On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:49:29 -0600, Law of Storms
wrote:

There is evidence that Shrub drank quite a lot, by
self-admission.

He is a confessed alcoholic and was convicted of drunk driving--the
only U.S. president ever to be convicted of a crime.

On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:00:13 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Anybody who didn't vote Libertarian should be. :-)

Including Bush voters?

George M. Middius wrote:

Law of Storms said:


For starters, Hillary is not a progressive Democrat.
She's the same species of middle of th eroadish
corporate snuggler that her husband was.


I wouldn't be so certain. I can put an end to your
prognosticating and pontificating with the Kittycat Rule.
It's a very reliable predictor. Naturally, the kittycat
in question lives with me. Did he screech in terror when
Dubya talked during the debates? Yes he did. Did he purr
with contentment the last few times Hillary appeared on
the news? Yes he did.

Case closed.

You should have mentioned you had the feline crystal ball at
your disposal - I could have spared my chapped fingertips
the trouble.


That's what you say now. When the milk dish was empty, you were probably
stuck wishing for the good old days when Whitewater was blue chip.

This is cow country. Milk dishes are always full.

Whitewater is old hat. Why do you think I live in this
hellish place?



I bought camos for my cats, and wrist rockets. It's gotten
kind of hairy for normal folk around here.


Good planning. Don't forget the rope traps for marauding Jesus freaks.

We get 'em here. Plenty come to the door to prosyletize. I
get a quick laugh from the notion that Southern Baptists (a
majority of chrsitians here) consider Mormons (a growing
minority here) to be members of a cult.


--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

jak163 wrote:
On Fri, 19 Nov 2004 16:49:29 -0600, Law of Storms
wrote:


There is evidence that Shrub drank quite a lot, by
self-admission.


He is a confessed alcoholic and was convicted of drunk driving--the
only U.S. president ever to be convicted of a crime.

Thanks for putting it so succinctly.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Mr. Middius said:

Law of Storms said:

Hillary won't be running in 2008, contrary to the fevered
fantasies of the right wingnuts.

How can you be so sure? If the country is ready for a progressive in the
White House, and the Dems get their act together, she might build on the
support she already has and make a run for it.

Bill Maher, on his HBO show, pushed for the REAL match-up in 2008...Arnold
Schwartzenegger vs. Bill Clinton. All it will take is the repealing of two
Amendments. It's what the people REALLY want, the very best from the two
parties. He joked that you could go pay-per-view on the debates alone!

I heard Clinton's speech the other day at the dedication of his presidential
library, and I thought it was excellent, although he relied a little too much
on his notes. I never thought I'd say it, but I do miss him a little bit. And
I really enjoyed when he talked about the harsh political division that now
exists in this country, and when he complimented both Bush and Kerry. "Am I
the only person in this country that likes both of these guys?" he asked. I
know he was pandering a bit, but at the same time I found it soulful, the kind
of thoughtful and wise remark someone makes after they've had a near-death
experience.

Boon

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

Hillary won't be running in 2008, contrary to the fevered fantasies of
the right wingnuts.


We'll see.

You'll see someone else running.



You could be on Fox!


Bigh whoop!

I thought you'd be overjoyed!


It's a news channel, I'm not interested in being news.

It's an entertaiment and propaganda channel.


Like Air America?

A sorry excuse as far as imitations go.

They aren't congential liars, so it makes for bad radio.


The problem for Air America is they aren't entertaining or funny.

"jak163" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 20 Nov 2004 01:00:13 GMT, "Michael McKelvy"
wrote:

Anybody who didn't vote Libertarian should be. :-)

Including Bush voters?

You need to ask?

McKelvy said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message
...
McKelvy said:

What is there to remember, aside from what YOU believe. You got nothin'.
Ain't proved nothin'. But you have it on authority of someone you don't
even
know for sure exists. Nice.

Actually, Arny's crime was committed in its completion right here on RAO.
I
gave the proof to you.

No you didn't, you gave me a story you wanted me to believe.

Then you lied about having read it.

No, I didn't.

Then you spun and
spun and spun. So it became very clear to everyone here that you have an
agenda when it comes to Arny's pedophilia.

My agenda is that you offered no proof.

And yet you remian here, knowing perfectly well what people think about
you.
How very strange.

I stopped worrying about what people think of me when I was about 12.
I know what I think about myself and that's much more important. You should
try it.

For whose benefit do you make these nonsensical statements? Even Arny has to
be rolling his eyes at this point.

Boon

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
Your make up will smear.

Fantasize as you wish, but I'm in love with another.


You had better wait until he's eighteen.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...

Michael McKelvy wrote:


Hillary won't be running in 2008, contrary to the
fevered fantasies of the right wingnuts.


We'll see.

You'll see someone else running.



You could be on Fox!


Bigh whoop!

I thought you'd be overjoyed!


It's a news channel, I'm not interested in being
news.

It's an entertaiment and propaganda channel.


Like Air America?

A sorry excuse as far as imitations go.

They aren't congential liars, so it makes for bad
radio.



The problem for Air America is they aren't entertaining
or funny.

Mikey, I'll be bat**** crazy before I'm, done talking to
you, cause we are going to agree again.

It isn't funny. I got the dientical feeling I get whenever I
hear any of the wingnut radio gab orgies - mild naseau and
the need to shower.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Even Arny has to be rolling his eyes at this point.

Your childish, nonsensical posts have that effect on me, Marc.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Law of Storms said:

It isn't funny. I got the dientical feeling I get whenever I
hear any of the wingnut radio gab orgies - mild naseau and
the need to shower.

Those shows remind me of TV preachers. Or any preachers giving sermons.
The audience knows what to expect and the preacher knows what they want to
hear -- more of the same. It's always more of the same. I guess that's
useful if your goal is to pretend other ideas don't exist.


Stop talking about Franken and Air America.

"GeoSynch" said:

Please expond on this. What sort of complaints have you filed and
what sort of outcomes have resulted from them?

We (the neighborhood) managed to stop plans for building a mosque in
our town. They're planning on building a big one 50 kms away.
No use for us protesting against that :-)

Yes, I'm a narrow-minded provincial: "But not in my backyard".

--
Sander de Waal
" SOA of a KT88? Sufficient. "

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

Those shows remind me of TV preachers. Or any preachers giving sermons.
The audience knows what to expect and the preacher knows what they want
to
hear -- more of the same. It's always more of the same. I guess that's
useful if your goal is to pretend other ideas don't exist.

Stop talking about Franken and Air America.

So now you're reduced to Mikey-level IKYABWAIs? My counsel to you is: Stop
giving in to your insecurities.


My advice to you is to take a realisitic view of both side of the aisle, and
to stop being hypocritical.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

Be serious fo rten seconds. Clinton presided over a
merger frenzy that made the corporate Repubs very, very
happy. The Telecommunications Act led to many of those
mergers. Most of his policies provided huge benefits to
mjor corporate outfits. That is hardly liberal.


I'm not sure what you mean by presided over. Do you mean
alloed them to happen, as if there were something he
could do to stop it?

I mean presided over. He didn't "allow" them to happen - he
facilitated the merger mania of the 1990's through
legislation he and the Dems advoctaed and th ealteration of
the regulatory strcture.



On that point, about that race I'd agree.
Fortunately we still have a Constitution that keeps
all this stuff in check.

A constitution that some are trying to circumvent
through legislation. See the Patriot Act.



What bothers you about it? It's just an extension of the
same law that was applied to Organized Crime in the past.

The Patriot Act ain't RICO, though I hear that comparison
made all the time.


--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

George M. Middius wrote:

Law of Storms said:


It isn't funny. I got the dientical feeling I get
whenever I hear any of the wingnut radio gab orgies -
mild naseau and the need to shower.


Those shows remind me of TV preachers. Or any preachers
giving sermons. The audience knows what to expect and the
preacher knows what they want to hear -- more of the
same. It's always more of the same. I guess that's useful
if your goal is to pretend other ideas don't exist.

In some ways liberals and conservative would be better
served listening to the other side's radio nonsense. Can't
hurt to know what the enemy is thinking.



--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Arny said:

"Marc Phillips" wrote in message


Even Arny has to be rolling his eyes at this point.

Your childish, nonsensical posts have that effect on me, Marc.

If you ever told the truth, your head would explode.

Boon

George M. Middius wrote:

Law of Storms said:


Those shows remind me of TV preachers. Or any
preachers giving sermons. The audience knows what to
expect and the preacher knows what they want to hear
-- more of the same. It's always more of the same. I
guess that's useful if your goal is to pretend other
ideas don't exist.

In some ways liberals and conservative would be better
served listening to the other side's radio nonsense.
Can't hurt to know what the enemy is thinking.


I think Franken & Co. messed up by getting too earnest.
The righties are past masters of being angry about
everything, and mostly about nothing. We should be making
more fun of them. I once saw a "comedy" show by David
Cross that was disappointing for this reason. He spent
half his time on politics, but with more resentment than
humor.

Earnest, yes.

I've watched some of the hour long TV version on IFC or
Sundance (can't recall which), and therre is sometimes a sly
humor present. The difficulty is being part of the
opposition party, so to speak, which has to find a way to
balance valid critcism of those holding the reigns with an
attitude that will draw people in. Humor, as you say.
Franken is far funnier outside of the Air America framework.
His book was a wel done send up of the manufactured hysteria
of right wing media.


What can you say about a political party that is
officially terrified of men who wear dresses?

Which party is that?

Hard to tell these days.


--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

"Arny Krueger" wrote in message
...
"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message

I've read most of the political threads recently, but I don't see
anything from Arny and how he voted.

So, Arny, how did you vote?

NOYB.

**Correct. You can still tell, if you want to.

Why would I tell?

Did you vote for the alcoholic, drug addled playboy with the brains
of a rock? Of someone else? Perhaps, someone with some intelligence
and idea of how dangerous a war really is?

The nature of politics seems to exclude anybody with a brain.

**Really? Are you suggesting that Lincoln, JFK, Bush (snr), Carter and
Clinton were/are not intelligent men?

Lincoln's dabbing in politics got him killed, as did JFK's. Bush Sr,
Carter, and Clinton each screwed up badly in his own way. They were all
smart in some ways, but they had pretty obvious mental limitations.

**Mental limitations? How do you figure that? All were/are highly
intelligent men. Of that, there is no doubt. None were perfect humans
(obviously). What is utterly incomprehensible, is that Reagan and Bush (jnr)
were voted into power (twice!). Both were/are clearly brain damaged and have
been already shown to make decisions which are dangerous and self-serving.


Certainly, with the likes of Reagan and Bush (jnr) we have.had the
position of people with serious
brain damage running the most powerful nation on Earth.

Then there is Stalin...

**Was Stalin voted into power by a majority of his peers? Did Stalin pretend
be anything other than a ruthless dictator?


That fact does not suggest that ALL American Presidents, or politicians
are
stupid.

I didn't say they were totally stupid, just not the sharpest knives in the
drawer.

**See my list above. Please feel free to point out why you think that these
Presidents were stupid men. BTW: I don't regard a person's sexual
preference, as evidence of stupidity, as males are genetically driven to
sexual infidelity.


I had a great
uncle who was a member of congress for two terms, but he was the
black sheep of the family. He cheated on his wife. But if you met
him and talked with him, he seemed to be a great guy.

**That is what is said about Dubya. Great guy, but a man with a
twisted moral structure and no brains at all.

I figure he has at least average IQ for a person in his social class.

**He certainly does not display it. He SEEMS to be severely handicapped. He
also either lies badly, or is incapable of dealing with reality.


He never had what would be called a
high-paying job ever in his life of so-called political service, but
he retired to a big fancy house in a different state from where he
was elected, and died a rich man.

I have a pretty good idea of how most of the usual cast of suspects
voted, but not you.

I'm going to try to keep it that way.

**I wonder why?

Becuase of the long history of extensive abuse of such information on RAO,
for one thing.

**I can only imagine that you voted for Bush, then, as a vote the other way,
would not engender derision. It seems clear that the prevailing political
bias in this groups leans away from Dubya. Particularly in those who attack
you.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...


Clyde Slick said:

Those shows remind me of TV preachers. Or any preachers giving
sermons.
The audience knows what to expect and the preacher knows what they
want
to hear -- more of the same. It's always more of the same. I guess
that's
useful if your goal is to pretend other ideas don't exist.

Stop talking about Franken and Air America.

So now you're reduced to Mikey-level IKYABWAIs? My counsel to you is:
Stop
giving in to your insecurities.

My advice to you is to take a realisitic view of both side of the aisle,
and
to stop being hypocritical.

I don't thing I'm being hypocritical. I've always said you're a
narrow-minded bigot who's dominated by fear, and I consistently say the
same thing about others of your ilk. Furthermore, I don't try to stop you
from making your own stupid accusations about smart people, since I know
you, like Scottieborg and duh-Mikey, are a couple of steps behind in every
exchange. I'm true to my principles, Dumbo.

There is no use denying that the commentators on both sides of the spectrum
play to their respective choirs. I just want you to realize
that the lib side is just as closed minded as the right.

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**I can only imagine that you voted for Bush, then, as a vote the other
way, would not engender derision. It seems clear that the prevailing
political bias in this groups leans away from Dubya. Particularly in those
who attack you.


I love being the exception.

"Clyde Slick" wrote in message
...

"Trevor Wilson" wrote in message
...


**I can only imagine that you voted for Bush, then, as a vote the other
way, would not engender derision. It seems clear that the prevailing
political bias in this groups leans away from Dubya. Particularly in
those who attack you.


I love being the exception.

**You voted for Dubya? Here's a hint: Keep it secret. People who voted for
Dubya have nothing to be proud of.


--
Trevor Wilson
www.rageaudio.com.au

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

Be serious fo rten seconds. Clinton presided over a
merger frenzy that made the corporate Repubs very, very
happy. The Telecommunications Act led to many of those
mergers. Most of his policies provided huge benefits to
mjor corporate outfits. That is hardly liberal.


I'm not sure what you mean by presided over. Do you mean
alloed them to happen, as if there were something he
could do to stop it?

I mean presided over. He didn't "allow" them to happen - he facilitated
the merger mania of the 1990's through legislation he and the Dems
advoctaed and th ealteration of the regulatory strcture.

You make that sound like a bad thing. Why?



On that point, about that race I'd agree.
Fortunately we still have a Constitution that keeps
all this stuff in check.

A constitution that some are trying to circumvent
through legislation. See the Patriot Act.



What bothers you about it? It's just an extension of the
same law that was applied to Organized Crime in the past.

The Patriot Act ain't RICO, though I hear that comparison made all the
time.

Because that's the root of it. They applied law that was used in RICO and
applied it elsewhere.

What specific things about the Patriot Act bother you?
--

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
news
George M. Middius wrote:

Law of Storms said:


It isn't funny. I got the dientical feeling I get
whenever I hear any of the wingnut radio gab orgies -
mild naseau and the need to shower.


Those shows remind me of TV preachers. Or any preachers
giving sermons. The audience knows what to expect and the
preacher knows what they want to hear -- more of the
same. It's always more of the same. I guess that's useful
if your goal is to pretend other ideas don't exist.

In some ways liberals and conservative would be better served listening to
the other side's radio nonsense. Can't hurt to know what the enemy is
thinking.



Or even if they really are the enemy.

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
news


Law of Storms said:

Those shows remind me of TV preachers. Or any preachers
giving sermons. The audience knows what to expect and the
preacher knows what they want to hear -- more of the
same. It's always more of the same. I guess that's useful
if your goal is to pretend other ideas don't exist.

In some ways liberals and conservative would be better
served listening to the other side's radio nonsense. Can't
hurt to know what the enemy is thinking.

I think Franken & Co. messed up by getting too earnest. The righties are
past masters of being angry about everything, and mostly about nothing. We
should be making more fun of them. I once saw a "comedy" show by David
Cross that was disappointing for this reason. He spent half his time on
politics, but with more resentment than humor.

What can you say about a political party that is officially terrified of
men who wear dresses?


The honest thing would be to say that they don't exist, since there is no
such party. Or they might be both parties. Many of the states that had
anti-gay marriage votes, were also states that voted for Kerry.

"Sander deWaal" wrote in message
...
"ScottW" said:

Mr. Geert Wilders has only one point on his party program.
His faction will be large enough without me voting for him.

If we had a party that had that one point, halting illegal immigration, on
their party program, they would get my vote.

There are more problems to be solved in our country than just that.
Besides, apart from the far leftwing parties, every party is at last
convinced we have to do something about illegal and even legal
immigration and integration of same.

--
The solution is the same for everybody, you can't give social welfare to
illegal. That would put a stop to much of it.

Sander deWaal wrote:

Please expound on this. What sort of complaints have you filed and
what sort of outcomes have resulted from them?

We (the neighborhood) managed to stop plans for building a mosque in
our town. They're planning on building a big one 50 kms away.
No use for us protesting against that :-)

Yes, I'm a narrow-minded provincial: "But not in my backyard".

A small victory is a victory nonetheless. At least you can sleep peacefully
without being jarred awake by the arabic call to prayers that would have
been broadcast over loudspeakers if the mosque had gotten built.


GeoSynch

"George M. Middius" wrote in message
...




Cloed-mindedness is your point? That's what you're arguing about? I'll
agree that some of us are as close-minded as all of you. But you're still
the party of evil, hate, and repression.


Right, I'm still a registered Democrat.

Pudge meandered:

He told us so when he said people only say what
want him to think we believe, not what we actually believe.

Quite a sentence there, eh Pudge? ;-)


GeoSynch

"GeoSynch" wrote in message
k.net...
Sander deWaal wrote:

Please expound on this. What sort of complaints have you filed and
what sort of outcomes have resulted from them?

We (the neighborhood) managed to stop plans for building a mosque in
our town. They're planning on building a big one 50 kms away.
No use for us protesting against that :-)

Yes, I'm a narrow-minded provincial: "But not in my backyard".

A small victory is a victory nonetheless. At least you can sleep
peacefully
without being jarred awake by the arabic call to prayers that would have
been broadcast over loudspeakers if the mosque had gotten built.


Maybe it would be better to have the Mosque in your
own neighborhood. The radical Islamists are unlikely
to nuke their own sacred place.

Michael McKelvy wrote:

I mean presided over. He didn't "allow" them to happen
- he facilitated the merger mania of the 1990's through
legislation he and the Dems advoctaed and th
ealteration of the regulatory strcture.


You make that sound like a bad thing. Why?

I wasn't making a value judgement, just a comment on
clinton's alleged liberalism.

The Patriot Act ain't RICO, though I hear that
comparison made all the time.


Because that's the root of it. They applied law that was
used in RICO and applied it elsewhere.

Um, they wrote brand new laws that abrogate your rights
under the consitution, and thus far, the courts have seen
fit to uphold even the most egregious parts of it.


What specific things about the Patriot Act bother you?
All of it.

I find it beyond disturbing that no one read the ****ing
thing before it passed.



--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Law of Storms" wrote in message
news
George M. Middius wrote:

Law of Storms said:



It isn't funny. I got the dientical feeling I get
whenever I hear any of the wingnut radio gab orgies
- mild naseau and the need to shower.


Those shows remind me of TV preachers. Or any
preachers giving sermons. The audience knows what to
expect and the preacher knows what they want to hear
-- more of the same. It's always more of the same. I
guess that's useful if your goal is to pretend other
ideas don't exist.

In some ways liberals and conservative would be better
served listening to the other side's radio nonsense.
Can't hurt to know what the enemy is thinking.




Or even if they really are the enemy.

In some cases, they are.



--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Michael McKelvy wrote:

The honest thing would be to say that they don't exist,
since there is no such party. Or they might be both
parties. Many of the states that had anti-gay marriage
votes, were also states that voted for Kerry.

Which ones had an anti-gay marriage amendment and also went
for Kerry in the presidential election?



--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

GeoSynch wrote:
Sander deWaal wrote:


Please expound on this. What sort of complaints have
you filed and what sort of outcomes have resulted
from them?


We (the neighborhood) managed to stop plans for
building a mosque in our town. They're planning on
building a big one 50 kms away. No use for us
protesting against that :-)


Yes, I'm a narrow-minded provincial: "But not in my
backyard".


A small victory is a victory nonetheless. At least you
can sleep peacefully without being jarred awake by the
arabic call to prayers that would have been broadcast
over loudspeakers if the mosque had gotten built.

Now they can go to work on all of those god damned early
morning church bells...



--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:

The honest thing would be to say that they don't exist,
since there is no such party. Or they might be both
parties. Many of the states that had anti-gay marriage
votes, were also states that voted for Kerry.

Which ones had an anti-gay marriage amendment and also went for Kerry in
the presidential election?

The only one I can remember off the top of my head is Oregon, but I seem to
recall there were a few others.

"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...
Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Law of Storms" wrote in message
news
George M. Middius wrote:

Law of Storms said:



It isn't funny. I got the dientical feeling I get whenever I hear any
of the wingnut radio gab orgies
- mild naseau and the need to shower.


Those shows remind me of TV preachers. Or any
preachers giving sermons. The audience knows what to
expect and the preacher knows what they want to hear
-- more of the same. It's always more of the same. I
guess that's useful if your goal is to pretend other
ideas don't exist.

In some ways liberals and conservative would be better
served listening to the other side's radio nonsense.
Can't hurt to know what the enemy is thinking.




Or even if they really are the enemy.

In some cases, they are.



Mostly, they are both the enemy.

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Law of Storms" wrote in message
...

Michael McKelvy wrote:


The honest thing would be to say that they don't
exist, since there is no such party. Or they might
be both parties. Many of the states that had
anti-gay marriage votes, were also states that voted
for Kerry.

Which ones had an anti-gay marriage amendment and also
went for Kerry in the presidential election?


The only one I can remember off the top of my head is
Oregon, but I seem to recall there were a few others.


So much for "many."

Oregon and Michigan passed the amendments and went for
Kerry. Those two passed the amendments with the smallest
margins of the eleven states which proferred uch amendments.

Similar bans won by larger margins in Arkansas, Georgia,
Kentucky, Michigan, Mississippi, Montana, North Dakota,
Oklahoma, Ohio and Utah, all of which went for Bush.

So two of eleven.

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Michael McKelvy wrote:
"Law of Storms" wrote in message

Or even if they really are the enemy.

In some cases, they are.




Mostly, they are both the enemy.

Yikes!

--
Law of Storms

"My God, it's full of stars..."

Arny Krueger wrote


Correction:

I had a great uncle who was a member of congress for three terms,


Another ****ful ****head who is full of **** that ran for public office.

Arny Krueger wrote
Trevor Wilson wrote




I've read most of the political threads recently, but I don't see
anything from Arny and how he voted.

So, Arny, how did you vote?

NOYB.

Did you vote for the alcoholic, drug addled playboy with the brains
of a rock? Of someone else? Perhaps, someone with some intelligence
and idea of how dangerous a war really is?


The nature of politics seems to exclude anybody with a brain. I had a great
uncle who was a member of congress for two terms, but he was the black sheep
of the family. He cheated on his wife. But if you met him and talked with
him, he seemed to be a great guy. He never had what would be called a
high-paying job ever in his life of so-called political service, but he
retired to a big fancy house in a different state from where he was elected,
and died a rich man.


Why do you have this need to tell everyone that foul-smelling excrement runs
in your blood.