got it?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>>>>>
>>>>> Do you think that the US is a democracy?
>>>
>>>> It is without a doubt.
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>
>> People don't vote in the United States?!?
>>
>>> See the post from "Cleopatra" for relevant facts.
>>
>> LOL! Get real.
>>
>>>> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?
>>>
>>> I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to vote in congress and the
>>> Supreme Court.
>
>> That's not what I asked.
>
>That's not all of what I wrote.

You're squirming.

Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?

--
Ray Fischer

[Arny Krueger]

"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> GeoSynch > hissed:
>>>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>>>>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>>>>>>>> A republic is rule of government by law.
>>>>>>>> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Got it?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think that the US is a democracy?
>>>>
>>>>> It is without a doubt.
>>>>
>>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> People don't vote in the United States?!?
>>>
>>>> See the post from "Cleopatra" for relevant facts.
>>>
>>> LOL! Get real.
>>>
>>>>> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?
>>>>
>>>> I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to vote in congress and the
>>>> Supreme Court.
>>
>>> That's not what I asked.
>>
>> That's not all of what I wrote.

> You're squirming.

No, I'm laughing at your squirming.

> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?

Why don't you try this little reading comprehension test again:

"I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to vote in congress and the Supreme
Court. I can't even vote in elections that are held in the next town over."

The point is that voting is not a universal right. Not everybody can vote
every time there is a poll. People are legally disallowed from voting, all
the time.

[Lawrence E. McKnight]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 22:28:05 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> GeoSynch > hissed:
>>>>> Ray
>>>>>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>>>>>
>>>>> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>>>>> A republic is rule of government by law.
>>>>> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>>>>>
>>>>> Got it?
>>>>
>>>> Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>>>
>>> Do you think that the US is a democracy?
>
>> It is without a doubt.
>
>Wrong. See the post from "Cleopatra" for relevant facts.

How long has it been since the "Cleopatra" id has been used? Aside
from that, when is the last time 'she' (under Cleopatra, or Marie, or
Evangeline) actually posted relevent facts?

>
>> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?
>
>I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to vote in congress and the Supreme
>Court. I can't even vote in elections that are held in the next town over.
>
>

-
Larry
(this space unintentionally left blank .....
make obvious deletion for email

[Ray Fischer]

Arny Krueger > wrote:
>"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>>>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> GeoSynch > hissed:
>>>>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>>>>>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>>>>>>>>> A republic is rule of government by law.
>>>>>>>>> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Got it?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think that the US is a democracy?
>>>>>
>>>>>> It is without a doubt.
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>
>>>> People don't vote in the United States?!?
>>>>
>>>>> See the post from "Cleopatra" for relevant facts.
>>>>
>>>> LOL! Get real.
>>>>
>>>>>> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to vote in congress and the
>>>>> Supreme Court.
>>>
>>>> That's not what I asked.
>>>
>>> That's not all of what I wrote.
>
>> You're squirming.
>
>No, I'm laughing at your squirming.
>
>> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?
>
>Why don't you try this little reading comprehension test again:

And so another right-wing moron runs away.

>"I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to vote in congress and the Supreme
>Court.

I bet you can't vote in Germany or Canada either, moron.

In fact, according to your idiotic "logic", there is no such thing as
democracy because you cannot vote anywhere you please.

--
Ray Fischer

[pudentame]

Arny Krueger wrote:

Someone wrote:

>>>>'Free speech' does not mean that you have the right to stand
>>>>up and out-scream everyone else, thus silencing everyone else, any
>>>>time you feel like it. The liberals fail to understand this.
>>>
>
> Point well taken.

Tell that to the dittoheads.

[pudentame]

Arny Krueger wrote:
> "John Anderson" > wrote in message
> . com
>
>
>>But this is exactly the point. IF your sign says "I love GWB" you
>>get a front row seat to the motorcade. You are NOT "kept at a
>>distance". If your sign says something like "no war for oil" You
>>are assigned a spot 1/2 mile away. Where not only can you not see
>>the motorcade, neither the media or GWB can see you.
>>That IS restricting your rights to free speech based on WHAT you have
>>to say.
>
>
> Your rights to free speech may be legally restricted, in any number of
> different ways. Time to learn to live with it!
>
>
>

Not exactly... Your rights to free speech are frequently ILLEGALLY
restricted in any number of different ways.

[George M. Middius]

Ray Fischer said to ****-for-Brains:

> In fact, according to your idiotic "logic", there is no such thing as
> democracy because you cannot vote anywhere you please.

I thought I warned you about Krooger. Do you usually stop to gawp at
car wrecks too? ;-)

[Ray Fischer]

George M. Middius <glanbrok FORTY-FOUR at bonNOSPAMbon DOT net change to 44> wrote:
>Ray Fischer said to ****-for-Brains:
>
>> In fact, according to your idiotic "logic", there is no such thing as
>> democracy because you cannot vote anywhere you please.
>
>I thought I warned you about Krooger. Do you usually stop to gawp at
>car wrecks too? ;-)

I look at it as throwing rotten tomatoes at village idiots.

--
Ray Fischer

[Arny Krueger]

"pudentame" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>> "John Anderson" > wrote in message
>> . com
>>
>>
>>> But this is exactly the point. IF your sign says "I love GWB" you
>>> get a front row seat to the motorcade. You are NOT "kept at a
>>> distance". If your sign says something like "no war for oil" You
>>> are assigned a spot 1/2 mile away. Where not only can you not see
>>> the motorcade, neither the media or GWB can see you.
>>> That IS restricting your rights to free speech based on WHAT you
>>> have to say.
>>
>>
>> Your rights to free speech may be legally restricted, in any number
>> of different ways. Time to learn to live with it!

> Not exactly... Your rights to free speech are frequently ILLEGALLY
> restricted in any number of different ways.

Please provide a real-world example taken from my life.

[Arny Krueger]

"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Arny Krueger > wrote:
>>>>>>>> "Ray Fischer" > wrote in message
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> GeoSynch > hissed:
>>>>>>>>>> Ray
>>>>>>>>>>> Do you even know what "democracy" means?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You obviously don't, so here's a primer:
>>>>>>>>>> A republic is rule of government by law.
>>>>>>>>>> A democracy is rule of government by mob.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Got it?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Yup, you're an idiot alright.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you think that the US is a democracy?
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It is without a doubt.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> People don't vote in the United States?!?
>>>>>
>>>>>> See the post from "Cleopatra" for relevant facts.
>>>>>
>>>>> LOL! Get real.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I'm quite sure that I'm not allowed to vote in congress and the
>>>>>> Supreme Court.
>>>>
>>>>> That's not what I asked.
>>>>
>>>> That's not all of what I wrote.
>>
>>> You're squirming.
>>
>> No, I'm laughing at your squirming.
>>
>>> Do you think that people are not allowed to vote?
>>
>> Why don't you try this little reading comprehension test again:

<note that Ray deleted my simple question, which is prima-facie evidence
that he's too much of a coward to deal with it>

[Arny Krueger]

"Ray Fischer" > wrote in message

> George M. Middius <glanbrok FORTY-FOUR at bonNOSPAMbon DOT net
> change to 44> wrote:
>> Ray Fischer said to ****-for-Brains:
>>
>>> In fact, according to your idiotic "logic", there is no such thing
>>> as democracy because you cannot vote anywhere you please.
>>
>> I thought I warned you about Krooger. Do you usually stop to gawp at
>> car wrecks too? ;-)
>
> I look at it as throwing rotten tomatoes at village idiots.

Wrong, you eat rotten tomatoes.

[pjm@see_my_sig_for_address.com]

On Sun, 14 Dec 2003 20:02:03 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"pudentame" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>> "John Anderson" > wrote in message
>>> . com
>>>
>>>
>>>> But this is exactly the point. IF your sign says "I love GWB" you
>>>> get a front row seat to the motorcade. You are NOT "kept at a
>>>> distance". If your sign says something like "no war for oil" You
>>>> are assigned a spot 1/2 mile away. Where not only can you not see
>>>> the motorcade, neither the media or GWB can see you.
>>>> That IS restricting your rights to free speech based on WHAT you
>>>> have to say.
>>>
>>>
>>> Your rights to free speech may be legally restricted, in any number
>>> of different ways. Time to learn to live with it!
>
>> Not exactly... Your rights to free speech are frequently ILLEGALLY
>> restricted in any number of different ways.
>
>Please provide a real-world example taken from my life.
>

Don't hold your breath waiting for anything rational from
puden'pud - he's just some leftist troll.



Paul ( pjm @ pobox . com ) - remove spaces to email me
'Some days, it's just not worth chewing through the restraints,
ya know ?'

HVAC/R program for Palm PDA's
Free demo now available online !! http://pmilligan.net/palm/
Free superheat charts for 38 Ref's online at http://pmilligan.net/pmtherm/

[Tom Disque]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:37:08 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 19:11:00 GMT,
>wrote:
>
>>>>Who's Harris, you ask?
>>>
>>>No, I don't ask. I know. Her name was all over the place back then.
>>>The knee-jerkers started trashing her before she'd even opened her
>>>mouth.
>>
>> And , being the Desperate DemocRats that they are, they
>>focused on attacking her makeup. Talk about 'bottom of the barrel'
>>attacks !!!!
>>
>>>>Oh yeah, she was co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida.
>>
>> And, under law, her options were exactly zero. None. She had
>>no choice but to follow Florida law, regardless of her personal
>>affiliation.
>
>Sorry, but it's not that simple. She purged some 55,000 voters, many
>of which shouldn't have been purged. She used some pretty flaky means
>to do it. So, no, she wasn't a passive observer but an active
>participant.
>
>There is *no way* that the Secretary of State responsible for the
>election of a president in her state should have been allowed to be
>the co-chair of one of the candidates. If it's not illegal, it should
>be. She should have recused herself as soon as she took the position.

Why didn't the Democrats protest as soon as she took the position?

>It was a clear conflict of interest. If she had been a Democrat on
>Gore's payroll, the Right would be howling.

And I'll bet they wouldn't have waited until the tide turned against
them.

I doubt anyone would contest that Gore won the popular vote. I am
disappointed that the turn of events did not energize the Democrats to
begin a campaign to get rid of the electoral college. I would have
signed any petition to do so.

As long as we have the electoral college, the nanny state can choose
our presdient for us.

[Tom Disque]

On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 14:02:08 -0600, dave weil >
wrote:

>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 13:18:36 -0500, Tom Disque >
>wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:44:51 -0600, dave weil >
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 08:37:12 -0500, Tom Disque >
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Fri, 12 Dec 2003 05:15:02 GMT, Greg Bernath
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>[snip]
>>>>>Never happened. What did happen is that Republicans trashed military
>>>>>votes with any irregularities in Democrat districts, while letting the
>>>>>same irregularities pass in Republican districts. Sleazy as hell, to
>>>>>tamper with the military vote like that. As a veteran, I take personal
>>>>>offense.
>>>>
>>>>How did the Republicans gain the power to do this in a state so
>>>>thoroughly under Democrat control?
>>>
>>>How do you figure that the state was "under Democratic control"? Who
>>>was the governor at the time and who was appointed Secretary of State,
>>>the person ultimately responsible for ruling on irregularities?
>>
>>That's two people. The Democrats had (still have, I think) control of
>>the state house and senate, and every one of the Florida supreme court
>>justices was a Democrat.
>
>That didn't seem to make a lot of difference though, did it? We all
>know what their ruling was.

It made all the difference in the world. The Florida Supreme Court
ruled in *favor* of Gore. Don't you remember that?

>>And that translates down to a whole lot of
>>people on the local level; i.e., a lot more Democrat vote counters
>>than Republican. So how did Republicans trash military votes, and why
>>did the Democrats, who outnumbered them, allow it?
>
>I don't know whether or not they did that (irt military voters). I
>didn't address that issue, only your contention that Florida was under
>'Democratic control". It clearly wasn't.

It was WRT the Florida supreme court. But you *did* address that
issue. You said:

"What did happen is that Republicans trashed military votes with any
irregularities in Democrat districts, ..."

How did they get by with it, in a state that is obviously more
Democratic than Republican. If what you say is true, and I have no
reason to doubt it, then should we not find out which Democrats were
asleep at the wheel and clean house before 2004? If what you say is
true, then wouldn't you WANT to prevent a recurrence in 2004?

>>>>Why did the Democrats allow it?
>>>
>>>They didn't have a heck of a lot of choice, did they? After Harris
>>>scrubbed over 55,000 "felons" from the rolls, many of them found to be
>>>wrong (one county later found a 95% incorrect rate).
>>
>>Incorrect votes or incorrect scrubs?
>
>Incorrect scrubs.
>
>> If incorrect scrubs, why did it take so long to confirm?
>
>Because it just did. The whole process was accelerated in order to
>make the deadline for the election. I seem to remember that the
>Supreme Court got in just under the wire (within hours of the
>deadline). There wasn't really time to do a thorough review of all
>irregularities.

Was that the Florida Supreme court or the US Supreme court?

>>>Who's Harris, you ask?
>>
>>No, I don't ask. I know. Her name was all over the place back then.
>>The knee-jerkers started trashing her before she'd even opened her
>>mouth.
>>
>>>She was Secretary of State, responsible for conducting the
>>>election and certifying the results.
>>
>>And she certified the results, right?
>
>Oh, yes she did, all right.
>
>>>Oh yeah, she was co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida.
>>
>>What should she have done, then? If she hadn't certified the results,
>>to whom would the responsibility have falled?
>
>She should have recused herself *or* not been co-chair of Bush's
>campaign in Florida.

Then who would have certified the results?

>>> Yep, Jeb Bush was going to deliver Florida to his brother at all costs.
>>
>>He said that, eh? Cite?
>
>Did I *say* that he said it? It was clear that the pressure was on for
>him to deliver the state for his brother. And that was my commentary,
>not a quote.
>
>>And Bill Clinton referred to his wife as the 'co-president'. Did you
>>complain about that?
>
>If he had said it, no I wouldn't have complained. Do you have a cite,
>or are you quoting Gail Sheehy or any number of right-wing web sites?

Actually, IIRC, it was "60 Minutes" and Hilary making the reference,
not Bill. I googled "Clinton+copresident" and got a flood of hits,
not to mention Google asking "Do you mean coresident?".

>Because if it's the latter, I can find plenty of cites about "Bush
>delivering Florida for his brother". The only problem is, they're all
>second hand quotes. So, you'll have to show me a credible source for a
>direct quote by Clinton on that.

Anyone know if 60 Minutes transcripts are Google-able?

>>JFK appointed his brother to the office of attorney general, IIRC.
>>Did you complain about that?
>
>And how is that the same?

Nepotism in both cases, is it not?

>>>As Mary-Louise Parker said in a West Wing episode, "How do you like
>>>*them* apples"?
>>
>>I've never watched it.
>
>Of course you haven't. It's not on Fox.

I don't think I've ever watched Fox news. How is their coverage?

Does it bother you that I haven't seen West Wing? Why? Do they show
Martin Sheen sleeping on any grates, or has the homeless problem been
solved on this show?

[Tom Disque]

On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:27:23 GMT, (Ray
Fischer) wrote:

>Tom Disque > wrote:
>> dave weil >
>
>>>How do you figure that the state was "under Democratic control"? Who
>>>was the governor at the time and who was appointed Secretary of State,
>>>the person ultimately responsible for ruling on irregularities?
>>
>>That's two people.
>
>No kidding?!?

Let me know if I need to simplify it further.

>> The Democrats had (still have, I think) control of
>>the state house and senate,
>
>So what? It's the executive branch which runs the state. Republicans
>Bush as governer and Harris as Secretary of State.

Ask North Carolina's governor if he runs the state. If he's honest,
he'll admit that the state house and senate run the whole show.

>> and every one of the Florida supreme court
>>justices was a Democrat.
>
>Overruled by the US Supreme Court.

Yes. I never said they were under Democratic control.

>>>>Why did the Democrats allow it?
>>>
>>>They didn't have a heck of a lot of choice, did they? After Harris
>>>scrubbed over 55,000 "felons" from the rolls, many of them found to be
>>>wrong (one county later found a 95% incorrect rate).
>>
>>Incorrect votes or incorrect scrubs?
>
>(rolls eyes).

You need to get that fixed, at least to the extent that they roll in
unison.

>Incorrect scrubs. Once you're removed from the rolls you don't get to
>vote.

That's right, he did say 'rolls', not 'votes'. Sorry about that.

>> If incorrect scrubs, why did it
>>take so long to confirm?
>
>They had to wait until after the election, didn't they?

Why would they? If she'd scrubbed *votes*, as I had misread it, then
of course it would be after the election. But if my right to vote had
been taken away *before* the election, I would have to regain it
before the election. After the election, it's too late. I can't vote
after the election.

>>>She was Secretary of State, responsible for conducting the
>>>election and certifying the results.
>>
>>And she certified the results, right?
>>
>>>Oh yeah, she was co-chair of Bush's campaign in Florida.
>>
>>What should she have done, then?
>
>Ensured that the election was legitimate?

It seem that she did, to the best of her ability.

If Kathleen Harris should have recused herself for being a loyal
Republican, then shouldn't the Florida Supreme court also have done
so, since they were all loyal Democrats?

[Ray Fischer]

Tom Disque > wrote:
>On Sat, 13 Dec 2003 07:27:23 GMT, (Ray
>Fischer) wrote:
>
>>Tom Disque > wrote:
>>> dave weil >
>>
>>>>How do you figure that the state was "under Democratic control"? Who
>>>>was the governor at the time and who was appointed Secretary of State,
>>>>the person ultimately responsible for ruling on irregularities?
>>>
>>>That's two people.
>>
>>No kidding?!?
>
>Let me know if I need to simplify it further.
>
>>> The Democrats had (still have, I think) control of
>>>the state house and senate,
>>
>>So what? It's the executive branch which runs the state. Republicans
>>Bush as governer and Harris as Secretary of State.
>
>Ask North Carolina's governor if he runs the state.

Why?

> If he's honest,
>he'll admit that the state house and senate run the whole show.

Not if he's honest.

>>> and every one of the Florida supreme court
>>>justices was a Democrat.
>>
>>Overruled by the US Supreme Court.
>
>Yes. I never said they were under Democratic control.

You're trying to claim that the Democrats had control of the state.

You're wrong.

>>>>>Why did the Democrats allow it?
>>>>
>>>>They didn't have a heck of a lot of choice, did they? After Harris
>>>>scrubbed over 55,000 "felons" from the rolls, many of them found to be
>>>>wrong (one county later found a 95% incorrect rate).
>>>
>>>Incorrect votes or incorrect scrubs?
>>
>>(rolls eyes).
>
>You need to get that fixed,

Youe need to get some brains.

--
Ray Fischer

[2mb]

I hate to interrupt the cross posts of apparently 500 political groups (stop
crossposting!) for a post about audio but here are my questions...

Are nearfield, biamped studio monitors (given a certain degree of precision,
say a relatively flat +/- 1.5db response curve down to 39 hz) suitable for
critical listening in the same way that, say, a $4000 per channel audiophile
quality tube amplification, (with super high end audiophile speaker) system
is?

I am wondering what the major differences are.
They seem to be in very obviously different classes of equipment, yet a
really good pair of nearfields can be accurate, sound phenomenal, and cost a
lot too.

Are audiophile systems intentionally colored to provide the best possible
listening experience where monitors are flat?

I have always been confused about the differences, and exactly why one type
of system is less suitable for the other's job.

thx,
2mb

[Arny Krueger]

"2mb" > wrote in message
ink.net

> I hate to interrupt the cross posts of apparently 500 political
> groups (stop crossposting!) for a post about audio but here are my
> questions...

> Are nearfield, biamped studio monitors (given a certain degree of
> precision, say a relatively flat +/- 1.5db response curve down to 39
> hz) suitable for critical listening in the same way that, say, a
> $4000 per channel audiophile quality tube amplification, (with super
> high end audiophile speaker) system is?

Not at all. The studio monitors are in fact suitable for critical listening.
Most tubed audiophile systems appear to be primarily designed to obtain
bragging rights among technical know-nothings sentimentalists, and Luddites.

> I am wondering what the major differences are.

As a rule, the studio gear performs better, particularly when price is
considered.

Since the music played on audiophile systems was no doubt produced using
studio gear, all of the music played on the audiophile system has the sonic
character of the studio gear impressed on it. IOW consumers can't avoid the
sound quality of studio gear when they listen to commercial recordings, but
they can avoid the sound quality of high end gear by listening using studio
gear.

> They seem to be in very obviously different classes of equipment, yet
> a really good pair of nearfields can be accurate, sound phenomenal,
> and cost a lot too.

IME, the most important thing is the "sounds phenomenal" part.

> Are audiophile systems intentionally colored to provide the best
> possible listening experience where monitors are flat?

There are clear indications that High End audiophile gear is designed to
first and foremost confer bragging rights. Sound quality generally seems to
come second or third on the designer's list of priorities.

> I have always been confused about the differences, and exactly why
> one type of system is less suitable for the other's job.

As you may have noticed, just yesterday Bruce Richman tried to ridicule the
concept of using audio production gear for listening with the following
comment: "(1) Is your favorite music source a digital work station? (2) Are
you a fan of the "Motown Sound" (but only on the superior digital
transfers)?, (3) Are you an admirer and user of the famed McDonald's
statistical reporting methodology when discussing digital media?, and (4)
when performing your daily ablutions, do you have a distinct preference for
the use of high value currency?"

This is just another example of Richman's abysmal ignorance, given that
virtually all modern audio and audio/visual media is produced using among
other tools a digital audio workstation. It is a clear indication of
ignorant audiophile malaise with equipment that while unfamiliar to them,
affects the sound of virtually every recording they will buy or have bought.

[MINe 109]

In article et>,
"2mb" > wrote:

> I hate to interrupt the cross posts of apparently 500 political groups (stop
> crossposting!) for a post about audio but here are my questions...
>
> Are nearfield, biamped studio monitors (given a certain degree of precision,
> say a relatively flat +/- 1.5db response curve down to 39 hz) suitable for
> critical listening in the same way that, say, a $4000 per channel audiophile
> quality tube amplification, (with super high end audiophile speaker) system
> is?

Of course, but it may not be as pleasurable.

> I am wondering what the major differences are.
> They seem to be in very obviously different classes of equipment, yet a
> really good pair of nearfields can be accurate, sound phenomenal, and cost a
> lot too.

Well, nearfields are listened to in the nearfield. Home speakers tend to
look nicer. High enders can be demanding about wood finishes, etc.

> Are audiophile systems intentionally colored to provide the best possible
> listening experience where monitors are flat?
>
> I have always been confused about the differences, and exactly why one type
> of system is less suitable for the other's job.

You're assuming pro monitors are flat. They aren't necessarily:
sometimes the frequency response is tipped up to expose certain kinds of
defects in recordings.

Home audio has to deal with uncertain placement and room parameters
which can be specified for pro gear.

There is some overlap between the two. You might find Wilsons, Dunlavys,
B&Ws, or Quads in mastering rooms, while monitor designs by the BBC have
been applied to home use.

Stephen

[Powell]

"2mb" wrote

> Are nearfield, biamped studio monitors (given a
> certain degree of precision, say a relatively flat
> +/- 1.5db response curve down to 39 hz) suitable
> for critical listening in the same way that, say, a
> $4000 per channel audiophile quality tube
> amplification, (with super high end audiophile
> speaker) system is?
>
No. Speakers designed for near-field accuracy
will not sound the same if placed in large
environment (not near field). Also, there are
many examples of audiophile speakers that are
used for studio monitoring ( B&W, JM Lab, Wilson,
etc) for both near/non-near field mastering. The
consumer market for audiophile grade music
is very small, however.

> Are audiophile systems intentionally colored to
> provide the best possible listening experience
> where monitors are flat?
>
Yes and no. Much depends on the intended use
(music type), personal preference, budget and
limitations of the acoustic environment.

You also seem to be stereotyping studio monitors
as being inherently flatter in frequency response to
audiophile types. They are not.

> I have always been confused about the differences,
> and exactly why one type of system is less suitable
> for the other's job.
>
The business of mastering music for the consumer
market is based on economics. Audiophiles are
motivated by personal preference choices and the
art of equipment combinations (motor heads).

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> Most tubed audiophile systems appear...
>
That is the correct usage of the term “appear”
because you have little to no empirical
experiences with regard to tubed equipment
manufactured over the last 20 years.

You are spiteful of anyone with affluence, mr.
Poverty.

> > I am wondering what the major differences are.
>
> As a rule, the studio gear performs better,
> particularly when price is considered.
>
Quack, quack, quack...

> IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
> studio gear when they listen to commercial
> recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
> of high end gear by listening using studio gear.
>
Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message

> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>> Most tubed audiophile systems appear...
>>
> That is the correct usage of the term "appear"
> because you have little to no empirical
> experiences with regard to tubed equipment
> manufactured over the last 20 years.

Last 20 years? Seems like an arbitrary distinction. Tell you what Powell,
come up with audited market research numbers showing that most audiophile
tubed equipment in service today was manufactured in the last 20 years, and
your artificial distinction might even be relevant.

> You are spiteful of anyone with affluence, Mr.Poverty.

Still smarting about that cheap soundcard and mic preamp that you bought, eh
Powell?

>>> I am wondering what the major differences are.

>> As a rule, the studio gear performs better,
>> particularly when price is considered.

> Quack, quack, quack...

Typical of you, Powell. You have nothing relevant to say so you fall back on
your duck calls.

>> IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
>> studio gear when they listen to commercial
>> recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
>> of high end gear by listening using studio gear.

> Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!

Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to deceptively try to make a
highly relevant statement that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.

[Arny Krueger]

"Powell" > wrote in message


> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>>>> Most tubed audiophile systems appear...
>>>>
>>> That is the correct usage of the term "appear"
>>> because you have little to no empirical
>>> experiences with regard to tubed equipment
>>> manufactured over the last 20 years.
>>
>> Last 20 years? Seems like an arbitrary distinction.

> Perhaps you missed it (last 20 years)... popularization
> of the digital format.

Nope.

>You may not know this but
> bandwidth and dynamics increased over analog source
> signals.

Nope.

> This created greater demands on the
> associated equipment (SS & tube).

Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put out 300
watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed amps became
routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp sold has at least that
much output power? Certainly that happened with SS. 500 watt SS receivers
are now the rule, not the exception.

> See what you missed :).

Yes, it's a joke.

>>>> IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
>>>> studio gear when they listen to commercial
>>>> recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
>>>> of high end gear by listening using studio gear.
>>
>>> Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!
>>
>> Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
>> deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
>> that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.

> "deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
> ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
> empirically-lacking :)?

Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence, Powell.

[S888Wheel]

>
>Since the music played on audiophile systems was no doubt produced using
>studio gear, all of the music played on the audiophile system has the sonic
>character of the studio gear impressed on it.

In some cases yes but this is hardly a universal truth. By the way, the mics
and the decisions made by the recording engineer are the most imprtant elements
in recording and these have nothing to do with studio gear vs. audiophile gear.
One could argue that crap studio monitors have lead to crap commercial
recordings but mastering engineers can and often do a great job of fixing that
problem. And lets not forget that most of the very best sounding recordings
were made by audiophile labels that used audiophile playback equipment as their
reference.

> IOW consumers can't avoid the
>sound quality of studio gear when they listen to commercial recordings,

Often times this is true. It is a cross audiophiles must bear when the music
they love was poorly recorded.

>but
>they can avoid the sound quality of high end gear by listening using studio
>gear.

That way even the best recordings can sound bad.

>
>There are clear indications that High End audiophile gear is designed to
>first and foremost confer bragging rights. Sound quality generally seems to
>come second or third on the designer's list of priorities.
>

Prove it.

Just a note. I don't believe that equipment is inherently bad because it is
made for studio use nor do I believe that it is inherently good because it is
marketed to audiophiles. Lets not forget that manufacturers like Wilson Audio
and Eggleston build speakers for pro use as well as home use.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>"Powell" > wrote in message

>
>> "Arny Krueger" wrote
>>
>>>>> Most tubed audiophile systems appear...
>>>>>
>>>> That is the correct usage of the term "appear"
>>>> because you have little to no empirical
>>>> experiences with regard to tubed equipment
>>>> manufactured over the last 20 years.
>>>
>>> Last 20 years? Seems like an arbitrary distinction.
>
>> Perhaps you missed it (last 20 years)... popularization
>> of the digital format.
>
>Nope.
>
>>You may not know this but
>> bandwidth and dynamics increased over analog source
>> signals.
>
>Nope.
>
>> This created greater demands on the
>> associated equipment (SS & tube).
>
>Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put out 300
>watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed amps became
>routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp sold has at least that
>much output power? Certainly that happened with SS. 500 watt SS receivers
>are now the rule, not the exception.
>

Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since there are
virtually no speakers that require power of this magnitude to be successfully
driven at what most would consider to be reasonable listening levels. That
aside, conrad johnson monoblocs (Premier 8s) have outputs of 275 watts/channel
@ 4 ohms, and there are several VTL models - also tubed, that exceed these
figures handily.

Also, the specification re. "500 watt receivers" is deceptive in that most
receivers of this wattage or higher are multi-channel, not stereo.

>> See what you missed :).
>
>Yes, it's a joke.
>
>>>>> IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
>>>>> studio gear when they listen to commercial
>>>>> recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
>>>>> of high end gear by listening using studio gear.
>>>
>>>> Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!
>>>
>>> Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
>>> deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
>>> that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.
>
>> "deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
>> ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
>> empirically-lacking :)?
>
>Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence, Powell.
>
>
>
>
>

We can start with the examples gtiven above.



Bruce J. Richman

[Bruce J. Richman]

Scott Wheeler wrote:


>>
>>Since the music played on audiophile systems was no doubt produced using
>>studio gear, all of the music played on the audiophile system has the sonic
>>character of the studio gear impressed on it.
>
>In some cases yes but this is hardly a universal truth. By the way, the mics
>and the decisions made by the recording engineer are the most imprtant
>elements
>in recording and these have nothing to do with studio gear vs. audiophile
>gear.
>One could argue that crap studio monitors have lead to crap commercial
>recordings but mastering engineers can and often do a great job of fixing
>that
>problem. And lets not forget that most of the very best sounding recordings
>were made by audiophile labels that used audiophile playback equipment as
>their
>reference.
>

Agreed. See below. And it is also fairly common knowledge, that such devices
as tubed microphones (e.g. Telefunken, Neumann, etc.) and reel-to--reel tubed
tape recorders (e.g. Studer) are used at times by some of the audiophile
labels.



>> IOW consumers can't avoid the
>>sound quality of studio gear when they listen to commercial recordings,
>
>Often times this is true. It is a cross audiophiles must bear when the music
>they love was poorly recorded.
>
>>but
>>they can avoid the sound quality of high end gear by listening using studio
>>gear.
>
>That way even the best recordings can sound bad.
>
>>
>>There are clear indications that High End audiophile gear is designed to
>>first and foremost confer bragging rights. Sound quality generally seems to
>>come second or third on the designer's list of priorities.
>>
>
>Prove it.
>

Obviously, he can't. As stated, it is just an obviously biased ipiece of
propaganda without any empirical support.


>Just a note. I don't believe that equipment is inherently bad because it is
>made for studio use nor do I believe that it is inherently good because it is
>marketed to audiophiles. Lets not forget that manufacturers like Wilson Audio
>and Eggleston build speakers for pro use as well as home use.
>
>
>
>
>

Also, several speaker brands, including Quad, Martin Logan, and B&W, to name
just a few, are not uncommonly used in recording studios as part of the
production process. None of these brands would be considered "studio
monitors". All produce a number of models generally considered to be
audiophile audio brands.






Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:

>> Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
>> out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
>> amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
>> sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
>> with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the exception.

> Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since there
> are virtually no speakers that require power of this magnitude to be
> successfully driven at what most would consider to be reasonable
> listening levels.

I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or more into 8
ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers that are only modestly
inefficient. If I listen to digital recordings of music that have lifelike
dynamic range, I can push the amps into clipping without exceeding 100 dB
average levels. Since I routinely find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I
attend, I conclude that these are not excessively high listening levels. The
speakers aren't damaged by doing this, either.

> That aside, conrad johnson monoblocs (Premier 8s)
> have outputs of 275 watts/channel @ 4 ohms, and there are several VTL
> models - also tubed, that exceed these figures handily.

Since there's no objective evidence to support this assertion, and because
it falls woefully short of the challenge to show that "...virtually every
new tubed amp sold has at least that much (300 watts or more) output power."
you've failed to meet my challenge. If you wish, you can try again.

> Also, the specification re. "500 watt receivers" is deceptive in that
> most receivers of this wattage or higher are multi-channel, not
> stereo.

OK, its not stereo. So what? The power is still applied to speakers and the
speakers still radiate into the room, right?

>>> See what you missed :).

>> Yes, it's a joke.

<Richman doesn't even have a deceptive response to this challenge>

>>>>>> IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
>>>>>> studio gear when they listen to commercial
>>>>>> recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
>>>>>> of high end gear by listening using studio gear.
>>>>
>>>>> Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!
>>>>
>>>> Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
>>>> deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
>>>> that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.
>>
>>> "deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
>>> ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
>>> empirically-lacking :)?
>>
>> Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence,
>> Powell.

> We can start with the examples given above.

Which I just deconstructed. The ball is back in your court, Richman.

[Arny Krueger]

"S888Wheel" > wrote in message


>> Since the music played on audiophile systems was no doubt produced
>> using studio gear, all of the music played on the audiophile system
>> has the sonic character of the studio gear impressed on it.

> In some cases yes but this is hardly a universal truth.

Why note?


> By the way,
> the mics and the decisions made by the recording engineer are the
> most important elements in recording and these have nothing to do with
> studio gear vs. audiophile gear.


Since microphones are audio production gear, you just contradicted yourself.

> One could argue that crap studio
> monitors have lead to crap commercial recordings but mastering
> engineers can and often do a great job of fixing that problem.

I guess the idea that studio monitors may or may not be crappy would be a
revelation to you.

> And
> lets not forget that most of the very best sounding recordings were
> made by audiophile labels that used audiophile playback equipment as
> their reference.

I take it that you never bothered to read the relevant portions of the RAP
FAQ when I posted a link to it here.


>> IOW consumers can't avoid the
>> sound quality of studio gear when they listen to commercial
>> recordings,

> Often times this is true.

Name a case when studio gear like microphones and/or synthesizers weren't
used to make the recording.

>It is a cross audiophiles must bear when the music they love was poorly
recorded.

Since you mentioned "decisions made by the recording engineer", you must
know the source of most such problems. Hint, its not necessarily the fault
of the equipment.

>> they can avoid the sound quality of high end gear by listening using
studio gear.

> That way even the best recordings can sound bad.

That can happen whether high end gear, mid fi gear, or production gear is
used.

>> There are clear indications that High End audiophile gear is
>> designed to first and foremost confer bragging rights. Sound quality
>> generally seems to come second or third on the designer's list of
>> priorities.

> Prove it.

Simple. Equipment designers routinely sacrifice ultimate sound quality to
meet price and profitability objectives. Therefore sound quality is second
or third on those designer's list.

> Just a note. I don't believe that equipment is inherently bad because
> it is made for studio use nor do I believe that it is inherently good
> because it is marketed to audiophiles.

Agreed.

>Lets not forget that
> manufacturers like Wilson Audio and Eggleston build speakers for pro
> use as well as home use.

If you understood mastering, you'd understand that this is irrelevant to
discussions of sonic accuracy.

[S888Wheel]

Arny said

>
>>> Since the music played on audiophile systems was no doubt produced
>>> using studio gear, all of the music played on the audiophile system
>>> has the sonic character of the studio gear impressed on it.

I said

>
>
>> In some cases yes but this is hardly a universal truth.
>

Arny said

>
>Why note?
>

I am assuming you meant why not. I'm noy citicizing just making note of my
interpretation of your question. It isn't a universal truth for the obvious
fact that there are many exceptions.


I said

>
>> By the way,
>> the mics and the decisions made by the recording engineer are the
>> most important elements in recording and these have nothing to do with
>> studio gear vs. audiophile gear.
>

Arny said

>
>Since microphones are audio production gear, you just contradicted yourself.
>

No. In the context of the thread the question of studio gear vs. audiophile
gear was about playback equipment. In this case specifically speakers and
amplifiers. Microphones are not part of the playback system.

I said

>
>> One could argue that crap studio
>> monitors have lead to crap commercial recordings but mastering
>> engineers can and often do a great job of fixing that problem.

Arny said

>
>I guess the idea that studio monitors may or may not be crappy would be a
>revelation to you.
>

Not only would the guess be wrong it would be irrational given the fact that I
cited some manufacturers of excellent studio monitors in the very post you were
responding to.

I said

>
>> And
>> lets not forget that most of the very best sounding recordings were
>> made by audiophile labels that used audiophile playback equipment as
>> their reference.

Arny said

>
>I take it that you never bothered to read the relevant portions of the RAP
>FAQ when I posted a link to it here.
>

I don't read RAP. I generally don't bother with your links. Whatever RAP FAQ
says does not affect the truth of my comment.

Arny said

>
>>> IOW consumers can't avoid the
>>> sound quality of studio gear when they listen to commercial
>>> recordings,

I said

>
>> Often times this is true.

Arny said

>
>Name a case when studio gear like microphones and/or synthesizers weren't
>used to make the recording.

What do microphones have to do with studio monitors and audiophile equipment?

I said

>
>>It is a cross audiophiles must bear when the music they love was poorly
>recorded.

Arny said

>
>Since you mentioned "decisions made by the recording engineer", you must
>know the source of most such problems. Hint, its not necessarily the fault
>of the equipment.

It certainly can be if the studio monitors are crap.

Arny said

>
> >> they can avoid the sound quality of high end gear by listening using
>studio gear.

I said

>
>> That way even the best recordings can sound bad.
>

Arny said

>
>That can happen whether high end gear, mid fi gear, or production gear is
>used.
>

Of course it can. I was making a joke.


Arny said

>
>>> There are clear indications that High End audiophile gear is
>>> designed to first and foremost confer bragging rights. Sound quality
>>> generally seems to come second or third on the designer's list of
>>> priorities.

I said

>
>> Prove it.
>

Arny said

>
>Simple. Equipment designers routinely sacrifice ultimate sound quality to
>meet price and profitability objectives. Therefore sound quality is second
>or third on those designer's list.

That isn't even relevant to your claim that "High End audiophile gear is
designed to first and foremost confer bragging rights." In fact, this new claim
that audiophile companies build to a price point, which is true and openly
admitted by said manufacturers for all but their flagship products, would in a
way contrdict your claim that I asked you to prove. But, if you have any proof
that audiophile manufacturers design gear first and foremost to confer bragging
rights feel free to cite it. You did say there were clear indications.

I said

>
>>Lets not forget that
>> manufacturers like Wilson Audio and Eggleston build speakers for pro
>> use as well as home use.

Arny said

>
>If you understood mastering, you'd understand that this is irrelevant to
>discussions of sonic accuracy.
>

I would think this claim would suggest that it is you who does not understand
mastering. Clearly playback and all the equipment involved in playback play a
significant role in mastering.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>>> Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
>>> out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
>>> amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
>>> sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
>>> with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the exception.
>
>> Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since there
>> are virtually no speakers that require power of this magnitude to be
>> successfully driven at what most would consider to be reasonable
>> listening levels.
>
>I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or more into 8
>ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers that are only modestly
>inefficient. If I listen to digital recordings of music that have lifelike
>dynamic range, I can push the amps into clipping without exceeding 100 dB
>average levels. Since I routinely find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I
>attend, I conclude that these are not excessively high listening levels. The
>speakers aren't damaged by doing this, either.
>

The above boasts about loud listening levels are again irrelevant to the
average home audio hobbyist, who has long realized that "lifelike" volume is
not usually called for in home listening experiences. But then again, Krueger,
most audio hobbyists that read RAO, at least, prefer personal auditions over
total reliance on power specifications when making purchasing decisions.



>> That aside, conrad johnson monoblocs (Premier 8s)
>> have outputs of 275 watts/channel @ 4 ohms, and there are several VTL
>> models - also tubed, that exceed these figures handily.
>
>Since there's no objective evidence to support this assertion, and because
>it falls woefully short of the challenge to show that "...virtually every
>new tubed amp sold has at least that much (300 watts or more) output power."
>you've failed to meet my challenge. If you wish, you can try again.
>

There is no objectrve evidence t o suggest that SS amplifiers all meet the
criterion of 300 watts/channel, nor does anybody other than you ever make the
ridiculous assertion that all tubed amplifiers meet a criterion that SS
amplifiers have never been able to meet. Therefore, your desperate attempt to
set up straw men is quite transparent. You've actually accomplished nothing in
making your silly claims.



>> Also, the specification re. "500 watt receivers" is deceptive in that
>> most receivers of this wattage or higher are multi-channel, not
>> stereo.
>
>OK, its not stereo. So what? The power is still applied to speakers and the
>speakers still radiate into the room, right?
>

It strongly suggests that, as in your claims regarding tubed amplifiers, you're
simply trying to play word games to deceive the public, Krueger. Since this
thread is not about multichannel audio demands, your transparent effort to hide
this salient piece of information just follows your normal pattern, Krueger, of
making deceptive assertions to try and con the public.



>>>> See what you missed :).
>
>>> Yes, it's a joke.
>
><Richman doesn't even have a deceptive response to this challenge>
>

Very true, Krueger. You've cornered the RAO market on deception and fraudulent
posts. Perhaps this would be a good time for you to republish your phony
"evidence" about unprovoked personal attacks that you claim you've been
subjected to by myself and others. That's always good for a laugh!

LOL!!!


>>>>>>> IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
>>>>>>> studio gear when they listen to commercial
>>>>>>> recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
>>>>>>> of high end gear by listening using studio gear.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!
>>>>>
>>>>> Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
>>>>> deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
>>>>> that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.
>>>
>>>> "deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
>>>> ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
>>>> empirically-lacking :)?
>>>
>>> Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence,
>>> Powell.
>
>> We can start with the examples given above.
>
>Which I just deconstructed. The ball is back in your court, Richman.
>
>

You've already been tossed out of the game, Krueger. (1) Trying to set a
standard for tubed amplifiers, i.e. excessively high power ratings, that most
SS amplifiers can not attain, (2) making misleading claims about SS receivers
in a stereo-oriented thread, while neglecting to mention that they are
multi-channel receivers, and (3) lying about others making deceptive claims
with no evidence to support this abnormal behavior. Three strikes, and your're
out, Krueger.



Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>>> Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
>>>> out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
>>>> amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
>>>> sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
>>>> with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the exception.
>>
>>> Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since
>>> there are virtually no speakers that require power of this
>>> magnitude to be successfully driven at what most would consider to
>>> be reasonable listening levels.
>>
>> I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or more
>> into 8 ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers that
>> are only modestly inefficient. If I listen to digital recordings of
>> music that have lifelike dynamic range, I can push the amps into
>> clipping without exceeding 100 dB average levels. Since I routinely
>> find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I attend, I conclude that
>> these are not excessively high listening levels. The speakers aren't
>> damaged by doing this, either.
>>
>
> The above boasts about loud listening levels are again irrelevant to
> the average home audio hobbyist, who has long realized that
> "lifelike" volume is not usually called for in home listening
> experiences.

Yup, there's no such thing as home theater and the quest for enveloping,
realistic sound in the wonderful world of Richman.

> But then again, Krueger, most audio hobbyists that read
> RAO, at least, prefer personal auditions over total reliance on power
> specifications when making purchasing decisions.

Where did I suggest total reliance on power specifications? This is
regrettably yet another example of Richman's deceptive behavior.

>>> That aside, conrad johnson monoblocs (Premier 8s)
>>> have outputs of 275 watts/channel @ 4 ohms, and there are several
>>> VTL models - also tubed, that exceed these figures handily.

>> Since there's no objective evidence to support this assertion, and
>> because it falls woefully short of the challenge to show that
>> "...virtually every new tubed amp sold has at least that much (300
>> watts or more) output power." you've failed to meet my challenge. If
>> you wish, you can try again.

> There is no objective evidence t o suggest that SS amplifiers all
> meet the criterion of 300 watts/channel.

Where did I suggest that SS amplifiers all meet the criterion of 300
watts/channel? This is regrettably yet another example of Richman's
deceptive behavior.

> nor does anybody other than
> you ever make the ridiculous assertion that all tubed amplifiers meet
> a criterion that SS amplifiers have never been able to meet.

I already showed that the mainstream receiver sold today has 500 or more
watts of power. As most of us who stay current with modern technology all
know, this is implemented as 5 channels and 100 or more watts per channel.

> Therefore, your desperate attempt to set up straw men is quite
> transparent. You've actually accomplished nothing in making your
> silly claims.

Since both of the claims you attacked were created by you Richman, it is you
who have been working overtime setting up straw men.

>>> Also, the specification re. "500 watt receivers" is deceptive in
>>> that most receivers of this wattage or higher are multi-channel, not
>>> stereo.

>> OK, its not stereo. So what? The power is still applied to speakers
>> and the speakers still radiate into the room, right?

> It strongly suggests that, as in your claims regarding tubed
> amplifiers, you're simply trying to play word games to deceive the
> public, Krueger.

Nothing of the short has been proven. BTW, this is typical of the situations
that Richman cites when he libels me by repeatedly and relentlessly calling
me a "compulsive liar". Google searching shows that Richman has libeled me
as a "compulsive liar" almost 100 times Since 5/29/2003. This is a period
of less than 7 months or one about libelous statement every two days. This
is even more frequent than Richman's imposition of his professional
credentials on us, which averages approximately once every three days for a
number of years.

> Since this thread is not about multichannel audio
> demands, your transparent effort to hide this salient piece of
> information just follows your normal pattern, Krueger, of making
> deceptive assertions to try and con the public.

I see no case in this thread where multichannel equipment was explicitly
excluded except by Richman. Perhaps Richman is so out-of-date that he thinks
that multichannel equipment is not used in studios.

>>>>> See what you missed :).
>>
>>>> Yes, it's a joke.
>>
>> <Richman doesn't even have a deceptive response to this challenge>


> Very true, Krueger. You've cornered the RAO market on deception and
> fraudulent posts. Perhaps this would be a good time for you to
> republish your phony "evidence" about unprovoked personal attacks
> that you claim you've been subjected to by myself and others. That's
> always good for a laugh!
>
> LOL!!!
>
>
>>>>>>>> IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
>>>>>>>> studio gear when they listen to commercial
>>>>>>>> recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
>>>>>>>> of high end gear by listening using studio gear.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
>>>>>> deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
>>>>>> that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.
>>>>
>>>>> "deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
>>>>> ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
>>>>> empirically-lacking :)?
>>>>
>>>> Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence,
>>>> Powell.
>>
>>> We can start with the examples given above.
>>
>> Which I just deconstructed. The ball is back in your court, Richman.
>>
>>
>
> You've already been tossed out of the game, Krueger. (1) Trying to
> set a standard for tubed amplifiers, i.e. excessively high power
> ratings, that most SS amplifiers can not attain,

I just showed that this is yet another example of Richman making up a claim,
deceptively claiming that I made it, and then attacking it.

> (2) making
> misleading claims about SS receivers in a stereo-oriented thread,
> while neglecting to mention that they are multi-channel receivers,
> and

I just showed that this is yet another example of Richman making up a claim,
deceptively claiming that I made it, and then attacking it.

>(3) lying about others making deceptive claims with no evidence
> to support this abnormal behavior. Three strikes, and your're (there is
no such word except in Richman's world) out,
> Krueger.

I think this false claim, and the regrettable but clear google record of
Richman's egocentric, deceptive and overbearing behavior pretty much speaks
for itself.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
>>>>> out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
>>>>> amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
>>>>> sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
>>>>> with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the exception.
>>>
>>>> Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since
>>>> there are virtually no speakers that require power of this
>>>> magnitude to be successfully driven at what most would consider to
>>>> be reasonable listening levels.
>>>
>>> I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or more
>>> into 8 ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers that
>>> are only modestly inefficient. If I listen to digital recordings of
>>> music that have lifelike dynamic range, I can push the amps into
>>> clipping without exceeding 100 dB average levels. Since I routinely
>>> find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I attend, I conclude that
>>> these are not excessively high listening levels. The speakers aren't
>>> damaged by doing this, either.
>>>
>>
>> The above boasts about loud listening levels are again irrelevant to
>> the average home audio hobbyist, who has long realized that
>> "lifelike" volume is not usually called for in home listening
>> experiences.
>
>Yup, there's no such thing as home theater and the quest for enveloping,
>realistic sound in the wonderful world of Richman.
>

Since this thread was ostensibly about stereo systems and amplifiers, Krueger's
deceptive attempt to convert into a thread about home theater is just another
example oif his typical method of trying to change focus when exposed for
making deceptive claims. Note that Krueger can not and will not comment on the
fact that despite his prattling on about listening levels being "lifelike",
most listeners don't have the goal of reproducing the volume and/or dynamics of
a symphony orchestra in their listening room.



>> But then again, Krueger, most audio hobbyists that read
>> RAO, at least, prefer personal auditions over total reliance on power
>> specifications when making purchasing decisions.
>
>Where did I suggest total reliance on power specifications? This is
>regrettably yet another example of Richman's deceptive behavior.
>

Krueger's lies about my behavior have been spewed by this sociopathic slanderer
for over 7 years. This is just the latest example. Nowhere in any of
Krueger's posts in this thread is their any reference to any form of subjective
variable, only for the most part power ratings. Of course, now, that he's been
exposed once again as deceptively trying to use multichannel receiver ratings
to tout SS uber alles propaganda, he's claiming that specifications are not his
only focus. Nothing could be further from the truth. This
anti-subjective-opinion zealot has a lengthy history on RAO of loudly touting
the essential equivalence of most amplifiers, preamplifiers, etc. meeting
certain specifications. Nowhere in all of this religiosity re. SS gear does
subjective opinion receive anything other than lip service, and usually, not
even that.



>>>> That aside, conrad johnson monoblocs (Premier 8s)
>>>> have outputs of 275 watts/channel @ 4 ohms, and there are several
>>>> VTL models - also tubed, that exceed these figures handily.
>
>>> Since there's no objective evidence to support this assertion, and
>>> because it falls woefully short of the challenge to show that
>>> "...virtually every new tubed amp sold has at least that much (300
>>> watts or more) output power." you've failed to meet my challenge. If
>>> you wish, you can try again.
>
>> There is no objective evidence t o suggest that SS amplifiers all
>> meet the criterion of 300 watts/channel.
>
>Where did I suggest that SS amplifiers all meet the criterion of 300
>watts/channel? This is regrettably yet another example of Richman's
>deceptive behavior.
>

Krueger is lying again. He has deliberately deleted most of the post which he
now tries to defend because it clearly implies that your typical SS amplifier
contains 100s of watts of power. And needless to say, in his anti-tube smear
campaign, he mistakenly claimied that tubed equipment does not meet this
criteria. Of course, this eas a lie, as were his claims about lack of evidence
re. conrad-johnson and/or VTL tubed amplifiers. One could also add Audio
Research to that list alsoi. Any reader interested in learning the truth
rather than falling for Krueger's lies, can simply take a look at the
literature and/or web sites of these 3 manufacturers and see for thermselves.
Similarly, they can look at the publications of SS amplifiers and note that
contrary to Krueger's boasts about 300 watt amplifiers, many, if not most of
the SS amplifers (2=channel) being manufactured have much less power than
that.


>> nor does anybody other than
>> you ever make the ridiculous assertion that all tubed amplifiers meet
>> a criterion that SS amplifiers have never been able to meet.
>
>I already showed that the mainstream receiver sold today has 500 or more
>watts of power. As most of us who stay current with modern technology all
>know, this is implemented as 5 channels and 100 or more watts per channel.
>

You have shown nothing of the kind. And has already been mentioned, only a
deceptive liar and anti-tube bigot like Krueger would try and make the
laughable, transparent, and quite transparent comparison of a 5-channel SS
receiver against a 2-channel tubed amplifier when talking about power ratings.
Also, the fact remains that most 2-channel stereo amplifiers are much less
powerful than the "300 watt amplifiers' Krueger apparently worships. And all
of this has nothing to do with modern technology vs. older technology. It has
to do with personal preference among currently available products, a human
characterists that sociopathic liars and bitos like Krueger can not appreciate
or tolerate.



>> Therefore, your desperate attempt to set up straw men is quite
>> transparent. You've actually accomplished nothing in making your
>> silly claims.
>
>Since both of the claims you attacked were created by you Richman, it is you
>who have been working overtime setting up straw men.
>

Another lie, Krueger. And a rather lame IKYABWAI. Typical of the Krueger
deception methodology routinely employed on RAO.



>>>> Also, the specification re. "500 watt receivers" is deceptive in
>>>> that most receivers of this wattage or higher are multi-channel, not
>>>> stereo.
>
>>> OK, its not stereo. So what? The power is still applied to speakers
>>> and the speakers still radiate into the room, right?
>
>> It strongly suggests that, as in your claims regarding tubed
>> amplifiers, you're simply trying to play word games to deceive the
>> public, Krueger.
>
>Nothing of the short has been proven. BTW, this is typical of the situations
>that Richman cites when he libels me by repeatedly and relentlessly calling
>me a "compulsive liar". Google searching shows that Richman has libeled me
>as a "compulsive liar" almost 100 times Since 5/29/2003. This is a period
>of less than 7 months or one about libelous statement every two days. This
>is even more frequent than Richman's imposition of his professional
>credentials on us, which averages approximately once every three days for a
>number of years.
>

Krueger's record of slander, character assassination and lies re. my identity,
my professional and vocational activities, and posts are a matter of public
record for over 7 years. And while he lies and complains about my mentioning
my professional credentials. as many others have pointed out, compulsive liar
Krueger has made libelous comments abou my credentials from the beginning of
my posting on RAO.
Of course, he has never had any evidence to support his slanderous hogwash. He
also, as usual, neglects to mention that he tries to use his alledged
qualifications in electirical engineering as a hammer to bully and intimidate
RAO posters, repeatedly. His constant attempts to describe himself as an audio
"expert'" to validate and support his anti-preference propaganda campaigns are
well known to most RAO readers. So for this sociopathic liar to complain about
others mentioning their qualifications (and in response to his repeatred
slanders), is just another example of his chronic hypocrisy. He has also
tried, as is his habit,, to lie with statistics t6o create a misleading
impression about my mentioning of my crtedentials. Averages are generally
meaningless - and of course, Krueger, has been recently exposed for presenting
laughably false evidence when he presented a so-called
Google listing of what he falsely claimed were personal attacks against him by
me.

Ask yourself this question. If this proven liar can label a post in which I
discussed the music of Daniel Lanois with another poster without mentioning
Krueger's name - a personal attack - is it not quite likely that the majority
of his claims about me will be as patently false as that one was?
His lies are so obvious that apparently, only one sorry puppet who slavishly
defends his daily blather, takes him seriously.





>> Since this thread is not about multichannel audio
>> demands, your transparent effort to hide this salient piece of
>> information just follows your normal pattern, Krueger, of making
>> deceptive assertions to try and con the public.
>
>I see no case in this thread where multichannel equipment was explicitly
>excluded except by Richman. Perhaps Richman is so out-of-date that he thinks
>that multichannel equipment is not used in studios.
>

Krueger has, as usual, made a claim that implies he can read my mind. Not
surprising, given his egomaniacal tendency to pretend that he "knows" the
motives of others. Of course, Krueger in his chronic need to deny the
existence of modern tubed and/or vinyl equipment, may simply be unaware that
there are some very powerful tubed amplifiers currently being manufactured.
And since the focus of this discussion (at least with me) has been upon
audiophile gear, not studio gear, referencews to the recording studio are not
realy germane to comparisons of tubed vs. SS amplifiers commonly used by audio
hobbyists - a population with which Krueger can not identify since they tend,
it would seem, to want to engage in individual preferences, a human behavior
foreign to Krueger's tunnel vision view of audio reproduction.



>>>>>> See what you missed :).
>>>
>>>>> Yes, it's a joke.
>>>
>>> <Richman doesn't even have a deceptive response to this challenge>
>
>
>> Very true, Krueger. You've cornered the RAO market on deception and
>> fraudulent posts. Perhaps this would be a good time for you to
>> republish your phony "evidence" about unprovoked personal attacks
>> that you claim you've been subjected to by myself and others. That's
>> always good for a laugh!
>>
>> LOL!!!
>>
>>


Krueger's silence in response to this factual statement, tells us all anybody
needs to know about his standards for "proof".



>>>>>>>>> IOW consumers can't avoid the sound quality of
>>>>>>>>> studio gear when they listen to commercial
>>>>>>>>> recordings, but they can avoid the sound quality
>>>>>>>>> of high end gear by listening using studio gear.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hehehe, HAHAHA... that's right!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Of course it is right. Count on you Powell to
>>>>>>> deceptively try to make a highly relevant statement
>>>>>>> that you can't deny, appear to be laughable.
>>>>>
>>>>>> "deceptively"... ? How much more overtly can I
>>>>>> ridicule your stereotypical viewpoint which is
>>>>>> empirically-lacking :)?
>>>>>
>>>>> Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks empirical evidence,
>>>>> Powell.
>>>
>>>> We can start with the examples given above.
>>>
>>> Which I just deconstructed. The ball is back in your court, Richman.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> You've already been tossed out of the game, Krueger. (1) Trying to
>> set a standard for tubed amplifiers, i.e. excessively high power
>> ratings, that most SS amplifiers can not attain,
>
>I just showed that this is yet another example of Richman making up a claim,
>deceptively claiming that I made it, and then attacking it.
>

A lie. Krueger boasted about the high power ratings of SS amplifers while, as
usual, derogating tubed amplifiers. He clearly was suggesting that this
specification connoted some type of "superiority" to this class of equipment.
When confronted with a listing of several manufacturers that are well known for
producing high-powered tubed amplifiers, Krueger tried to claim the factual
information provided was false. But then again, this is the same "expert" who
uses Google history to attack his enemies pretty often, yet can't even validate
a phony listing of personal attacks he claims I made against him.





>> (2) making
>> misleading claims about SS receivers in a stereo-oriented thread,
>> while neglecting to mention that they are multi-channel receivers,
>> and
>
>I just showed that this is yet another example of Richman making up a claim,
>deceptively claiming that I made it, and then attacking it.
>

Another lie that Krueger now repeats. He claimed that receivers commonly have
500 watts. Nowhere in his statement, which was designed to disparage tubed
equpment (as he always does when given the opportunity), was there any mention
of the significant fact that he was attempting to deceptively compare
multi-channel receivers against 2-channel tubed amplifiers when comparing power
ratings. And then he had the audacity to insult the intelligence of RAO
readers by presuming that this rather juvenile and simplistic effort to engage
in an audio shell game, so to speak, would be overlooked. Well, it wasn't,
much to Krueger's dismay.




>>(3) lying about others making deceptive claims with no evidence
>> to support this abnormal behavior. Three strikes, and your're (there is
>no such word except in Richman's world) out,
>> Krueger.
>
>I think this false claim, and the regrettable but clear google record of
>Richman's egocentric, deceptive and overbearing behavior pretty much speaks
>for itself.
>
>


Actually, the fact that Krueger does not have the integrity or honesty to
reproduce threads to which he responds when trying to defend his false claims,
pretty much begins most RAO readers' awareness of the level of dishonesty one
can expect from a compulsive liar like Krueger. Most other posters, except for
Krueger, reproduce the posts of others to which they respond. Kruger has in
the past tried to rationalize his failure to do so by claiming that others'
posts are boring, lengthy, stupid, etc. However, the truth is that this
compulsive liar has been frequently found to deceptively delete previously
posted material from others, make misleading editing changes, quibble about
typographical errors while hypocritically making plenty of his own (such as
'people gettin thier just deserts' and asking a poster recently "why note"?).

Krueger's paranoid conspiracy theories, delusions of grandeur (in the area of
audio "knowledge"), attempts to slander both audio hobbyists and professional
alikes ( the latter including respected professionals such as Glen Zelniker and
Jim Johnston and John Atkinson) are a matter of public record. Therefore, his
credibility - to the vast majority of RAO posters that regularly post here -
has been clearly found to be minimal. He's here really, for only a couple of
despicable purposes, to spread his anti-subjective-opinion, anti-tube,
anti-vinyl propaganda, and of course, as he proves on a daily basis, to engage
in lies, libel and character assassination of any and all that don't share his
prejudiced, biases, and extremist views re. audio.



Bruce J. Richman

[Arny Krueger]

"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

> Arny Krueger wrote:
>
>
>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>
>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
>>>>>> out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
>>>>>> amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
>>>>>> sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
>>>>>> with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the
>>>>>> exception.
>>>>
>>>>> Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since
>>>>> there are virtually no speakers that require power of this
>>>>> magnitude to be successfully driven at what most would consider to
>>>>> be reasonable listening levels.
>>>>
>>>> I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or
>>>> more into 8 ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers
>>>> that are only modestly inefficient. If I listen to digital
>>>> recordings of music that have lifelike dynamic range, I can push
>>>> the amps into clipping without exceeding 100 dB average levels.
>>>> Since I routinely find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I
>>>> attend, I conclude that these are not excessively high listening
>>>> levels. The speakers aren't damaged by doing this, either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The above boasts about loud listening levels are again irrelevant to
>>> the average home audio hobbyist, who has long realized that
>>> "lifelike" volume is not usually called for in home listening
>>> experiences.
>>
>> Yup, there's no such thing as home theater and the quest for
>> enveloping, realistic sound in the wonderful world of Richman.
>>
>
> Since this thread was ostensibly about stereo systems and amplifiers,
> Krueger's deceptive attempt to convert into a thread about home
> theater is just another example oif his typical method of trying to
> change focus when exposed for making deceptive claims.

This imaginary limitation of discussion to stereo is typical of Richman's
bogus debating trade methodology for wasting my time. I've already argued
this to death.

[Bruce J. Richman]

Arny Krueger wrote:


>"Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message

>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>
>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Bruce J. Richman" > wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> Arny Krueger wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Duhhhh. Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube amp put
>>>>>>> out 300 watts. I take it that in the past 20 years 300 watt tubed
>>>>>>> amps became routinely available and virtually every new tubed amp
>>>>>>> sold has at least that much output power? Certainly that happened
>>>>>>> with SS. 500 watt SS receivers are now the rule, not the
>>>>>>> exception.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Claims about 300 watt amplifiers are basically irrelevant since
>>>>>> there are virtually no speakers that require power of this
>>>>>> magnitude to be successfully driven at what most would consider to
>>>>>> be reasonable listening levels.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have a number of power amps that can deliver 300 watts RMS or
>>>>> more into 8 ohm loads, and I also have a number of 8 ohm speakers
>>>>> that are only modestly inefficient. If I listen to digital
>>>>> recordings of music that have lifelike dynamic range, I can push
>>>>> the amps into clipping without exceeding 100 dB average levels.
>>>>> Since I routinely find 100 dB levels at the live concerts I
>>>>> attend, I conclude that these are not excessively high listening
>>>>> levels. The speakers aren't damaged by doing this, either.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> The above boasts about loud listening levels are again irrelevant to
>>>> the average home audio hobbyist, who has long realized that
>>>> "lifelike" volume is not usually called for in home listening
>>>> experiences.
>>>
>>> Yup, there's no such thing as home theater and the quest for
>>> enveloping, realistic sound in the wonderful world of Richman.
>>>
>>
>> Since this thread was ostensibly about stereo systems and amplifiers,
>> Krueger's deceptive attempt to convert into a thread about home
>> theater is just another example oif his typical method of trying to
>> change focus when exposed for making deceptive claims.
>
>This imaginary limitation of discussion to stereo is typical of Richman's
>bogus debating trade methodology for wasting my time. I've already argued
>this to death.
>
>
>
>
>
>

Krueger's ludicrous assertion above is just routine daily practice for this
charlatan's bogus practice of running away from posts in which he has been
clearly bested and exposed as a dissembler and fraud. As usual, his deceptive
and false claims can't be defended and therefore, his need to resort to
personal attacks coupled with false arrogance are all he has left to waste
bandwidth on RAO. His efforts to promote his anti-subjective-opinion agenda,
as evidenced by his inability to discuss amplifier characteristics in an honest
manner, are simply further proof of his inability to tell the truth.



Bruce J. Richman

[Powell]

"Arny Krueger" wrote

> >>>> Most tubed audiophile systems appear...
> >>>>
> >>> That is the correct usage of the term "appear"
> >>> because you have little to no empirical
> >>> experiences with regard to tubed equipment
> >>> manufactured over the last 20 years.
> >>
> >> Last 20 years? Seems like an arbitrary distinction.
>
> > Perhaps you missed it (last 20 years)... popularization
> > of the digital format.
>
> Nope.
>
Ah, Arny the great communicator...


> >You may not know this but bandwidth and dynamics
> > increased over analog source signals.
>
> Nope.
>
Dare I say it, Please-do-your-homework® :).


> > This created greater demands on the
> > associated equipment (SS & tube).
>
> Duhhhh.
>
Let’s see what shovel Arny selects.


> Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube
> amp put out 300 watts.
>
In 1973 ("30 years") please list three manufactures
and their associated product model numbers
producing 300 watts RMS?


> Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks
> empirical evidence, Powell.
>
Please list makes and models of tube amps you
have personally measured/auditioned in your home
setup... last 20 years (manufactured date)? Short
of that, in the last 30 years or 40 years?

Note Bruce, rabbit to the hole :).

[Powell]

"Bruce J. Richman" wrote

> >This imaginary limitation of discussion to stereo is
> >typical of Richman's bogus debating trade methodology
> >for wasting my time. I've already argued this to death.
> >
> Krueger's ludicrous assertion above is just routine daily
> practice for this charlatan's bogus practice of running
> away from posts in which he has been clearly bested
> and exposed as a dissembler and fraud.
>
That's our boy (Arny), all-right :)!

[Bruce J. Richman]

Powell wrote:


>
>"Arny Krueger" wrote
>
>> >>>> Most tubed audiophile systems appear...
>> >>>>
>> >>> That is the correct usage of the term "appear"
>> >>> because you have little to no empirical
>> >>> experiences with regard to tubed equipment
>> >>> manufactured over the last 20 years.
>> >>
>> >> Last 20 years? Seems like an arbitrary distinction.
>>
>> > Perhaps you missed it (last 20 years)... popularization
>> > of the digital format.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>Ah, Arny the great communicator...
>
>
>> >You may not know this but bandwidth and dynamics
>> > increased over analog source signals.
>>
>> Nope.
>>
>Dare I say it, Please-do-your-homework® :).
>
>
>> > This created greater demands on the
>> > associated equipment (SS & tube).
>>
>> Duhhhh.
>>
>Let’s see what shovel Arny selects.
>
>
>> Letsee, 30 years ago an exceptional high end tube
>> amp put out 300 watts.
>>
>In 1973 ("30 years") please list three manufactures
>and their associated product model numbers
>producing 300 watts RMS?
>
>

No fair, Powell. You're asking Krueger for facts :) ! Not surprising that in
trying to weasel out of this claim, Krueger deliberately deleted it from his
later posts in this thread.



>> Why don't you explain how my viewpoint lacks
>> empirical evidence, Powell.
>>
>Please list makes and models of tube amps you
>have personally measured/auditioned in your home
>setup... last 20 years (manufactured date)? Short
>of that, in the last 30 years or 40 years?
>
>Note Bruce, rabbit to the hole :).
>
>
>
>

Agreed. Exposure of fraud tends to do that :)


Bruce J. Richman