|
Home > Archive > Architecture > January 2007 > Clown Show
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
|
|
|
| Didya see the clown show at 9 pm last night?
Man, that was pathetic.
Right from jump it was disengenuous to *read* another's words and present
them as his own.
This, is typical of politicians today for they are unethical and filled with
duplicity.
I almost felt sorry for Bush, but then I quickly got over it.
Once again he did NOT say why all of this Iraq stuff was necessary.
He intimated that failure in Iraq (whatever that means) will cause americans
to die from terrorist attacks.
Bush should be brought up on charges for those statements meant to alarm and
scare the viewers.
Its a truly sad day in american history when the top politician in the
country presents himself in public as Bush did last night.
Embarrassing.
But ya know what?
He's exactly what the voters chose and is merely a reflection of that fact.
The first person that says, 'Yeah, well Kerry would be much worse.', is
gonna get a boat paddle worn out on his XXX.
| |
| Michael Bulatovich 2007-01-11, 9:25 am |
|
"Don" <creative1986@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12qcccccua8af57@news.supernews.com...
> Its a truly sad day in american history when the top politician in the
> country presents himself in public as Bush did last night.
> Embarrassing.
>
> But ya know what?
> He's exactly what the voters chose and is merely a reflection of that
> fact.
http://home.comcast.net/~wwwstephen/americans/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talking_to_Americans
Making fun of ignorant Americans is an industry up here.
| |
|
|
|
| "Don" <creative1986@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:12qcccccua8af57@news.supernews.com...
> Didya see the clown show at 9 pm last night?
> Man, that was pathetic.
> Right from jump it was disengenuous to *read* another's words and present
> them as his own.
> This, is typical of politicians today for they are unethical and filled
> with duplicity.
>
> I almost felt sorry for Bush, but then I quickly got over it.
>
> Once again he did NOT say why all of this Iraq stuff was necessary.
> He intimated that failure in Iraq (whatever that means) will cause
> americans to die from terrorist attacks.
> Bush should be brought up on charges for those statements meant to alarm
> and scare the viewers.
>
> Its a truly sad day in american history when the top politician in the
> country presents himself in public as Bush did last night.
> Embarrassing.
>
> But ya know what?
> He's exactly what the voters chose and is merely a reflection of that
> fact.
>
> The first person that says, 'Yeah, well Kerry would be much worse.', is
> gonna get a boat paddle worn out on his XXX.
>
I've stopped bothering to listen to the Monkey in Chief. I read part of the
transcript and your right, it didn't sound at all like his own words
(especially the part about admitting mistakes). I hope congress (and the
democrats) pull out their cajones and deny funding. I doubt it though as
they will all fear being called a traitor.
I heppened to be listening to Rush's take on it this morning. Man that guy
seriously has a screw loose and has a hard on for killing people. Maybe we
should send his XXX in to eat the terrorists.
--
Edgar
--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
| |
|
| "Edgar"> wrote
> I heppened to be listening to Rush's take on it this morning. Man that
> guy seriously has a screw loose and has a hard on for killing people.
> Maybe we should send his XXX in to eat the terrorists.
Prior to about 1991 I was A-political. That is, I was not really aware of
anything political.
Go figure...its a mystery to me, from my present perspective.
I was working late one night in 1991 and had talk radio on and this dood
named Rush Limbaugh happened on the scene, so I listened to him for the full
3 hours.
Then I kept listening to him, then I read his book, then his 2nd book, and I
listened to him some more.
As I became more aware of what was going on around me I started searching
more and by about 2000 I could hardly tolerate Rush.
I caught him on the radio about a year ago and I couldn't bear to listen to
him.
He's a well paid for robot.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-01-11, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <creative1986@gmail.com> wrote in
news:12qcccccua8af57@news.supernews.com:
> Didya see the clown show at 9 pm last night?
> Man, that was pathetic.
> Right from jump it was disengenuous to *read* another's words and
> present them as his own.
He can *read*...??
> This, is typical of politicians today for they are unethical and
> filled with duplicity.
>
> I almost felt sorry for Bush, but then I quickly got over it.
>
> Once again he did NOT say why all of this Iraq stuff was necessary.
> He intimated that failure in Iraq (whatever that means) will cause
> americans to die from terrorist attacks.
> Bush should be brought up on charges for those statements meant to
> alarm and scare the viewers.
It's sort of like going into a company HQ, flushing metallic sodium down
all the toilets, and then giving speechs about why the plumbing has to be
fixed, even tho' it will cost the company and lead to a reduction in
workers' salaries.
Anyone with more brains than God gave a rutabega, and a few back issues
of various newspapers and common International Relations/foreign
Policy/Political journals - never mind someone with access to CIA FASAC
reports for petesakes - would KNOW that the whole WMD thing was nothing
but hooey.
I also love how they always "forget" to mention who it was gave Saddam
NBC weapons in the first place...and gave then-secret satellite intel to
Saddam so he could defeat the Iranians when he trie dto duke it out with
the Ayatollah Khomeini.
Bush madethe bed and now everyone else - as in, not only the US, but
really the whole world - has to lie in it.
Any idiot knows that, when you create a power vacuum, bad stuff usually
happens.
There were so many errors made - and there are so many ignorenti who
refuse to see the errors - that it's become a moot point.
Fact is, the mess exists and some sort of intelligent thought has to be
applied to cleaning it up.
>
> Its a truly sad day in american history when the top politician in the
> country presents himself in public as Bush did last night.
> Embarrassing.
And you expected what, exactly?
>
> But ya know what?
> He's exactly what the voters chose and is merely a reflection of that
> fact.
>
> The first person that says, 'Yeah, well Kerry would be much worse.',
> is gonna get a boat paddle worn out on his XXX.
>
I still think I should run for pres.
I'm known to be a nutcase <g!> so no secrets there; I don't have a
conniving mind so I wouldn't even know how to *start* playing political
shennagins with favoritism; I know how to deligate to experts that which
should be delegatedto experts; I am analytical and a fast learner; Ithink
all labels are BS so I wouldn't reject people on the basis of whether
some nitwit calls someone else a "liberal" or "conservative" or whatever;
I'm a Constitutionalist insofar as (1) the Constitution doesnot grant
rights, it codifies them into law; (2) the Consitution does not allow for
discrimination - if one belongs in whole or part to the human species,
and is a citizen, one has exactly as many rights under the law as does
anyone else; (3) to many laws bend or corcumvent the OCnstitution; (4)
the Constituion does not permit a dictatorship, theocratic or secular or
financial or otherwise. That's for starters but you get the drift. In
short, if a slimeball has alot of money, that makes him...a slimeball
with a lot of money - IOW, I take "Equal rights under the law" completely
seriously. But also, the law should be *minimal*. It's idiotic to have
sub-laws for who can pick their nose on what day of the week, for
petesakes.
All of which means: I'd never win. People only win if they *are*
pigheaded party jingoists, because this nation has become a
congolomeration of extremists. Moderates/Constitutionalists are verbally
flayed by EVERYONE, because what people really want is to have their own
group's (meaning: their own individual) puds stroked, they don't give a
crap about anyone else's anything - liberty? rights? justice? Who
cares about those any more?
Kerry would not have been worse - IMO, he would have been mostly the
same. IOW, a professional politician.
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> I still think I should run for pres.
Yes you should.
In fact you should be king.
And so should everybody else.
King of your own life, and ruler of no others.
And the first person that says otherwise would be banished.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-01-12, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <creative1986@gmail.com> wrote in news:12qdgq7ifm45835
@news.supernews.com:
> "Kris Krieger"> wrote
>
> Yes you should.
> In fact you should be king.
> And so should everybody else.
> King of your own life, and ruler of no others.
> And the first person that says otherwise would be banished.
>
>
>
Well, that's always a can of worms - the problem with anarchy (in th
eclassic sense of simply meaning "without formal government") is that the
majority rules, and the majority is usually ignorant, often by deliberate
choice. Justice (and even decent behavior) requires somce semblance of
rationality, which is something the majority are either weak in, or lack
altogether.
So, although I *wish* gov.t was not necessary, the practical reality is
quite different. But, even given that, *minimal* gov.t - a.k.a. a syatem
of laws and the eforcement thereof - can be beneficial if it's done
rationally.
IOW, if someone from Ohio goes to your town and burns down some people's
homes, thre has to be a system whereby the suspect can receive a fair
trial and, if *proven* guilty, just punishment (esp. including some sort
of compensation to the victims).
The problem with the current system is the part about "proof". Given
that people accustiomed to analytical thinking are rejected as potential
jury members, "proof" is too often overshadowed by the BS of "emotional
appeal".
If I have the right to be jduged by my PEERS, then I ought to have to
right to say just who those peers *actually are*, but things don't work
that way.
OTOH, without any sort of system, things degenerate quickly into
lynchings based upon mere suspicion or even distrust or personal dislike.
Ideally, nobody should mess with anyone else. But in reality, many
people go out of their way and bend over backwards *precisely* to mess
with others. From what I've seen over the decades and across this
continent, I don't trust my "fellow man" any further than I can throw him
(which isn't at all far these days...)
And the majority will always go for soem sort of "king of the hill" sort
of arrangement/system. So, if we have to have one, might as well have it
be someone who doesn't get all moist and trembly over the notion of World
Domination or, for that amtter, being able to lord it over other people.
I don't care about domination - well, not politically <LOL!!!> - but
aseriously, IMO, what matters is that people have the right to do and be
whatever they want, as long as they don't stomp all over anyone else's
right to do the same. IOW< leave people the bleep alone unless they're
harming others.
Of course, "harm" is not a simple concept, either, which is why a head-
of-state has to have more upstairs (and more ethics) than does a head of
cauliflower...
But reality is what it is, and like gravitates towards like so it's
probable tha tthe next head-of-state will, once again, be first cousin to
a head of cauliflower.
Not much one can do wexcept try to stay out of the way, and out of the
crosshairs of the various extremists...
| |
|
| > Didya see the clown show at 9 pm last night?
Can't sleep. Clowns will eat me.
| |
|
| > (2) the Consitution does not allow for
> discrimination - if one belongs in whole or part to the human species,
> and is a citizen, one has exactly as many rights under the law as does
> anyone else;
Are you saying that when you are king discrimination will be illegal?
| |
| 3D Peruna 2007-01-13, 8:25 pm |
| gruhn wrote:
>
> Are you saying that when you are king discrimination will be illegal?
Private discrimination should always be legal (we do it anyways).
| |
|
| "3D Peruna"> wrote
> gruhn wrote:
>
> Private discrimination should always be legal (we do it anyways).
Discrimination laws are largely ignored by thinking people, and others, and
rightly so.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-01-14, 5:25 pm |
| "gruhn" <gruhn@rararchitects.com> wrote in news:1168730716.228426.287560@
51g2000cwl.googlegroups.com:
>
> Are you saying that when you are king discrimination will be illegal?
>
>
I ssupect you're trying to make it look like I'm saying 'no mor epersonal
opinion'. If so, that's absurd. "Discrimination" specifically means
"unequal treatment under the law" - example, a highly-payed sports star
having to merely pay a couple hundred $ fine for posessing X grams of
cocain, but some "nobody" having to servea couple years in jail for
precisely the same offense; another example, a man driving a BMW through a
ritzy neighborhood is ignored if White, but if apparently non-Cuasasian,
will have the cops called on him, pulled over, and given the third degree.
Personal opinion is different. If X owns an apartments building and is
looking for new tenants, it is discrimination if well-qualified applicants
are rejected *only* because of race, ethnicity, religion, or so on. X has
every right to *hate* people of given ethnicities, religions, and so on,
has the right to express that hatred, choose to not associate with them,
gie his kids hell if they date or hang around with them, and so on - but
*not* the right to discriminate in legal matters, such as contracts. THat
is prejudice and it is technically legal. Discrimination is not merely
prejudice, but the *exerciese* of prejudice in *legal* matters.
Discrimination is *already* illegal, and has been since the Constitution
went into effect.
As for kings, that was Don's bit. Personally, I abhor and completely
reject the entire notion of class-by-inheritance/parentage, which includes
the idea of royalty.
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-01-14, 5:25 pm |
| 3D Peruna <wharold@weirdness.com> wrote in news:K1fqh.854$aB4.510
@newsfe03.lga:
> gruhn wrote:
>
> Private discrimination should always be legal (we do it anyways).
>
>
Non-sequitor. "Discrimination" is a legal term. I think your mean
"prejudice".
| |
| Kris Krieger 2007-01-14, 5:25 pm |
| "Don" <creative1986@gmail.com> wrote in
news:12qivm012os8v1f@news.supernews.com:
> "3D Peruna"> wrote
>
> Discrimination laws are largely ignored by thinking people, and
> others, and rightly so.
>
I really hope you wrote that only because you got your terms confused.
| |
|
| "Kris Krieger"> wrote
> 3D Peruna> wrote
>
> Non-sequitor. "Discrimination" is a legal term. I think your mean
> "prejudice".
Nope. I discriminate all the time, and so do you, and it has nothing to do
with legalities.
Main Entry: dis·crim·i·na·tion
Pronunciation: dis-"kri-m&-'nA-sh&n
Function: noun
1 a : the act of discriminating b : the process by which two stimuli
differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2 : the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a : the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically
rather than individually b : prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or
treatment <racial discrimination>
The other day I ate at Wendy's and as I entered the dining area with my food
I *discriminated* as to whether I wanted to sit near a group of construction
workers or the young trailer trash mother with 2 screaming brats.
| |
|
|
"Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
news:n9wqh.10891$w91.6921@newsread1.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> "Don" <creative1986@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:12qivm012os8v1f@news.supernews.com:
>
>
>
> I really hope you wrote that only because you got your terms confused.
The law doesn't, and never has, defined morality.
Assholes writing laws left and right are way down at the bottom of the list
of things that concern me.
| |
| 3D Peruna 2007-01-14, 8:25 pm |
| Don wrote:
> "Kris Krieger" <me@dowmuff.in> wrote in message
>
> The law doesn't, and never has, defined morality.
My point exactly. Laws codify what "society" thinks is moral at the
time, but they do not define morality. Discrimination happens all the
time. Some of it is good, some of it is not good.
I was going to write "I should legally be allowed to discriminate...".
But that's not correct. I've not given the government the authority
(through the Constitution) to make discrimination illegal. The
government cannot tell me who I must not discriminate against.
That doesn't mean that my discrimination is moral, just, fair, right or
any other thing you want to call it. My argument has always been that
discrimination laws are stupid. Discrimination in many cases is stupid,
but the laws are worse in the long run.
| |
| 3D Peruna 2007-01-14, 9:25 pm |
| Kris Krieger wrote:
> Personal opinion is different. If X owns an apartments building and is
> looking for new tenants, it is discrimination if well-qualified applicants
> are rejected *only* because of race, ethnicity, religion, or so on. X has
> every right to *hate* people of given ethnicities, religions, and so on,
> has the right to express that hatred, choose to not associate with them,
> gie his kids hell if they date or hang around with them, and so on - but
> *not* the right to discriminate in legal matters, such as contracts.
X has every right, under the Constitution to discriminate in contracts
(it's the unconstitutional laws passed since that are the problem). It
doesn't necessarily make it "moral" to do so, but there is no place, in
my reading of the Constitution, that grants the government the right to
compel me to do business with somebody.
|
|
|
|
|