ospam (Tom Paterson)
I said I wasn't buying any of the Reagan idolization. I said I doubted
(entirely) he'd get a friendly reception up at the Pearly Gates (imagining they
exist for a moment). Again, Will, this is a matter of someone not agreeing with
you.

Right. Not. At least I have a FACTUAL basis for my claim he would be
honored in the next life, unlike your claims which are based on nothing more
than your personal political hatred of the man. He was honored here. It is a
fact that people loved Reagan, despite your "disagreeing". .

Bile? Being real. Eating grapes while striking pickers were beaten over the
head with billyclubs, Iran/Contra and then lying about it, changing the rules
so his buddies could loot the S&L's ("Now we have what we want").

The public heard your "sour grapes" and dismissed it.

Well you have tried your best, and repeatedly, to boot. Didn't exactly slay
me
with your rhetorical skills. That's because public actions (as above, plus that
oh-so-private shackup weekend with Nancy) aren't "refutable". "Those people are
sleeping on sewer grates because they want to be sleeping on sewer grates" in
response to criticism of his domestic policies speaks great volumes.

Tom, you are the left wing political equivalent of a Fundamentalist
Christian. Like the dogmatic follower of narrow Christian doctrine, you think
worshipping at the altar of your "True faith" is the "One Way" through the
Pearly Gates, and all heretics and unbeleivers will end up in hell. And like
the narrow minded Christian you are totally WRONG, because people have to
accept ideas of their own free choice, not because they are forced to by fear
of excommunication or threat of damnation. This is the flaw in the narrow
views of some Christians and the flaw in your evangelical left/liberal othodoxy
as well. Free will is neccessary for a real and true faith - even in politics
- and your views are quite facistic in that regard.

What is the "will of the people", Will? Did they really want their
retirement
benefits taken away? Did they really want to work "at pleasure" (being fired
without recourse and losing any/all accrued benefits for no reason)? Reagan was
champion of this sort of thing whether you agree or not.

"The people" hardly have need of you to tell them what "their will" is or
should be Tom. Reagan left office as the most loved President in modern times,
with an average 65% approval rating. And this is despite all the bull**** of
the sort you have put out here. It has all been said before ad naseum, and
dismissed.

Really Tom, the bottom line is it burns your political ass that in this
life, Ray Charles honored Reagan, and you really have no basis other than your
cries of "heresy!" to suggest that he would be unlikely to do so in the next
world as well. You think, in your arrogance, that all popular culture is
owned by those who share your ideology - and in the face of evidence to the
contrary, you have a fit.

And there is nothing graceful in that.

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

From: ospam (WillStG)

At least I have a FACTUAL basis for my claim he would be
honored in the next life, unlike your claims which are based on nothing more
than your personal political hatred of the man.

Saying people wanted to sleep on sewer grates, Iran/Contra (arms for hostages)
& lying about it later, insane folks in the streets, union busting/eating
grapes, shacking up with Nancy are facts. Political hatred? That's your crayon
box, Will. If you can see that "God" will honor RR for casting the insane out
to save tax money, you have a mighty powerful political set of glasses on.

(snip snip snip)

Like the dogmatic follower of narrow Christian doctrine, you think
worshipping at the altar of your "True faith" is the "One Way" through the
Pearly Gates, and all heretics and unbeleivers will end up in hell. (babble
generally snipped, he called me a "fascist" in there somewhere.)

Nope. Remember, I don't necessarily believe in the Pearly Gates (nor do I share
my beliefs with just anyone). And *me* dogmatic, especially compared to you, oh
tireless defender of the Norths, Limbaughs and Bennetts of this world?!?!?
Snort.

I don't accept your mythical version of Ronald Reagan. "Get over it". --TP

From: ospam (WillStG)

At least I have a FACTUAL basis for my claim he would be
honored in the next life, unlike your claims which are based on nothing more
than your personal political hatred of the man.

Saying people wanted to sleep on sewer grates, Iran/Contra (arms for hostages)
& lying about it later, insane folks in the streets, union busting/eating
grapes, shacking up with Nancy are facts. Political hatred? That's your crayon
box, Will. If you can see that "God" will honor RR for casting the insane out
to save tax money, you have a mighty powerful political set of glasses on.

(snip snip snip)

Like the dogmatic follower of narrow Christian doctrine, you think
worshipping at the altar of your "True faith" is the "One Way" through the
Pearly Gates, and all heretics and unbeleivers will end up in hell. (babble
generally snipped, he called me a "fascist" in there somewhere.)

Nope. Remember, I don't necessarily believe in the Pearly Gates (nor do I share
my beliefs with just anyone). And *me* dogmatic, especially compared to you, oh
tireless defender of the Norths, Limbaughs and Bennetts of this world?!?!?
Snort.

I don't accept your mythical version of Ronald Reagan. "Get over it". --TP

(Tom Paterson)
Saying people wanted to sleep on sewer grates, Iran/Contra (arms for
hostages)
& lying about it later, insane folks in the streets, union busting/eating
grapes, shacking up with Nancy are facts. Political hatred? That's your
crayon
box, Will. If you can see that "God" will honor RR for casting the insane
out
to save tax money, you have a mighty powerful political set of glasses on.

The liberal City Of San Francisco has come to the same conclusion about the
homeless problem in their city, Tom. And your spin on Iran/Contra Union
busting and his love of his wife might be reason for YOU to not honor the man,
but a substantila majority of Americans disagree with you.

And I never said "God" would honor Reagan in the next wolrd. What I did
say was that people who honored him here in life would likely do the same in
the next world, and you have no way to dispute that logically. And I said God
would not in my opinion consign a man to hell because he did not agree with
your political orthodoxy.

Nope. Remember, I don't necessarily believe in the Pearly Gates (nor do I
share
my beliefs with just anyone). And *me* dogmatic, especially compared to you,
oh
tireless defender of the Norths, Limbaughs and Bennetts of this world?!?!?
Snort.

Although you do not neccessarily beleive in a next world, you certainly
have strong opinions about what he fate of people who disagree with you
politically will be. And it is your political beleifs that are the basis for
your judgements.
That is dogmatic and narrow minded in my view.

I don't accept your mythical version of Ronald Reagan. "Get over it".

Tom, I was over you when the Berlin Wall came down.

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

(Tom Paterson)
Saying people wanted to sleep on sewer grates, Iran/Contra (arms for
hostages)
& lying about it later, insane folks in the streets, union busting/eating
grapes, shacking up with Nancy are facts. Political hatred? That's your
crayon
box, Will. If you can see that "God" will honor RR for casting the insane
out
to save tax money, you have a mighty powerful political set of glasses on.

The liberal City Of San Francisco has come to the same conclusion about the
homeless problem in their city, Tom. And your spin on Iran/Contra Union
busting and his love of his wife might be reason for YOU to not honor the man,
but a substantila majority of Americans disagree with you.

And I never said "God" would honor Reagan in the next wolrd. What I did
say was that people who honored him here in life would likely do the same in
the next world, and you have no way to dispute that logically. And I said God
would not in my opinion consign a man to hell because he did not agree with
your political orthodoxy.

Nope. Remember, I don't necessarily believe in the Pearly Gates (nor do I
share
my beliefs with just anyone). And *me* dogmatic, especially compared to you,
oh
tireless defender of the Norths, Limbaughs and Bennetts of this world?!?!?
Snort.

Although you do not neccessarily beleive in a next world, you certainly
have strong opinions about what he fate of people who disagree with you
politically will be. And it is your political beleifs that are the basis for
your judgements.
That is dogmatic and narrow minded in my view.

I don't accept your mythical version of Ronald Reagan. "Get over it".

Tom, I was over you when the Berlin Wall came down.

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

From: ospam (WillStG)

The liberal City Of San Francisco has come to the same conclusion about the
homeless problem in their city, Tom.

A formal statement "they want to be homeless"? Citation, please.

And your spin on Iran/Contra Union
busting and his love of his wife might be reason for YOU to not honor the
man,

Spin? I didn't spin anything. He was up to his ears in Iran/Contra--(arms for
hostages, treating with foreign countries without authority, CIA cocaine
shenannigans, the whole bit. Then he lied about it. That's not spin. That's
fact. He did bust the controllers' union, and his Troopers did bust striking
pickers over the head with nightsticks. He shacked up with Nancy. All fact, not
"spun".

[The above list} might be reason for YOU to not honor the man,

That's what I've been saying. Congratulations, welcome aboard!!!

but a substantila majority of Americans disagree with you.

So PO'd you can't even type straight. I don't care about your purported
"substantial" majority. (Abe Lincoln on fooling people, again).

And I never said "God" would honor Reagan in the next wolrd.

Steaming hot, typing flummoxed. No, not exactly. You said "God" murdered Ray to
come do a special job. Obviously, to serenade RR in a big arrival bash. That's
where I jumped in and objected to your smearing of the name and dignity of Ray
Charles, that his remaining life was insignificant compared to putting on the
dog for Ronnie.

What I did
say was that people who honored him here in life would likely do the same in
the next world, and you have no way to dispute that logically.

The "next world"... if it doesn't exist, which *you* can't prove, then they
won't be doing anything. There, is that "logical" enough for you? Boy, that was
like fish in a barrel.

And I said God
would not in my opinion consign a man to hell because he did not agree with
your political orthodoxy.

And I said my opinion on RR didn't have anything to do with his "politics" per
se, but with his actions. You know, like the Good Book says, Will: "By their
fruits shall ye know them".

You are the one with the "political orthodoxy", evidenced by defending
scalawags such as Bennett, North, and Limbaugh. And Ronald Reagan. (Yes, being
in league with those who looted the S&L's makes him a scalawag.).

Although you do not neccessarily beleive in a next world, you certainly
have strong opinions about what he fate of people who disagree with you
politically will be.

Again, over and over: Not "politics". Actions.

And it is your political beleifs that are the basis for
your judgements.

Nope. It's my moral sense of right and wrong. I think it was wrong to remove
protections from the S&L accounts so that the American people could pony up a
big payday to thieves like Neil Bush (Silverado).

That is dogmatic and narrow minded in my view.

Well you're wrong in the first place, as above. I'd have to yield to you on the
dogmatic and narrow minded thing, though. You're tops there. Defending Rush
Limbaugh??? Incredible.

(I wrote):

I don't accept your mythical version of Ronald Reagan. "Get over it".

Tom, I was over you when the Berlin Wall came down.

Reagan, last in an unbroken line of Presidents "tough on Communism" going back
at least through Truman. Since defence expenditures in the USSR only went up
about 4% during the time they supposedly bankrupted themselves in a military
buildup, there apparently wasn't much of a military buildup (neocon
revisionism). The neocons also don't much like to talk about the Soviet defeat
in Afghanistan that was one of the real reasons the USSR broke up-- dissent
over war dead and official coverups about casualties (thousands and thousands
of "training accidents"). Plus the failure of Central Planning and quotas. Or
that Soviet central control of nuclear materials is now lost, or that crime has
risen and many Soviet people actually saw a decrease in their living standards
after the breakup, since state-sponsored jobs were lost.

Encore, Will. Try to stuff some more words in my mouth, why don't you? And some
more attacks on my morality, you've skated pretty light there a time or two
now. What was that one whopper? "Ollie North is a great guy?" Yeow. --Tom
Paterson

From: ospam (WillStG)

The liberal City Of San Francisco has come to the same conclusion about the
homeless problem in their city, Tom.

A formal statement "they want to be homeless"? Citation, please.

And your spin on Iran/Contra Union
busting and his love of his wife might be reason for YOU to not honor the
man,

Spin? I didn't spin anything. He was up to his ears in Iran/Contra--(arms for
hostages, treating with foreign countries without authority, CIA cocaine
shenannigans, the whole bit. Then he lied about it. That's not spin. That's
fact. He did bust the controllers' union, and his Troopers did bust striking
pickers over the head with nightsticks. He shacked up with Nancy. All fact, not
"spun".

[The above list} might be reason for YOU to not honor the man,

That's what I've been saying. Congratulations, welcome aboard!!!

but a substantila majority of Americans disagree with you.

So PO'd you can't even type straight. I don't care about your purported
"substantial" majority. (Abe Lincoln on fooling people, again).

And I never said "God" would honor Reagan in the next wolrd.

Steaming hot, typing flummoxed. No, not exactly. You said "God" murdered Ray to
come do a special job. Obviously, to serenade RR in a big arrival bash. That's
where I jumped in and objected to your smearing of the name and dignity of Ray
Charles, that his remaining life was insignificant compared to putting on the
dog for Ronnie.

What I did
say was that people who honored him here in life would likely do the same in
the next world, and you have no way to dispute that logically.

The "next world"... if it doesn't exist, which *you* can't prove, then they
won't be doing anything. There, is that "logical" enough for you? Boy, that was
like fish in a barrel.

And I said God
would not in my opinion consign a man to hell because he did not agree with
your political orthodoxy.

And I said my opinion on RR didn't have anything to do with his "politics" per
se, but with his actions. You know, like the Good Book says, Will: "By their
fruits shall ye know them".

You are the one with the "political orthodoxy", evidenced by defending
scalawags such as Bennett, North, and Limbaugh. And Ronald Reagan. (Yes, being
in league with those who looted the S&L's makes him a scalawag.).

Although you do not neccessarily beleive in a next world, you certainly
have strong opinions about what he fate of people who disagree with you
politically will be.

Again, over and over: Not "politics". Actions.

And it is your political beleifs that are the basis for
your judgements.

Nope. It's my moral sense of right and wrong. I think it was wrong to remove
protections from the S&L accounts so that the American people could pony up a
big payday to thieves like Neil Bush (Silverado).

That is dogmatic and narrow minded in my view.

Well you're wrong in the first place, as above. I'd have to yield to you on the
dogmatic and narrow minded thing, though. You're tops there. Defending Rush
Limbaugh??? Incredible.

(I wrote):

I don't accept your mythical version of Ronald Reagan. "Get over it".

Tom, I was over you when the Berlin Wall came down.

Reagan, last in an unbroken line of Presidents "tough on Communism" going back
at least through Truman. Since defence expenditures in the USSR only went up
about 4% during the time they supposedly bankrupted themselves in a military
buildup, there apparently wasn't much of a military buildup (neocon
revisionism). The neocons also don't much like to talk about the Soviet defeat
in Afghanistan that was one of the real reasons the USSR broke up-- dissent
over war dead and official coverups about casualties (thousands and thousands
of "training accidents"). Plus the failure of Central Planning and quotas. Or
that Soviet central control of nuclear materials is now lost, or that crime has
risen and many Soviet people actually saw a decrease in their living standards
after the breakup, since state-sponsored jobs were lost.

Encore, Will. Try to stuff some more words in my mouth, why don't you? And some
more attacks on my morality, you've skated pretty light there a time or two
now. What was that one whopper? "Ollie North is a great guy?" Yeow. --Tom
Paterson

ospam (Tom Paterson)
wrote (apparently without much consideration or reflection.)

Ok, let's take this offlist.



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

ospam (Tom Paterson)
wrote (apparently without much consideration or reflection.)

Ok, let's take this offlist.



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

From: ospam (WillStG)

Ok, let's take this offlist.

Declined. Keep showing your true colors here. As in your intro to your last
post (or so it looks:

(Tom Paterson)
wrote (apparently without much consideration or reflection.)

Translation: "Tom Paterson does not agree with Will Miho and Will Miho can't
seem to come up with substance sufficient to win the day, so he resorts to
personal insult. As usual."

So, let's see my slaying here in the open as you bragged about. Tick, tock,
tick tock... --TP

From: ospam (WillStG)

Ok, let's take this offlist.

Declined. Keep showing your true colors here. As in your intro to your last
post (or so it looks:

(Tom Paterson)
wrote (apparently without much consideration or reflection.)

Translation: "Tom Paterson does not agree with Will Miho and Will Miho can't
seem to come up with substance sufficient to win the day, so he resorts to
personal insult. As usual."

So, let's see my slaying here in the open as you bragged about. Tick, tock,
tick tock... --TP

(Tom Paterson)

(WillStG)
Ok, let's take this offlist.

Declined. Keep showing your true colors here. As in your intro to your last
post (or so it looks:

(Tom Paterson)
wrote (apparently without much consideration or reflection.)

Translation: "Tom Paterson does not agree with Will Miho and Will Miho can't
seem to come up with substance sufficient to win the day, so he resorts to
personal insult. As usual."

Takes a breath Not at all Tom. What I said - and meant - is exactly what
I wrote. From my perspective you replied to me without any self-reflection or
consideration of any other point of view at all. And nothing in what you have
had to say has softened that impression yet.

Look, when you say you "weren't spinning" when you criticized Reagan for
"shacking up with Nancy", *this* is why you think the man is going to hell?
That's not hypocritical, you have never had premarital relationships yourself?
If you apply this standard of judgement to your own person and it becomes
evident that you possess considerable self loathing Tom. And it does you no
good, and this newsgroup no good, to discuss such personal things publically.

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

(Tom Paterson)

(WillStG)
Ok, let's take this offlist.

Declined. Keep showing your true colors here. As in your intro to your last
post (or so it looks:

(Tom Paterson)
wrote (apparently without much consideration or reflection.)

Translation: "Tom Paterson does not agree with Will Miho and Will Miho can't
seem to come up with substance sufficient to win the day, so he resorts to
personal insult. As usual."

Takes a breath Not at all Tom. What I said - and meant - is exactly what
I wrote. From my perspective you replied to me without any self-reflection or
consideration of any other point of view at all. And nothing in what you have
had to say has softened that impression yet.

Look, when you say you "weren't spinning" when you criticized Reagan for
"shacking up with Nancy", *this* is why you think the man is going to hell?
That's not hypocritical, you have never had premarital relationships yourself?
If you apply this standard of judgement to your own person and it becomes
evident that you possess considerable self loathing Tom. And it does you no
good, and this newsgroup no good, to discuss such personal things publically.

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