Re: Sometimes stupid loses

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by PeterN, Mar 27, 2011.

  1. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 3/27/2011 3:36 AM, Savageduck wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > Schwarzenegger was the worst thing that could have happened to
    > California. If Davis was left to do what the constitution required we
    > would be weathering this storm, but voters can be fickle and very stupid.
    >


    Don't underestimate voters, too much.
    A lot of the tea party nuts were rejected.

    SIGH Yeh! think Michele, who thinks the battle of Concord was fought in
    New Hampshire and our founding fathers weren't slave holders.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Mar 27, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. PeterN

    John A. Guest

    On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:20:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:

    >
    >"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >news:2011032717330780278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >> On 2011-03-27 16:58:18 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <> said:
    >>
    >>>
    >>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>> news:2011032714590370933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>
    >>> [ . . . ]
    >>>>

    >
    >>>>
    >>>> ...and I thought this one valid in January 2001.
    >>>>
    >>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and
    >>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious
    >>>> day
    >>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and
    >>>> the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    >>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>
    >>> You're eight years slow. It suits January 2009 pretty well in some
    >>> respects,
    >>> but better still would be to replace "moron" with "corrupt Chicago
    >>> machine
    >>> politician and his gang of thugs."

    >>
    >> Regardless of your opinion, moron he is not.

    >
    >I did say ""corrupt Chicago machine politician and his gang of thugs" would
    >be better than "moron." I know he's not a moron, but then neither is Bush,
    >for whom you said you thought the term was valid.


    Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago gangster.

    >Obama so far has accomplished nothing good, and done it at enormous expense
    >to the American people. He has put us more trillions in debt with costly
    >"stimulus" schemes that have stimulated nothing but ever larger government
    >and, of course, payback to unions and other big supporters, including the
    >"greedy" operators on Wall Street and the big insurance companies and
    >financial giants he regularly criticizes for public consumption but deals
    >with in the back room.


    The bank bailouts came before Obama took office. You do remember they
    happened during the campaign, right? McCain wanted to cancel a debate
    so they could attend a meeting about them.

    And the stimulus was mostly in the form of tax credits, which,
    according to the right, should be the panacea that fixes everything.

    >After promising to "bring the troops home" from the Middle East he has in
    >fact done the opposite, broadening the war in Afghanistan and now a new one
    >against Libya. After promising again and again to shut down Gitmo he has
    >done nothing in that direction and apparently has no plans to shut it down.
    >And so on.


    There are a heck of a lot fewer troops in Iraq now. Afghanistan is, of
    the two, the only one where we really had any business in the first
    place and there has been unfinished business there since Iraq became a
    distraction. And US naval forces are being reduced in Libya while NATO
    is taking over command of the whole operation.
    http://customwire.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_US_LIBYA?SITE=RANDOM

    >His promises in fact are like toilet paper, meant to be used and then
    >promptly discarded. He has broken so many promises the mind spins trying to
    >keep track of them.


    It's a matter of time. I'm sure he'll get around to most of them. And
    IIRC he did say during his campaign that getting a lot of things done
    would require more effort than his alone. The economy is a big
    obstacle too at the moment, and I don't mind at all some other things
    being on the back burner while it's tended too.

    >If you think he even intended to keep most of them, that WOULD make him a
    >moron. But I give him credit for more brains than that. He is just a
    >deliberate, bald-faced liar.


    Nope. Just a case of first things first.
    John A., Mar 28, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. PeterN

    John A. Guest

    On Wed, 30 Mar 2011 14:35:28 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
    wrote:

    >Bowser wrote:
    >> On 3/28/2011 1:23 AM, Bill Graham wrote:
    >>> Savageduck wrote:
    >>>> On 2011-03-27 16:58:18 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <> said:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:2011032714590370933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>
    >>>>> [ . . . ]
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."
    >>>>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Well, now we are anyway. It wasn't always so.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "In this world of sin and sorrow there is always something to be
    >>>>>> thankful for; as for me, I rejoice that I am not a Republican."
    >>>>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>>
    >>>>> That may have been Mencken's attitude before Roosevelt, when the
    >>>>> Democratic party was still "classical liberal." It had sure changed
    >>>>> by 1936 --Mencken voted for Alf Landon, the Republican.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Here is part of what Mencken wrote on the eve of the 1936 election:
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "But as [Roosevelt's] administration closed its first year, and he
    >>>>> gradually extended and elaborated his program, it began to be
    >>>>> evident that he was going far beyond the borders of the reasonable,
    >>>>> and that the theory underlying some of his major operations, as it
    >>>>> was expounded by his principal agents, was becoming increasingly
    >>>>> fantastic and absurd. Bit by bit, the purpose of restoring the
    >>>>> country to its normal manner and ease of life was submerged in the
    >>>>> purpose of bringing in a brummage Utopia, fashioned in part out of
    >>>>> the idiotic hallucinations of the cow States and in part out of the
    >>>>> gaudy evangel of Moscow. And simultaneously, the welfare of the
    >>>>> American people as a whole began to be forgotten in a special
    >>>>> concern for special classes and categories of them, all of
    >>>>> manifestly inferior status and all willing to vote right for goods
    >>>>> in hand. "In brief, the New Deal became a political racket, and
    >>>>> that is what
    >>>>> it today - that and nothing more. Its chief practical business is
    >>>>> to search out groups that can be brought to the Hon. Jim Farley's
    >>>>> machine by grants out of the public treasury, which is to say, out
    >>>>> of the pockets of the rest of us. To serve that lofty end the
    >>>>> national currency has been debased, the national credit has been
    >>>>> imperiled and a crushing burden has been put on every man who wants
    >>>>> to pay his own way in the world and asks only to be let alone. The
    >>>>> excuse that a grave emergency justified such pillage is now
    >>>>> abandoned. The emergency is past, but the pillage goes on. ". . .
    >>>>> It will meet also support by honest if deluded men and women.
    >>>>> Thousands of them, I gather, are in the ranks of the labor
    >>>>> organizations. They have been told that the New Deal saved them
    >>>>> their jobs, which it didn't, and that it will prosper them
    >>>>> hereafter, which it won't, and large numbers of them have believed.
    >>>>> The actual fact is that they are not, and can never be, the
    >>>>> beneficiaries of any such carnival of loot; they can only be its
    >>>>> goats. In the long run the cost of the whole show will settle down
    >>>>> upon them. In the long run, every man and woman who works will have
    >>>>> to pay for the upkeep of some Farley heeler who has been taught
    >>>>> that working is foolish and unnecessary and even a shade immoral.
    >>>>> "The Brain Trust brethren, of course, still promise that all the
    >>>>> bills will be sent to the rich. . . ." Sound a little familiar?
    >>>>
    >>>> Hence:
    >>>> "Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want,
    >>>> and deserve to get it good and hard."
    >>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>
    >>>> "The whole aim of practical politics is to keep the populace alarmed
    >>>> (and hence clamorous to be led to safety) by menacing it with an
    >>>> endless series of hobgoblins, all of them imaginary."
    >>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>
    >>>> "All government, of course, is against liberty."
    >>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>
    >>>> "I confess I enjoy democracy immensely. It is incomparably idiotic,
    >>>> and hence incomparably amusing."
    >>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>
    >>>> "Every decent man is ashamed of the government he lives under."
    >>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> ...and I thought this one valid in January 2001.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president represents,
    >>>>>> more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great
    >>>>>> and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their
    >>>>>> heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a
    >>>>>> downright moron." H. L. Mencken
    >>>>>
    >>>>> You're eight years slow. It suits January 2009 pretty well in some
    >>>>> respects, but better still would be to replace "moron" with
    >>>>> "corrupt Chicago machine politician and his gang of thugs."
    >>>>
    >>>> Regardless of your opinion, moron he is not.
    >>>> That might well have been true of Harding, the inspiration for that
    >>>> Menckenism. However we might truly see it come to fruition if we
    >>>> find a Palin or Bachmann headed to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. They
    >>>> might be the equal, or better of Harding.
    >>>
    >>> If they just stop spending money, they will have accomplished their
    >>> purpose, whether they know the difference between Austria and
    >>> Australia or not.....

    >>
    >> 2/3 of the federal budgets is entitlements and debt service. You can
    >> cut everything except that and still be in the red. Where would YOU
    >> cut?

    >
    >How about getting rid of the FDA (w2ho does nothing to protect us from
    >rotten food), and the INS, (who does nothing to keep illegal aliens out of
    >the country) and there are a whole lot of other stupid government agencies
    >who exist only for the purpose of spending our tax dollars, and generally do
    >nothing for us. Have you ever heard Jim Eason's list? It is pages and pages
    >long, and it covers everything from studying the sex habits of frogs in the
    >South American jungle to putting twelve astronauts on the moon. Our
    >government is way, way too big. They are spending our money on everything
    >but the kitchen sink. They need to stop it right now!! (Oh wait....They
    >just spend $12,000 on a sink for the FBI lab in Maryland....:^)


    Seeing as how it's in a lab, I have a feeling it's as much a "sink" as
    that Chicago planetarium's device was an "overhead projector".
    John A., Mar 30, 2011
    #3
  4. PeterN

    John Turco Guest

    Neil Harrington wrote:
    >
    > > "John A." <> wrote in message


    <heavily edited for brevity>

    > > Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago gangster.

    >
    > Chicago gangster and politician, yes. Threats and bribery, bribery and
    > threats. Those are the methods of choice, and the difference in the way
    > they're managed by gangsters and politicians is mainly a matter of detail.
    > Obama doesn't pay off corrupt cops and politicians with cash stuffed in
    > envelopes; Al Capone didn't pay off unions, corporations and states that
    > supported him with ObamaCare waivers or other forms of transferring wealth,
    > like giving the UAW a huge share of GM (to which the union had no legitimate
    > claim) while screwing the bondholders out of their rightful share. And so
    > on. The principle is the same. Obama's style of corruption is at least an
    > order of magnitude greater than Capone's because Obama has by far the
    > greater power to corrupt, and he obviously intends to use it.



    You're just slightly off the mark, Neil. The President is obviously a black
    Irishman, who'd dropped the "'" from his surname, long ago.

    Yes, sir! Barack O'Bama is a celebrated Chicago racketeer, following in the
    hallowed tradition of a notorious >native son< of the Flatulent City: Dion
    O'Bannion.

    So, please...don't compare our peerless prez with that crude foreigner from
    New York, Alphonse Capone. (It ain't respectful, don't ya know?)

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Mar 31, 2011
    #4
  5. "John Turco" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>
    >> > "John A." <> wrote in message

    >
    > <heavily edited for brevity>
    >
    >> > Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago gangster.

    >>
    >> Chicago gangster and politician, yes. Threats and bribery, bribery and
    >> threats. Those are the methods of choice, and the difference in the way
    >> they're managed by gangsters and politicians is mainly a matter of
    >> detail.
    >> Obama doesn't pay off corrupt cops and politicians with cash stuffed in
    >> envelopes; Al Capone didn't pay off unions, corporations and states that
    >> supported him with ObamaCare waivers or other forms of transferring
    >> wealth,
    >> like giving the UAW a huge share of GM (to which the union had no
    >> legitimate
    >> claim) while screwing the bondholders out of their rightful share. And so
    >> on. The principle is the same. Obama's style of corruption is at least an
    >> order of magnitude greater than Capone's because Obama has by far the
    >> greater power to corrupt, and he obviously intends to use it.

    >
    >
    > You're just slightly off the mark, Neil. The President is obviously a
    > black
    > Irishman, who'd dropped the "'" from his surname, long ago.
    >
    > Yes, sir! Barack O'Bama is a celebrated Chicago racketeer, following in
    > the
    > hallowed tradition of a notorious >native son< of the Flatulent City: Dion
    > O'Bannion.
    >
    > So, please...don't compare our peerless prez with that crude foreigner
    > from
    > New York, Alphonse Capone. (It ain't respectful, don't ya know?)


    That might just be an insult to Capone.
    Pete Stavrakoglou, Mar 31, 2011
    #5
  6. PeterN

    Peter N Guest

    On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:27:35 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <>
    wrote:
    > "John A." <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:20:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"

    <>
    > > wrote:
    > >
    > >>
    > >>"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    > >>news:2011032717330780278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > >>> On 2011-03-27 16:58:18 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <>

    said:
    > >>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    > >>>> news:2011032714590370933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > >>>>
    > >>>> [ . . . ]
    > >>>>>
    > >>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> ...and I thought this one valid in January 2001.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president

    represents, more
    > >>>>> and
    > >>>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and

    glorious
    > >>>>> day
    > >>>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire

    at last
    > >>>>> and
    > >>>>> the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    > >>>>> H. L. Mencken
    > >>>>
    > >>>> You're eight years slow. It suits January 2009 pretty well in

    some
    > >>>> respects,
    > >>>> but better still would be to replace "moron" with "corrupt

    Chicago
    > >>>> machine
    > >>>> politician and his gang of thugs."
    > >>>
    > >>> Regardless of your opinion, moron he is not.
    > >>
    > >>I did say ""corrupt Chicago machine politician and his gang of

    thugs"
    > >>would
    > >>be better than "moron." I know he's not a moron, but then neither

    is Bush,
    > >>for whom you said you thought the term was valid.

    > >
    > > Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago gangster.



    > Chicago gangster and politician, yes. Threats and bribery, bribery

    and
    > threats. Those are the methods of choice, and the difference in the

    way
    > they're managed by gangsters and politicians is mainly a matter of

    detail.
    > Obama doesn't pay off corrupt cops and politicians with cash

    stuffed in
    > envelopes; Al Capone didn't pay off unions, corporations and states

    that
    > supported him with ObamaCare waivers or other forms of transferring

    wealth,
    > like giving the UAW a huge share of GM (to which the union had no

    legitimate
    > claim) while screwing the bondholders out of their rightful share.

    And so
    > on. The principle is the same. Obama's style of corruption is at

    least an
    > order of magnitude greater than Capone's because Obama has by far

    the
    > greater power to corrupt, and he obviously intends to use it.


    The scary thing is that you and others believe that crap.

    --
    Peter from my Droid
    Peter N, Apr 1, 2011
    #6
  7. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/1/2011 11:52 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "Peter N"<photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote in message
    > news:-secrets.com...
    >> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:27:35 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<>
    >> wrote:
    >>> "John A."<> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:20:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"

    >> <>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:2011032717330780278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>> On 2011-03-27 16:58:18 -0700, "Neil Harrington"<>

    >> said:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:2011032714590370933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> [ . . . ]
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> ...and I thought this one valid in January 2001.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president

    >> represents, more
    >>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and

    >> glorious
    >>>>>>>> day
    >>>>>>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire

    >> at last
    >>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>> the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    >>>>>>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> You're eight years slow. It suits January 2009 pretty well in

    >> some
    >>>>>>> respects,
    >>>>>>> but better still would be to replace "moron" with "corrupt

    >> Chicago
    >>>>>>> machine
    >>>>>>> politician and his gang of thugs."
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Regardless of your opinion, moron he is not.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I did say ""corrupt Chicago machine politician and his gang of

    >> thugs"
    >>>>> would
    >>>>> be better than "moron." I know he's not a moron, but then neither

    >> is Bush,
    >>>>> for whom you said you thought the term was valid.
    >>>>
    >>>> Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago gangster.

    >>
    >>
    >>> Chicago gangster and politician, yes. Threats and bribery, bribery

    >> and
    >>> threats. Those are the methods of choice, and the difference in the

    >> way
    >>> they're managed by gangsters and politicians is mainly a matter of

    >> detail.
    >>> Obama doesn't pay off corrupt cops and politicians with cash

    >> stuffed in
    >>> envelopes; Al Capone didn't pay off unions, corporations and states

    >> that
    >>> supported him with ObamaCare waivers or other forms of transferring

    >> wealth,
    >>> like giving the UAW a huge share of GM (to which the union had no

    >> legitimate
    >>> claim) while screwing the bondholders out of their rightful share.

    >> And so
    >>> on. The principle is the same. Obama's style of corruption is at

    >> least an
    >>> order of magnitude greater than Capone's because Obama has by far

    >> the
    >>> greater power to corrupt, and he obviously intends to use it.

    >>
    >> The scary thing is that you and others believe that crap.

    >
    > Do you follow the news at all, or do you just find that too "scary"?
    >
    >


    I don't restrict myself to faux noose. Yes I do hear what Rush says, as
    well as O'Reilly plus O'Donnell and Maldow. I evaluate and form my own
    conclusions. Unlike some here, my politics cannot be reasonably pigeonholed

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Apr 2, 2011
    #7
  8. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/2/2011 11:21 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > news:4d971d8e$0$12479$-secrets.com...
    >> On 4/1/2011 11:52 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "Peter N"<photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote in message
    >>> news:-secrets.com...
    >>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:27:35 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<>
    >>>> wrote:
    >>>>> "John A."<> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:...
    >>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:20:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>> <>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:2011032717330780278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>> On 2011-03-27 16:58:18 -0700, "Neil Harrington"<>
    >>>> said:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:2011032714590370933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> [ . . . ]
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> ...and I thought this one valid in January 2001.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president
    >>>> represents, more
    >>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and
    >>>> glorious
    >>>>>>>>>> day
    >>>>>>>>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
    >>>> at last
    >>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>> the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    >>>>>>>>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> You're eight years slow. It suits January 2009 pretty well in
    >>>> some
    >>>>>>>>> respects,
    >>>>>>>>> but better still would be to replace "moron" with "corrupt
    >>>> Chicago
    >>>>>>>>> machine
    >>>>>>>>> politician and his gang of thugs."
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Regardless of your opinion, moron he is not.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I did say ""corrupt Chicago machine politician and his gang of
    >>>> thugs"
    >>>>>>> would
    >>>>>>> be better than "moron." I know he's not a moron, but then neither
    >>>> is Bush,
    >>>>>>> for whom you said you thought the term was valid.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago gangster.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>> Chicago gangster and politician, yes. Threats and bribery, bribery
    >>>> and
    >>>>> threats. Those are the methods of choice, and the difference in the
    >>>> way
    >>>>> they're managed by gangsters and politicians is mainly a matter of
    >>>> detail.
    >>>>> Obama doesn't pay off corrupt cops and politicians with cash
    >>>> stuffed in
    >>>>> envelopes; Al Capone didn't pay off unions, corporations and states
    >>>> that
    >>>>> supported him with ObamaCare waivers or other forms of transferring
    >>>> wealth,
    >>>>> like giving the UAW a huge share of GM (to which the union had no
    >>>> legitimate
    >>>>> claim) while screwing the bondholders out of their rightful share.
    >>>> And so
    >>>>> on. The principle is the same. Obama's style of corruption is at
    >>>> least an
    >>>>> order of magnitude greater than Capone's because Obama has by far
    >>>> the
    >>>>> greater power to corrupt, and he obviously intends to use it.
    >>>>
    >>>> The scary thing is that you and others believe that crap.
    >>>
    >>> Do you follow the news at all, or do you just find that too "scary"?
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> I don't restrict myself to faux noose. Yes I do hear what Rush says, as
    >> well as O'Reilly plus O'Donnell and Maldow. I evaluate and form my own
    >> conclusions. Unlike some here, my politics cannot be reasonably
    >> pigeonholed

    >
    > The ones you've named are commentators, not reporters. I was asking whether
    > you follow the news.
    >
    >


    My statement was inclusive, not exclusive. If you're implying that I
    don't know what's going on in the world, you may be right. I don't
    pretend to know everything. And I have not formed conclusions that are
    written in concrete.

    And exactly how do you follow the news.


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Apr 2, 2011
    #8
  9. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/2/2011 5:01 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > news:4d974490$0$12462$-secrets.com...
    >> On 4/2/2011 11:21 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:4d971d8e$0$12479$-secrets.com...
    >>>> On 4/1/2011 11:52 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>> "Peter N"<photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:-secrets.com...
    >>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:27:35 -0400, "Neil Harrington"<>
    >>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>> "John A."<> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:20:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>> <>
    >>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:2011032717330780278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>>>> On 2011-03-27 16:58:18 -0700, "Neil Harrington"<>
    >>>>>> said:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:2011032714590370933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> [ . . . ]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> ...and I thought this one valid in January 2001.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president
    >>>>>> represents, more
    >>>>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and
    >>>>>> glorious
    >>>>>>>>>>>> day
    >>>>>>>>>>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire
    >>>>>> at last
    >>>>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>>>> the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    >>>>>>>>>>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> You're eight years slow. It suits January 2009 pretty well in
    >>>>>> some
    >>>>>>>>>>> respects,
    >>>>>>>>>>> but better still would be to replace "moron" with "corrupt
    >>>>>> Chicago
    >>>>>>>>>>> machine
    >>>>>>>>>>> politician and his gang of thugs."
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Regardless of your opinion, moron he is not.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> I did say ""corrupt Chicago machine politician and his gang of
    >>>>>> thugs"
    >>>>>>>>> would
    >>>>>>>>> be better than "moron." I know he's not a moron, but then neither
    >>>>>> is Bush,
    >>>>>>>>> for whom you said you thought the term was valid.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago gangster.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Chicago gangster and politician, yes. Threats and bribery, bribery
    >>>>>> and
    >>>>>>> threats. Those are the methods of choice, and the difference in the
    >>>>>> way
    >>>>>>> they're managed by gangsters and politicians is mainly a matter of
    >>>>>> detail.
    >>>>>>> Obama doesn't pay off corrupt cops and politicians with cash
    >>>>>> stuffed in
    >>>>>>> envelopes; Al Capone didn't pay off unions, corporations and states
    >>>>>> that
    >>>>>>> supported him with ObamaCare waivers or other forms of transferring
    >>>>>> wealth,
    >>>>>>> like giving the UAW a huge share of GM (to which the union had no
    >>>>>> legitimate
    >>>>>>> claim) while screwing the bondholders out of their rightful share.
    >>>>>> And so
    >>>>>>> on. The principle is the same. Obama's style of corruption is at
    >>>>>> least an
    >>>>>>> order of magnitude greater than Capone's because Obama has by far
    >>>>>> the
    >>>>>>> greater power to corrupt, and he obviously intends to use it.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The scary thing is that you and others believe that crap.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Do you follow the news at all, or do you just find that too "scary"?
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> I don't restrict myself to faux noose. Yes I do hear what Rush says, as
    >>>> well as O'Reilly plus O'Donnell and Maldow. I evaluate and form my own
    >>>> conclusions. Unlike some here, my politics cannot be reasonably
    >>>> pigeonholed
    >>>
    >>> The ones you've named are commentators, not reporters. I was asking
    >>> whether
    >>> you follow the news.
    >>>
    >>>

    >>
    >> My statement was inclusive, not exclusive. If you're implying that I don't
    >> know what's going on in the world, you may be right. I don't pretend to
    >> know everything. And I have not formed conclusions that are written in
    >> concrete.
    >>
    >> And exactly how do you follow the news.

    >
    > I subscribe to The Wall Street Journal (online), the largest circulation
    > newspaper in the U.S. I sometimes read (online) the Washington Times and
    > Washington Examiner as well.
    >
    > I also follow Fox News on TV -- I'm speaking of the daytime news segments
    > (Bream, Kelly, Doocy, MacCallum, Baier, Smith etc.), not the popular evening
    > news commentary programs (O'Reilly, Hannity etc.) which are entirely
    > different. I sometimes watch the latter also, they are often entertaining,
    > but they are opinion rather than news.
    >
    >

    The Journal is a source that i not only subscribe to, but I read that
    and the Times. The real news is not delivered by the daytime Faux
    people. Key facts are either distorted or omitted.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Apr 3, 2011
    #9
  10. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/2/2011 9:35 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >> On 4/2/2011 5:01 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>> news:4d974490$0$12462$-secrets.com...
    >>>> On 4/2/2011 11:21 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4d971d8e$0$12479$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>> On 4/1/2011 11:52 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>>>> "Peter N"<photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:-secrets.com...
    >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:27:35 -0400, "Neil
    >>>>>>>> Harrington"<> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> "John A."<> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:20:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>> <>
    >>>>>>>>>> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>> message
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:2011032717330780278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-03-27 16:58:18 -0700, "Neil
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Harrington"<> said:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2011032714590370933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> [ . . . ]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and I thought this one valid in January 2001.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president
    >>>>>>>> represents, more
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and glorious day
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> desire
    >>>>>>>> at last
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're eight years slow. It suits January 2009 pretty well
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> in some respects,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> but better still would be to replace "moron" with "corrupt
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Chicago machine
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> politician and his gang of thugs."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of your opinion, moron he is not.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> I did say ""corrupt Chicago machine politician and his gang
    >>>>>>>>>>> of thugs" would
    >>>>>>>>>>> be better than "moron." I know he's not a moron, but then
    >>>>>>>>>>> neither is Bush, for whom you said you thought the term was
    >>>>>>>>>>> valid.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago
    >>>>>>>>>> gangster.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Chicago gangster and politician, yes. Threats and bribery,
    >>>>>>>>> bribery and threats. Those are the methods of choice, and the
    >>>>>>>>> difference in the way they're managed by gangsters and
    >>>>>>>>> politicians is mainly a matter of detail. Obama doesn't pay
    >>>>>>>>> off corrupt cops and politicians with cash
    >>>>>>>> stuffed in
    >>>>>>>>> envelopes; Al Capone didn't pay off unions, corporations and
    >>>>>>>>> states that supported him with ObamaCare waivers or other
    >>>>>>>>> forms of transferring wealth, like giving the UAW a huge share
    >>>>>>>>> of GM (to which the union had no legitimate claim) while
    >>>>>>>>> screwing the bondholders out of their rightful share. And so
    >>>>>>>>> on. The principle is the same. Obama's style of corruption is
    >>>>>>>>> at least an order of magnitude greater than Capone's because
    >>>>>>>>> Obama has by far
    >>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>> greater power to corrupt, and he obviously intends to use it.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> The scary thing is that you and others believe that crap.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> Do you follow the news at all, or do you just find that too
    >>>>>>> "scary"?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> I don't restrict myself to faux noose. Yes I do hear what Rush
    >>>>>> says, as well as O'Reilly plus O'Donnell and Maldow. I evaluate
    >>>>>> and form my own conclusions. Unlike some here, my politics cannot
    >>>>>> be reasonably pigeonholed
    >>>>>
    >>>>> The ones you've named are commentators, not reporters. I was asking
    >>>>> whether
    >>>>> you follow the news.
    >>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>
    >>>> My statement was inclusive, not exclusive. If you're implying that
    >>>> I don't know what's going on in the world, you may be right. I
    >>>> don't pretend to know everything. And I have not formed conclusions
    >>>> that are written in concrete.
    >>>>
    >>>> And exactly how do you follow the news.
    >>>
    >>> I subscribe to The Wall Street Journal (online), the largest
    >>> circulation newspaper in the U.S. I sometimes read (online) the
    >>> Washington Times and Washington Examiner as well.
    >>>
    >>> I also follow Fox News on TV -- I'm speaking of the daytime news
    >>> segments (Bream, Kelly, Doocy, MacCallum, Baier, Smith etc.), not
    >>> the popular evening news commentary programs (O'Reilly, Hannity
    >>> etc.) which are entirely different. I sometimes watch the latter
    >>> also, they are often entertaining, but they are opinion rather than
    >>> news.
    >>>

    >> The Journal is a source that i not only subscribe to, but I read that
    >> and the Times. The real news is not delivered by the daytime Faux
    >> people. Key facts are either distorted or omitted.

    >
    > And you think the NY Times doesn't, "Omit facts"? - Give me a break!


    Just where did I say that. You state exactly the reason I read multiple
    sources.

    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Apr 3, 2011
    #10
  11. PeterN

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/2/2011 10:02 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
    > PeterN wrote:
    >> On 4/2/2011 9:35 PM, Bill Graham wrote:
    >>> PeterN wrote:
    >>>> On 4/2/2011 5:01 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>> news:4d974490$0$12462$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>> On 4/2/2011 11:21 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>>>> news:4d971d8e$0$12479$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>>>> On 4/1/2011 11:52 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>>>>>> "Peter N"<photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>> news:-secrets.com...
    >>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:27:35 -0400, "Neil
    >>>>>>>>>> Harrington"<> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>> "John A."<> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:20:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2011032717330780278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-03-27 16:58:18 -0700, "Neil
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Harrington"<> said:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2011032714590370933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ . . . ]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and I thought this one valid in January 2001.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents, more and
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great and glorious day
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desire
    >>>>>>>>>> at last
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're eight years slow. It suits January 2009 pretty
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in some respects,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> but better still would be to replace "moron" with
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "corrupt Chicago machine
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> politician and his gang of thugs."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of your opinion, moron he is not.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> I did say ""corrupt Chicago machine politician and his gang
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> of thugs" would
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> be better than "moron." I know he's not a moron, but then
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> neither is Bush, for whom you said you thought the term was
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago
    >>>>>>>>>>>> gangster.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Chicago gangster and politician, yes. Threats and bribery,
    >>>>>>>>>>> bribery and threats. Those are the methods of choice, and the
    >>>>>>>>>>> difference in the way they're managed by gangsters and
    >>>>>>>>>>> politicians is mainly a matter of detail. Obama doesn't pay
    >>>>>>>>>>> off corrupt cops and politicians with cash
    >>>>>>>>>> stuffed in
    >>>>>>>>>>> envelopes; Al Capone didn't pay off unions, corporations and
    >>>>>>>>>>> states that supported him with ObamaCare waivers or other
    >>>>>>>>>>> forms of transferring wealth, like giving the UAW a huge
    >>>>>>>>>>> share of GM (to which the union had no legitimate claim)
    >>>>>>>>>>> while screwing the bondholders out of their rightful share.
    >>>>>>>>>>> And so on. The principle is the same. Obama's style of
    >>>>>>>>>>> corruption is at least an order of magnitude greater than
    >>>>>>>>>>> Capone's because Obama has by far
    >>>>>>>>>> the
    >>>>>>>>>>> greater power to corrupt, and he obviously intends to use it.
    >>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> The scary thing is that you and others believe that crap.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> Do you follow the news at all, or do you just find that too
    >>>>>>>>> "scary"?
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> I don't restrict myself to faux noose. Yes I do hear what Rush
    >>>>>>>> says, as well as O'Reilly plus O'Donnell and Maldow. I evaluate
    >>>>>>>> and form my own conclusions. Unlike some here, my politics
    >>>>>>>> cannot be reasonably pigeonholed
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> The ones you've named are commentators, not reporters. I was
    >>>>>>> asking whether
    >>>>>>> you follow the news.
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> My statement was inclusive, not exclusive. If you're implying that
    >>>>>> I don't know what's going on in the world, you may be right. I
    >>>>>> don't pretend to know everything. And I have not formed
    >>>>>> conclusions that are written in concrete.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> And exactly how do you follow the news.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I subscribe to The Wall Street Journal (online), the largest
    >>>>> circulation newspaper in the U.S. I sometimes read (online) the
    >>>>> Washington Times and Washington Examiner as well.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> I also follow Fox News on TV -- I'm speaking of the daytime news
    >>>>> segments (Bream, Kelly, Doocy, MacCallum, Baier, Smith etc.), not
    >>>>> the popular evening news commentary programs (O'Reilly, Hannity
    >>>>> etc.) which are entirely different. I sometimes watch the latter
    >>>>> also, they are often entertaining, but they are opinion rather than
    >>>>> news.
    >>>>>
    >>>> The Journal is a source that i not only subscribe to, but I read
    >>>> that and the Times. The real news is not delivered by the daytime
    >>>> Faux people. Key facts are either distorted or omitted.
    >>>
    >>> And you think the NY Times doesn't, "Omit facts"? - Give me a break!

    >>
    >> Just where did I say that. You state exactly the reason I read
    >> multiple sources.

    >
    > And FOX news makes it their priority to point out the facts that the NY
    > Times omits. And yet, you persist in referring to it as the "Faux"
    > news....Why is that?


    Look up the definition of "fax."


    --
    Peter
    PeterN, Apr 3, 2011
    #11
  12. PeterN

    John A. Guest

    On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 21:59:09 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
    wrote:

    >Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    >> news:4d97c757$0$12464$-secrets.com...
    >>> On 4/2/2011 5:01 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>>> news:4d974490$0$12462$-secrets.com...
    >>>>> On 4/2/2011 11:21 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >>>>>> news:4d971d8e$0$12479$-secrets.com...
    >>>>>>> On 4/1/2011 11:52 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >>>>>>>> "Peter N"<photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>> news:-secrets.com...
    >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:27:35 -0400, "Neil
    >>>>>>>>> Harrington"<> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>> "John A."<> wrote in message
    >>>>>>>>>> news:...
    >>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:20:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >>>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>> message
    >>>>>>>>>>>> news:2011032717330780278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-03-27 16:58:18 -0700, "Neil
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Harrington"<> said:
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> message
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> news:2011032714590370933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> [ . . . ]
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and I thought this one valid in January 2001.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents, more and
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> great and glorious day
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> desire at last and
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the White House will be adorned by a downright moron."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>> H. L. Mencken
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're eight years slow. It suits January 2009 pretty
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> well in some respects,
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> but better still would be to replace "moron" with
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "corrupt Chicago machine
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>> politician and his gang of thugs."
    >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of your opinion, moron he is not.
    >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>>> I did say ""corrupt Chicago machine politician and his gang
    >>>>>>>>>>>> of thugs" would
    >>>>>>>>>>>> be better than "moron." I know he's not a moron, but then
    >>>>>>>>>>>> neither is Bush, for whom you said you thought the term was
    >>>>>>>>>>>> valid.
    >>>>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>>> Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago
    >>>>>>>>>>> gangster.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>>> Chicago gangster and politician, yes. Threats and bribery,
    >>>>>>>>>> bribery and threats. Those are the methods of choice, and the
    >>>>>>>>>> difference in the way they're managed by gangsters and
    >>>>>>>>>> politicians is mainly a matter of detail. Obama doesn't pay
    >>>>>>>>>> off corrupt cops and politicians with cash stuffed in
    >>>>>>>>>> envelopes; Al Capone didn't pay off unions, corporations and
    >>>>>>>>>> states that supported him with ObamaCare waivers or other
    >>>>>>>>>> forms of transferring wealth, like giving the UAW a huge
    >>>>>>>>>> share of GM (to which the union had no legitimate claim)
    >>>>>>>>>> while screwing the bondholders out of their rightful share.
    >>>>>>>>>> And so on. The principle is the same. Obama's style of
    >>>>>>>>>> corruption is at least an order of magnitude greater than
    >>>>>>>>>> Capone's because Obama has by far the greater power to
    >>>>>>>>>> corrupt, and he obviously intends to use it.
    >>>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>>> The scary thing is that you and others believe that crap.
    >>>>>>>>
    >>>>>>>> Do you follow the news at all, or do you just find that too
    >>>>>>>> "scary"?
    >>>>>>>
    >>>>>>> I don't restrict myself to faux noose. Yes I do hear what Rush
    >>>>>>> says, as
    >>>>>>> well as O'Reilly plus O'Donnell and Maldow. I evaluate and form
    >>>>>>> my own conclusions. Unlike some here, my politics cannot be
    >>>>>>> reasonably pigeonholed
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>> The ones you've named are commentators, not reporters. I was
    >>>>>> asking whether
    >>>>>> you follow the news.
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>>
    >>>>>
    >>>>> My statement was inclusive, not exclusive. If you're implying that
    >>>>> I don't
    >>>>> know what's going on in the world, you may be right. I don't
    >>>>> pretend to know everything. And I have not formed conclusions that
    >>>>> are written in concrete.
    >>>>>
    >>>>> And exactly how do you follow the news.
    >>>>
    >>>> I subscribe to The Wall Street Journal (online), the largest
    >>>> circulation newspaper in the U.S. I sometimes read (online) the
    >>>> Washington Times and Washington Examiner as well.
    >>>>
    >>>> I also follow Fox News on TV -- I'm speaking of the daytime news
    >>>> segments (Bream, Kelly, Doocy, MacCallum, Baier, Smith etc.), not
    >>>> the popular evening
    >>>> news commentary programs (O'Reilly, Hannity etc.) which are entirely
    >>>> different. I sometimes watch the latter also, they are often
    >>>> entertaining,
    >>>> but they are opinion rather than news.
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>> The Journal is a source that i not only subscribe to, but I read
    >>> that and the Times. The real news is not delivered by the daytime
    >>> Faux people. Key facts are either distorted or omitted.

    >>
    >> No, it's the news. It's the NYTimes ("All the news that fits, we
    >> print") that distorts and omits facts. I am assuming that's the Times
    >> you're referring to.
    >>
    >> Someone did a study some years ago and found that the National
    >> Enquirer was more accurate with its reporting than the NYTimes.
    >>
    >> That was an NYTimes reporter who won a Pulitzer, wasn't it, and then
    >> had it pulled when it turned out he just invented the whole story? I
    >> believe someone on the Washington Post who did the same thing --
    >> unless that was another NYTimes reporter.
    >>
    >> Their extreme leftward bias is well known and thoroughly documented.
    >> Read Bernard Goldberg for examples -- or Ann Coulter, of course.

    >
    >
    >They are famous for not reporting Obama's large rewards to all his Chicago
    >buddies. But FOX does a pretty good job of finding them out and reporting
    >them.


    Even in an ideal world, the president will appoint people he knows can
    do the job. In order to know they can do the job, he has to know them.
    There is a strong tendency for people you know to have lived and/or
    worked in proximity to where you have lived/worked, or to have
    otherwise have run in the same circles. The same holds true with who
    he chooses as his advisers, and who they know and might recommend for
    appointments.

    I can't begin to tell you how many Texas plates I saw on I95 during
    the Bush administration, but there are definitely fewer now. Did that
    make the news? Was Fox all over that? Did anyone bother to report it?
    No, of course not.

    In other words: this ain't news.
    John A., Apr 4, 2011
    #12
  13. PeterN

    Peter N Guest

    On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 21:59:09 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
    wrote:
    > Neil Harrington wrote:
    > > "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    > > news:4d97c757$0$12464$-secrets.com...
    > >> On 4/2/2011 5:01 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > >>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > >>> news:4d974490$0$12462$-secrets.com...
    > >>>> On 4/2/2011 11:21 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > >>>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    > >>>>> news:4d971d8e$0$12479$-secrets.com...
    > >>>>>> On 4/1/2011 11:52 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    > >>>>>>> "Peter N"<photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote in message
    > >>>>>>>

    news:-secrets.com...
    > >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:27:35 -0400, "Neil
    > >>>>>>>> Harrington"<> wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>> "John A."<> wrote in message
    > >>>>>>>>> news:...
    > >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:20:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    > >>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
    > >>>>>>>>>>> message
    > >>>>>>>>>>> news:2011032717330780278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-03-27 16:58:18 -0700, "Neil
    > >>>>>>>>>>>> Harrington"<> said:
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote

    in
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>> message
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    news:2011032714590370933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>> [ . . . ]
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and I thought this one valid in January 2001.
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents, more and
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> great and glorious day
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> desire at last and
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the White House will be adorned by a downright

    moron."
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H. L. Mencken
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're eight years slow. It suits January 2009 pretty
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>> well in some respects,
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>> but better still would be to replace "moron" with
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>> "corrupt Chicago machine
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>> politician and his gang of thugs."
    > >>>>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of your opinion, moron he is not.
    > >>>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>>> I did say ""corrupt Chicago machine politician and his

    gang
    > >>>>>>>>>>> of thugs" would
    > >>>>>>>>>>> be better than "moron." I know he's not a moron, but

    then
    > >>>>>>>>>>> neither is Bush, for whom you said you thought the term

    was
    > >>>>>>>>>>> valid.
    > >>>>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>>> Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago
    > >>>>>>>>>> gangster.
    > >>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>>> Chicago gangster and politician, yes. Threats and bribery,
    > >>>>>>>>> bribery and threats. Those are the methods of choice, and

    the
    > >>>>>>>>> difference in the way they're managed by gangsters and
    > >>>>>>>>> politicians is mainly a matter of detail. Obama doesn't

    pay
    > >>>>>>>>> off corrupt cops and politicians with cash stuffed in
    > >>>>>>>>> envelopes; Al Capone didn't pay off unions, corporations

    and
    > >>>>>>>>> states that supported him with ObamaCare waivers or other
    > >>>>>>>>> forms of transferring wealth, like giving the UAW a huge
    > >>>>>>>>> share of GM (to which the union had no legitimate claim)
    > >>>>>>>>> while screwing the bondholders out of their rightful

    share.
    > >>>>>>>>> And so on. The principle is the same. Obama's style of
    > >>>>>>>>> corruption is at least an order of magnitude greater than
    > >>>>>>>>> Capone's because Obama has by far the greater power to
    > >>>>>>>>> corrupt, and he obviously intends to use it.
    > >>>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>>> The scary thing is that you and others believe that crap.
    > >>>>>>>
    > >>>>>>> Do you follow the news at all, or do you just find that too
    > >>>>>>> "scary"?
    > >>>>>>
    > >>>>>> I don't restrict myself to faux noose. Yes I do hear what

    Rush
    > >>>>>> says, as
    > >>>>>> well as O'Reilly plus O'Donnell and Maldow. I evaluate and

    form
    > >>>>>> my own conclusions. Unlike some here, my politics cannot be
    > >>>>>> reasonably pigeonholed
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>> The ones you've named are commentators, not reporters. I was
    > >>>>> asking whether
    > >>>>> you follow the news.
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>>
    > >>>>
    > >>>> My statement was inclusive, not exclusive. If you're implying

    that
    > >>>> I don't
    > >>>> know what's going on in the world, you may be right. I don't
    > >>>> pretend to know everything. And I have not formed conclusions

    that
    > >>>> are written in concrete.
    > >>>>
    > >>>> And exactly how do you follow the news.
    > >>>
    > >>> I subscribe to The Wall Street Journal (online), the largest
    > >>> circulation newspaper in the U.S. I sometimes read (online) the
    > >>> Washington Times and Washington Examiner as well.
    > >>>
    > >>> I also follow Fox News on TV -- I'm speaking of the daytime news
    > >>> segments (Bream, Kelly, Doocy, MacCallum, Baier, Smith etc.),

    not
    > >>> the popular evening
    > >>> news commentary programs (O'Reilly, Hannity etc.) which are

    entirely
    > >>> different. I sometimes watch the latter also, they are often
    > >>> entertaining,
    > >>> but they are opinion rather than news.
    > >>>
    > >>>
    > >> The Journal is a source that i not only subscribe to, but I read
    > >> that and the Times. The real news is not delivered by the daytime
    > >> Faux people. Key facts are either distorted or omitted.

    > >
    > > No, it's the news. It's the NYTimes ("All the news that fits, we
    > > print") that distorts and omits facts. I am assuming that's the

    Times
    > > you're referring to.
    > >
    > > Someone did a study some years ago and found that the National
    > > Enquirer was more accurate with its reporting than the NYTimes.
    > >
    > > That was an NYTimes reporter who won a Pulitzer, wasn't it, and

    then
    > > had it pulled when it turned out he just invented the whole

    story? I
    > > believe someone on the Washington Post who did the same thing --
    > > unless that was another NYTimes reporter.
    > >
    > > Their extreme leftward bias is well known and thoroughly

    documented.
    > > Read Bernard Goldberg for examples -- or Ann Coulter, of course.





    > They are famous for not reporting Obama's large rewards to all his

    Chicago
    > buddies. But FOX does a pretty good job of finding them out and

    reporting
    > them.


    Does Faux also report on Bachmann's and Rand Paul's lies?

    --
    Peter from my Droid
    Peter N, Apr 5, 2011
    #13
  14. PeterN

    John A. Guest

    On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 15:53:55 -0400, Peter N <photo.maven
    @fakeverizon.net> wrote:

    >On Sun, 3 Apr 2011 21:59:09 -0700, "Bill Graham" <>
    >wrote:
    >> Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> > "PeterN" <> wrote in message
    >> > news:4d97c757$0$12464$-secrets.com...
    >> >> On 4/2/2011 5:01 PM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> >>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >> >>> news:4d974490$0$12462$-secrets.com...
    >> >>>> On 4/2/2011 11:21 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> >>>>> "PeterN"<> wrote in message
    >> >>>>> news:4d971d8e$0$12479$-secrets.com...
    >> >>>>>> On 4/1/2011 11:52 AM, Neil Harrington wrote:
    >> >>>>>>> "Peter N"<photo.maven @fakeverizon.net> wrote in message
    >> >>>>>>>

    >news:-secrets.com...
    >> >>>>>>>> On Mon, 28 Mar 2011 13:27:35 -0400, "Neil
    >> >>>>>>>> Harrington"<> wrote:
    >> >>>>>>>>> "John A."<> wrote in message
    >> >>>>>>>>> news:...
    >> >>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 27 Mar 2011 23:20:36 -0400, "Neil Harrington"
    >> >>>>>>>>>> <> wrote:
    >> >>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in
    >> >>>>>>>>>>> message
    >> >>>>>>>>>>> news:2011032717330780278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 2011-03-27 16:58:18 -0700, "Neil
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Harrington"<> said:
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote

    >in
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> message
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>

    >news:2011032714590370933-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> [ . . . ]
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and I thought this one valid in January 2001.
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> "As democracy is perfected, the office of president
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents, more and
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> great and glorious day
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> desire at last and
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> the White House will be adorned by a downright

    >moron."
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> H. L. Mencken
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You're eight years slow. It suits January 2009 pretty
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> well in some respects,
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> but better still would be to replace "moron" with
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> "corrupt Chicago machine
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>> politician and his gang of thugs."
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>> Regardless of your opinion, moron he is not.
    >> >>>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>>> I did say ""corrupt Chicago machine politician and his

    >gang
    >> >>>>>>>>>>> of thugs" would
    >> >>>>>>>>>>> be better than "moron." I know he's not a moron, but

    >then
    >> >>>>>>>>>>> neither is Bush, for whom you said you thought the term

    >was
    >> >>>>>>>>>>> valid.
    >> >>>>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>>> Yeah. Obama exactly fits the stereotype of the Chicago
    >> >>>>>>>>>> gangster.
    >> >>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>>> Chicago gangster and politician, yes. Threats and bribery,
    >> >>>>>>>>> bribery and threats. Those are the methods of choice, and

    >the
    >> >>>>>>>>> difference in the way they're managed by gangsters and
    >> >>>>>>>>> politicians is mainly a matter of detail. Obama doesn't

    >pay
    >> >>>>>>>>> off corrupt cops and politicians with cash stuffed in
    >> >>>>>>>>> envelopes; Al Capone didn't pay off unions, corporations

    >and
    >> >>>>>>>>> states that supported him with ObamaCare waivers or other
    >> >>>>>>>>> forms of transferring wealth, like giving the UAW a huge
    >> >>>>>>>>> share of GM (to which the union had no legitimate claim)
    >> >>>>>>>>> while screwing the bondholders out of their rightful

    >share.
    >> >>>>>>>>> And so on. The principle is the same. Obama's style of
    >> >>>>>>>>> corruption is at least an order of magnitude greater than
    >> >>>>>>>>> Capone's because Obama has by far the greater power to
    >> >>>>>>>>> corrupt, and he obviously intends to use it.
    >> >>>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>>> The scary thing is that you and others believe that crap.
    >> >>>>>>>
    >> >>>>>>> Do you follow the news at all, or do you just find that too
    >> >>>>>>> "scary"?
    >> >>>>>>
    >> >>>>>> I don't restrict myself to faux noose. Yes I do hear what

    >Rush
    >> >>>>>> says, as
    >> >>>>>> well as O'Reilly plus O'Donnell and Maldow. I evaluate and

    >form
    >> >>>>>> my own conclusions. Unlike some here, my politics cannot be
    >> >>>>>> reasonably pigeonholed
    >> >>>>>
    >> >>>>> The ones you've named are commentators, not reporters. I was
    >> >>>>> asking whether
    >> >>>>> you follow the news.
    >> >>>>>
    >> >>>>>
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> My statement was inclusive, not exclusive. If you're implying

    >that
    >> >>>> I don't
    >> >>>> know what's going on in the world, you may be right. I don't
    >> >>>> pretend to know everything. And I have not formed conclusions

    >that
    >> >>>> are written in concrete.
    >> >>>>
    >> >>>> And exactly how do you follow the news.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> I subscribe to The Wall Street Journal (online), the largest
    >> >>> circulation newspaper in the U.S. I sometimes read (online) the
    >> >>> Washington Times and Washington Examiner as well.
    >> >>>
    >> >>> I also follow Fox News on TV -- I'm speaking of the daytime news
    >> >>> segments (Bream, Kelly, Doocy, MacCallum, Baier, Smith etc.),

    >not
    >> >>> the popular evening
    >> >>> news commentary programs (O'Reilly, Hannity etc.) which are

    >entirely
    >> >>> different. I sometimes watch the latter also, they are often
    >> >>> entertaining,
    >> >>> but they are opinion rather than news.
    >> >>>
    >> >>>
    >> >> The Journal is a source that i not only subscribe to, but I read
    >> >> that and the Times. The real news is not delivered by the daytime
    >> >> Faux people. Key facts are either distorted or omitted.
    >> >
    >> > No, it's the news. It's the NYTimes ("All the news that fits, we
    >> > print") that distorts and omits facts. I am assuming that's the

    >Times
    >> > you're referring to.
    >> >
    >> > Someone did a study some years ago and found that the National
    >> > Enquirer was more accurate with its reporting than the NYTimes.
    >> >
    >> > That was an NYTimes reporter who won a Pulitzer, wasn't it, and

    >then
    >> > had it pulled when it turned out he just invented the whole

    >story? I
    >> > believe someone on the Washington Post who did the same thing --
    >> > unless that was another NYTimes reporter.
    >> >
    >> > Their extreme leftward bias is well known and thoroughly

    >documented.
    >> > Read Bernard Goldberg for examples -- or Ann Coulter, of course.

    >
    >
    >
    >
    >> They are famous for not reporting Obama's large rewards to all his

    >Chicago
    >> buddies. But FOX does a pretty good job of finding them out and

    >reporting
    >> them.

    >
    >Does Faux also report on Bachmann's and Rand Paul's lies?


    Or, more precisely, do they report on said lies being lies?
    John A., Apr 5, 2011
    #14
  15. PeterN

    John Turco Guest

    Pete Stavrakoglou wrote:
    >
    > > "John Turco" <> wrote:
    > >> Neil Harrington wrote:


    <edited for brevity>

    > >> Obama's style of corruption is at least an order of magnitude greater
    > >> than Capone's because Obama has by far the greater power to corrupt,
    > >> and he obviously intends to use it.

    > >
    > >
    > > You're just slightly off the mark, Neil. The President is obviously a
    > > black Irishman, who'd dropped the "'" from his surname, long ago.
    > >
    > > Yes, sir! Barack O'Bama is a celebrated Chicago racketeer, following in
    > > the hallowed tradition of a notorious >native son< of the Flatulent City:
    > > Dion O'Bannion.
    > >
    > > So, please...don't compare our peerless prez with that crude foreigner
    > > from New York, Alphonse Capone. (It ain't respectful, don't ya know?)

    >
    > That might just be an insult to Capone.



    You could be right!

    I mean, at least, ol' Dion >did< have a legitimate business (i.e., his
    li'l flower shop), on the side.

    --
    Cordially,
    John Turco <>

    Marie's Musings <http://fairiesandtails.blogspot.com>
    John Turco, Apr 28, 2011
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. tony cooper

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    tony cooper, Mar 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    182
  2. charles

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    charles, Mar 24, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    202
    Pete Stavrakoglou
    Mar 24, 2011
  3. PeterN

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    PeterN, Mar 26, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    112
    Views:
    1,610
    John Turco
    May 12, 2011
  4. tony cooper

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    tony cooper, Mar 27, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    614
    Views:
    6,929
    John Turco
    May 12, 2011
  5. Pete Stavrakoglou

    Re: Sometimes stupid loses

    Pete Stavrakoglou, Mar 28, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    217
    Pete Stavrakoglou
    Mar 28, 2011
Loading...

Share This Page