[Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
And other partisan hypocrisies: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/01/21/nr.sanchez.slater.limbaugh.cnn http://tinyurl.com/bgb5ev Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Gosh Steven, At least finish the sentence.. I hpoe He fails to turn the nation socialist. Richard Subject: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails And other partisan hypocrisies: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/01/21/nr.sanchez.slater.limbaugh.cnn http://tinyurl.com/bgb5ev Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG - http://www.avg.com Version: 8.0.176 / Virus Database: 270.10.12/1908 - Release Date: 1/21/2009 9:15 PM
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
R C Macaulay wrote: At least finish the sentence.. I hpoe He fails to turn the nation socialist. That would only be valid if Obama intended to turn the nation socialist. I think it obvious that he does not. Having said that, I think Limbaugh expressed himself awkwardly, and he probably did not mean what it sounded like. I suppose he meant that he hopes Obama fails to achieve some of the liberal policies that Limbaugh opposes -- NOT that he hopes the economy continues to collapse, and that banks keep going bankrupt. I am no fan of Limbaugh but I doubt he favors a second Great Depression. Many of Obamas supporters, including me, have grave doubts about spending a trillion dollars to revive the economy. However he is the president, and if he can persuade the Congress to do it, I defer to his judgement. I wouldn't have the slightest idea how to handle this or most of the other problems a president faces. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Richard sez: Gosh Steven, At least finish the sentence.. I hpoe He fails to turn the nation socialist. Richard http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/01/21/nr.sanchez.slater.limbaugh.cnn http://tinyurl.com/bgb5ev Look at Limbaugh's own web site: http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_011609/content/01125113.guest.html http://tinyurl.com/9dgs7v Excerpts: ** I hope Obama Fails ... I hope he fails. ... I would be honored if the Drive-By Media headlined me all day long: Limbaugh: I Hope Obama Fails. Somebody's gotta say it. ... So I can answer it, four words, I hope he fails. ... I'm happy to be the last man standing. I'm honored to be the last man standing. Yeah, I'm the true maverick. I can do more than four words. I could say I hope he fails and I could do a brief explanation of why. You know, I want to win. ... You may argue that I may be taking Limbaugh's own words out of context. Perhaps so, but I don't think by that much. Actually, I think you're putting more words in Limbaugh's mouth as compared to me subtracting from it. If a dyslexic like me can learn to read, so can you. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Jed Rothwell wrote: Many of Obamas supporters, including me, have grave doubts about spending a trillion dollars to revive the economy. I have few or no doubts about the need for such a remedy. From what I have read -- long ago, it's true, when I was in school -- the attempted remedies at the start of the Great Depression were (essentially) identical to the remedies used today. In short: When seriously under water, inflate sufficiently and you'll float back to the surface. But the remedies failed -- obviously, totally, they failed; the money supply collapsed and stayed down; unemployment went sky high and stayed that way for years and years; it's been said, with only slight exaggeration, that the thing that finally pulled the United States out of the depression was mobilization for WWII. So, why did the remedies fail? As far as I could tell, they failed because, while the government was using what seems to have been the right kind of stimulus, they didn't do enough of it, with enough dollars, for long enough. It's like they administered an antibiotic but stopped after one dose, and then the patient went serotoxic. Things look every bit as grave now as they were then, and this time around we can't mobilize our way out -- we're *ALREADY* in a major war, and if anything we're likely to demobilize during the next few years. So, no, I don't doubt in the least the need to administer something absolutely enormous, totally supersized, in the way of a stimulus to get things going again. The patient's heart has stopped; this is not the time to quibble about the cost of new batteries for the defibrillator.
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Howdy Steven, I'm not a fan of Rush Limberger cheese although I will credit him for figuring out how to make 40 million a year as a talking head of the republican party.. which is more than Clinton and Obama made.. well.. err.. up until ole Bill figured out how to work the Foundation angle. I was sorta taught never to trust anyone from Yale or Harvard, and since Rush was a dropout of potowatamee.. he don't count. except for laughs... ever notice how Rush can spin things around... like the story of the guy caught by his wife in bed with another woman the loser screamed at his wife.. are you gonna believe me or your lying eyes. Since ole Rush sorta got divorced several times.. he probably had lotsa practice telling the truth nine different ways without lying. Richard
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
This transcript is helpful: http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2009/01/21/nr.sanchez.slater.limbaugh.cnn It is clear that Limbaugh is either mistaken about Obama or he is using a straw man argument (a logical fallacy http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html) Limbaugh states: Look, what [Obama]'s talking about is the absorption of as much of the private sector by the US government as possible, from the banking business, to the mortgage industry, the automobile business, to health care. That is emphatically not true. If Obama favored those policies, I would be against him too. In particular, no one wants to see the U.S. government in the banking business or the automobile business. But Bush was forced to prop of these businesses with loans and stock purchases. For the time being Obama must follow. We all hope they return the loans and the government gets out of their business as quickly as possible. However, during the time the government is the majority shareholder, or the top lender, it must have a controlling interest! Otherwise they will just steal the money. I fear they are doing that already, because some of the deals Bush cut gave the Feds non-voting stock, which is insane. It is like wearing a big sign on your back saying steal from me! Previous government bail outs worked out surprisingly well. The government got all its money back plus interest. The AIG bailout is doing well. The government has taken 80% of the stock, and it is charging high interest for the loans as well, so whether the company recovers or dies, the government will likely get back most of the money. The company is, in effect, liquidating in an orderly fashion, paying back the government billions of dollars every month. I expect there will be nothing left of it, but the liquidation is orderly, meaning the divisions and properties they sell of are not going at fire-sale prices. This is far different from giving away money to bankers and insurance companies as has been claimed by some opponents. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
I wrote: I expect there will be nothing left of it, but the liquidation is orderly, meaning the divisions and properties they sell OFF are not going at fire-sale prices. I mean that unless the market panics and prices fall far below normal valuations, AIG's property should be enough to cover the loans. A lot of their property is worthless sub-prime paper, but they have enough income-generating valuable stuff to pay back the loans. We hope. That would not be the case if they had to sell it all off in a week. That's why loans were needed -- to stretch out the liquidation sale. Not to help the company, which is a dead duck. Limbaugh made another gross error, referring to the government getting into the health care business. No one advocates that. We want the government to get into the health insurance business. Health insurance companies do not run hospitals any more than auto insurance companies run body shops. (HMOs do run their own hospitals, and some of them act as insurers.) In Japan and Europe, the government provides insurance, but most hospitals are privately run. In the U.S., the government runs the VA hospitals only, as far as I know. I do not think anyone advocates more government-run hospitals. Obama does not. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Jed Rothwell wrote: However, during the time the government is the majority shareholder, or the top lender, it must have a controlling interest! Otherwise they will just steal the money. I fear they are doing that already, because some of the deals Bush cut gave the Feds non-voting stock, which is insane. It is like wearing a big sign on your back saying steal from me! In defense of the Bush deals, it was *not* insane; it may have been a bad idea but the reasons for choosing that route made some sense. In short, it was a tradeoff, and while you may feel they could have chosen a better path, the one they picked was at least somewhat defensible. Of course, the goal was *not* to nationalize the banks, rather the opposite: The hope was that if the banks were propped up then private investment dollars would flow into them again. But fixing things up without nationalizing the banks is a little tricky. If the Feds had extracted piles of (new) common stock from the banks that would have diluted existing investments, effectively screwing common stock holders, and in fact resulting in de facto nationalization. That's *not* what you want to do if you're hoping to attract new money into the institution's common stock; in fact it's likely to scare away potential investors. In short, if you don't want the government to end up owning the banks, then don't do that! Convertible debentures have much the same problem; the conversion feature decreases the fully diluted value of common stock shares, which again scares off investors and leaves the government playing alone. A major part of the problem was a collapse in the price of the common stock of the banks; propping up the stock price was one goal. If that had been the only goal, then buying existing stock on the market might have been the best approach (ignore for the moment the fact such an approach is also likely to put the government squarely in the banking business). However, just buying common stock on the open market -- which props up the stock price while avoiding diluting existing shareholders -- is a very indirect way to stimulate *lending* by banks. The problem wasn't just that the bank stocks had collapsed; it was that the money market had frozen up. So, direct injection of capital into the banks, rather than indirect injection by purchase of existing stock, was clearly needed. And that means open market purchases of bank stocks were not likely to do the job. So what to do? Give the banks money directly, which you need to do to get the money circulating again, and either you get common stock in exchange, and nail the stockholders, or you get something else, and then you don't get voting control. Neither is ideal. Bush's people chose the latter. I'm not sure the former would have been better. Of course, there were strings attached to the money, but no doubt one can argue that they were not sufficiently strong or numerous.
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Frontline did a revealing special on Limbaugh many years ago. The installment is just as relevant today as when it first aired. A famous interviewer (possibly B. Walters, but I'm not 100% sure on that) once cornered Limbaugh in regards to his verbal tactics and opinions on people and organizations he disagreed with philosophically. When the going got rough it was interesting to see Limbaugh appear to retreat back to the safety of claiming he was nothing more than an entertainment talk show host. I remember the two words he uttered in his own defense: I'm harmless. In a sense Limbaugh strikes me as someone who feeds off of mob mentality. When he feels sufficiently supported by the mobs of ditto heads he tries to cultivate from his talk show he seems embolden to strike out at those he hates. But when actually faced in-person with those he hates, he is not so brave. I'm reminded of a video clip I once saw of an angry mob preparing to reign destruction on a city block. Of particular interest was the behavior of one particular advancing young male who had a club in his hand. What was interesting was not the fact that he was advancing. What was interesting was the fact that he first checked his surroundings making sure he wasn't the ONLY individual who was advancing with destruction on his mind. Mob mentality. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
In reply to Stephen A. Lawrence's message of Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:50:45 -0500: Hi, [snip] Things look every bit as grave now as they were then, and this time around we can't mobilize our way out -- we're *ALREADY* in a major war, and if anything we're likely to demobilize during the next few years. So, no, I don't doubt in the least the need to administer something absolutely enormous, totally supersized, in the way of a stimulus to get things going again. The patient's heart has stopped; this is not the time to quibble about the cost of new batteries for the defibrillator. WW II was a mobilization for destructive ends. This time around, the mobilization will be for constructive ends, and consequently the results will be far more beneficial to the World economy. With the taming of fusion energy will come the need to completely revamp the energy infrastructure, and with the water shortages resulting from climate change will come the need to build many desalination plants. This will require a massive World wide effort, and it is this which will pull the World out of recession. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
In reply to Jed Rothwell's message of Thu, 22 Jan 2009 10:58:18 -0500: Hi, [snip] It is like wearing a big sign on your back saying steal from me! It's worse than that. The whole thing was deliberately constructed with the collusion of those in power to provide a means for the wealthy and powerful to plunder the public purse. Regards, Robin van Spaandonk http://rvanspaa.freehostia.com/Project.html
RE: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Steven - Not so much striking out and hating is heard on that show (if any) - specific political opposition to liberalism is. But you wouldn't know that unless you listened. Far worse than completely miscasting RL's statements is your attempting to create equivalence between regular Limbaugh listeners - dittoheads - and an angry mob bent on destruction. I am a member of that mob you refer to, and I very much want BO to fail completely, as Limbaugh does, on every attempt he makes to move our government to the left. This is appropriate and constitutionally protected political opposition. Would you also consider citizens to be a mob bent on destruction if they listened to some strident liberal voice in opposition the policies of conservatives who were trying to move our government to the right? There you go. It's called political bias, Steven, and it's ok to have that. It's wrong to characterize those with a different bias than your own to be somehow the lesser for it solely on that basis. Why don't you start practicing what your man has been preaching and try reaching out and sharing ideas with conservatives instead of attacking their character? Jed, BO has stated many liberal, progressive, and socialist policies that will be promoted by his administration. His track record, most speech content, and his associations indicate he is extremely liberal. But he's been a demagogue through the campaign, pandering with perfect eloquence to whatever audience is listening. The left could find themselves victims of his agenda as often as the right for all we really know. And for the record, both RL and certainly most of his listeners would want BO to succeed on every conservative move he makes. And we know of course he will make these moves - the same day Robert Park endorses CF. -Original Message- From: OrionWorks [mailto:svj.orionwo...@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, January 22, 2009 6:28 AM To: vortex-l@eskimo.com Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails snip In a sense Limbaugh strikes me as someone who feeds off of mob mentality. When he feels sufficiently supported by the mobs of ditto heads he tries to cultivate from his talk show he seems embolden to strike out at those he hates. But when actually faced in-person with those he hates, he is not so brave. I'm reminded of a video clip I once saw of an angry mob preparing to reign destruction on a city block. Of particular interest was the behavior of one particular advancing young male who had a club in his hand. What was interesting was not the fact that he was advancing. What was interesting was the fact that he first checked his surroundings making sure he wasn't the ONLY individual who was advancing with destruction on his mind. Mob mentality. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
RE: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Rick Monteverde wrote: Jed, BO has stated many liberal, progressive, and socialist policies that will be promoted by his administration. His track record, most speech content, and his associations indicate he is extremely liberal. Not by my standards, but I get your point. But he's been a demagogue through the campaign, pandering with perfect eloquence to whatever audience is listening. On that you are wrong. Far to the contrary, more than any politician I can recall, he says things that upset his audience and run contrary to their interests. Think of the Philadelphia speech on race relations. He openly tells us this crisis is partly our fault: Our economy is badly weakened, a consequence of greed and irresponsibility on the part of some, but also our collective failure to make hard choices and prepare the nation for a new age. He calls for sacrifice and hard work. When was the last time you heard a politician call for sacrifice? I'll tell you when: 1961, JFK's inagural: ask not what your country can do for you . . . After 9/11 Bush told the nation to go shopping. As my daughter put it, Bush was the frat boy who somehow stumbled into office, Obama is a school principal -- the no-nonsense daddy figure -- who tells you to grow up shape up or ship out. He actually told the American public we need to grow up! Talk about audacity! Telling a bunch of overgrown children to stop acting like spoiled ninnies . . . He is also willing to give credit where it is due. During the debates he said that the surge in Iraq worked, contrary to his own predictions, and President Bush deserves the credit for standing fast. Few successful politicians pander so infrequently, or speak their minds more clearly. You may not agree with him, but you cannot accuse him of hiding his agenda or views. Some unsuccessful fringe candidates are more direct, but they have no hope of winning. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
--- OrionWorks svj.orionwo...@gmail.com wrote: Years ago, I watched a number of late evening RL TV shows that aired. Almost invariably they all started out with unimpressive cartoon skits depicting Bubba doing something stupid, insofar as conservatives were concerned. Ok... I stand corrected. It was not so much hatred I viewed, as constant ridicule. Like what the left (and now the right, since it's 'CYA' time now) did to Palin? I'll state here, I thought she wasn't very great a choice...McCain was even WORSE. But while it was completely forbidden to say almost anything about Obama, for fear of being called a racist, it is OK to beat the hell out of a woman. I thought the left was all for women's equality? I also thought they liked blacks? Only when it fits their agenda. And the right tends to follow suit these days. Which is why you find me here, in the independant DMZ, watching this stupidity. I was wondering if someone might be offended by the mob mentality association I made here. I apologize for that. Apology accepted, Captain Needa (yes I know you were saying that to Rick, but I couldn't resist.) I don't have a problem with your expressed political opinion on the matter. It makes no difference that I might disagree with it. Point is, plenty of people out there in the mass-media and such apparently DO. Hell, on Tuesday (black tuesday...in a good way or bad? Time will tell.) whites, native americans, and orientals were insulted by the Right Rev. Lowery. If he'd really been joking, he should have said: A time when Blacks will pay welfare back... On that note...we'll let the obvious bullshit of whites [needing to] do what's right slide a moment. Let's look at yellows being mellow. Now, I know, some are gonna say this was taken from that stupid play, whatever it was called, but most people have never heard of it. Most people, and if Lowery is not a complete fucking retard he would have known this, will associate yellow with oriental, red with Native American, and so on and so forth. I know a ton of people of oriental descent. They're fabulous people to hang around with, don't blast trashy music around town, have jobs, pay taxes, and don't knock up a dozen different women and then skip out on child support. As for the reds needing to get ahead, man. Okay, as part Choctaw 'Injun', I do not particularly like this, but given the existence of Red Man Chewing Tobacco, I'll pass on judging that /directly./ What I will NOT pass on is pointing out that, in New York at least, it is the liberals who keep the red man from getting ahead, man. These guys want to...you guessed it...tax them. On cigarettes, gasoline, and now...snack foods. While forcing them to do all sorts of baloney impact statements before being allowed to build anything, even if they own the land. The political right up here basically lets them do what they want. The bleedin' hearts of the left are the ones keeping the red man addicted to handouts. It's a nice, insidious trick, and it makes ya just feel so good 'cause you DID SOMETHING TO HELP. vomits Ask a Tuscarora or a Seneca if you can trust the left to help. ...and then I feel less apologetic. Perhaps we both need to look in the mirror and acknowledge our biased flaws. I'll look in the same mirror you two are looking in as well, bud. My flaws are plenty. But I, and those with my view or similar views, have as much right as you or anyone else to speak our mind. I've posted time and again, trying to stir up some interest in really doing something. Homemade apparatus to help, how to cut costs of solar generation stations, and so on. Either no one replies, or I'm told to buy a commercial unit. Don't you people get it? That was NOT THE POINT!!! The point was to get people together, to build something cheap that will... 1. Prove that it works IN A WAY THAT PEOPLE CAN TANGIBLY SENSE, unlike a big distant spinning gizmo. 2. Save money for those who the left wants to tax out of existance (you may lower income taxes, but you'll raise something else to pay for all those minorities having kids) 3. Give people a sense of doing something. Jeez, that almost sounded (shudder) like what OBAMA stands for... Me??? Going along with part of his agenda? Think about it. Or, fellow vortexians, WITH EXCEPTION OF: R.C. Macaulay, Philip Winestone, and plenty of others who've said kind words to me and tried to do something...if your name isn't included, I apologize, I'm too angry to recall them all, but know that I have NOTHING AGAINST you. I'm glad you guys are here. I'm simply saying this to the /others/... ...Are you just here to bitch and moan, spout something that gives you a sense of accomplishment, feel good about being 'on the proper side' and so highminded, hope that an unproven scientific concept will save the day...and in short, do nothing to really HELP anyone except screwing around? I'm gonna build my windmills this summer. Maybe they'll work, maybe not. If nothing else,
RE: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Jed - You may not agree with him, but you cannot accuse him of hiding his agenda or views. Synchronicity in action: At the very moment I read those words of yours above I was listening to the recording of Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw discussing how nobody knows where he really is philosophically and to some extent politically. Actually I agree with you that indeed we do know what his views are: he's liberal. It's just that you and others here tend to like who that is, and I most likely don't. Example of not knowing for sure where he's coming from: fuzzy memory alert, details likely to be slightly off during the campaign, some handgun law somewhere was struck down in court, in DC I think, maybe it was in NY. BO was asked about it, and I said Ha - here we go... and listened to his response which was all about how people have a right to keep such firearms in their homes and have a right to armed self defense, and that the judge made a correct decision in the case, etc. I recall the reporter who asked the question sounding surprised and pitching a follow up to give him an opening to retrace a bit (as all good liberal media members should do if Their Man stumbles astray), but he just confirmed his opinion. I think I actually kind of enjoy the dizziness hit I felt that comes with that much cognitive dissonance, as long as I don't hurt myself hitting the floor. A spokesperson for the NRA couldn't have said it better than he did. This assumes (correctly) that the standard liberal take on firearms is to keep and expand stringent laws like the (DC? NY?) law, if firearms are even allowed to be to kept and borne at all. So what will he really *do* RE 2nd amendment issues? Your guess is as good as mine.
RE: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
actually told the American public we need to grow up! Talk about audacity! Telling a bunch of overgrown children to stop acting like spoiled ninnies . . . Jed, Talk is cheap. First point, I hope Obama DOES make things actually better for us. It's crazy to hope that he fails so badly that the U.S.A. is dragged down even further. IT DOES NOT MATTER what political party the person is of, if he or she can truly make things better, please, let it be so. But we will watch carefully to make sure it is truly so. Second point, just what in the hell have I, my wife, and likeminded and like-lifestyled people DONE to be so unAmerican, so ninny? You want me to rehash the laundry list of things we HAVE DONE to make a difference? You people really think people like me DON'T care about the planet? Why'd I go buy the Planet Earth box set then? (one made by BBC, which I highly recommend.) Or, let's turn this around another way: all you highminded far-leftists on Vortex... ...what have /YOU/ done to make a difference? --Kyle
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Kyle Mcallister wrote: Alright, two can play at this game. You fellas want to further pollute Vortex with this shit . . . Speaking for myself, my remarks on this subject are carefully considered, well researched and calm. I do not consider them shit. I say that you, Kyle Mcallister, are out line referring to them as such. You should apologize. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Rick Monteverde wrote: Synchronicity in action: At the very moment I read those words of yours above I was listening to the recording of Charlie Rose and Tom Brokaw discussing how nobody knows where he really is philosophically and to some extent politically. Obama resembles FDR in that he is personally enigmatic. He is a hard to know personally, and he has few friends. He is a tough Chicago politician. BUT his political philosophy is an open book! I know exactly what he thinks about dozens of different topics. I read his book and his web pages. (I do not agree with all of his policies, by any means.) Some commentators say that they were surprised at how conservative his speech sounded. Nothing in it surprised me. Furthermore, he sounds a lot like other black middle class Ivy League people in Atlanta and New York City. I suggest that Mr. Rose and Mr. Brokaw have not done their homework. They should have reviewed his book. It may also be that they are unfamiliar with middle-class black American culture, and they find it somehow mysterious, difficult to understand or disconcerting. I do not. One thing that some white commentators may not understand well is that the black experience gives people a different view of the proper exercise of Federal power, and the role of government. If the federal government had not put its foot down hard and sent troops into the South on numerous occasions, these people would still be slaves. Or they would still be going to wretched second class segregated schools, are not allowed to eat in restaurants. Not a day goes by when they forget that -- and neither do I. One of the people invited to the inauguration is an 84-year-old World War II vet. He remembers seeing on his grandfather's back the scars inflicted on him when he was a slave. This is not some distant memory of a forgotten age. - Jed
RE: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
Rick Monteverde wrote: Regarding guns: A spokesperson for the NRA couldn't have said it better than he did. This assumes (correctly) that the standard liberal take on firearms is to keep and expand stringent laws like the (DC? NY?) law, if firearms are even allowed to be to kept and borne at all. His views on this are in his book. Not surprising at all. He thinks people should be allowed to have guns but there has to be a way to keep Uzi's out of the hands of teenaged thugs. It's called pragmatism. Most people in the black community are strongly opposed to crime, because they are disproportionately the victims of crime. If this is a surprise, you are unfamiliar with black culture, as I said. Also, by the way, most middle-class black people I know despise rap music culture and materialism roughly as much as I despise KKK-style white culture, for similar reasons. Atlanta suburbs are filled with conservative, middle class, highly grounded, hard working black people. There is one major difference between them and their white neighbors: 94% of them vote Democratic normally, and 98% voted for Obama. I expect most of the despise Limbaugh as much as I do. If he had any black listeners, he just lost them. He should have thought twice about writing off 15% of the US population. So what will he really *do* RE 2nd amendment issues? Your guess is as good as mine. My guess is better than yours, apparently. Of course, Obama may change his mind if he finds that his policy does not work. Unlike other politicians, he does that whenever necessary. As I said, that's pragmatism, and I favor it. - Jed
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
HI Kyle, ... I'm gonna build my windmills this summer. Maybe they'll work, maybe not. If nothing else, I tried. Given all I've sacrificed in making my 'carbon footprint' smaller, it's more than I can say for the likes of YOU. Let the finger point at whoever you are, you know who you are. MENE, MENE, TEKEL, UPHARSIN. --The Mysterious Stranger. Every now and then one simply needs to have a good rant! I'll be cheering for you all the way. Regards Steven Vincent Johnson www.OrionWorks.com www.zazzle.com/orionworks
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
--- Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kyle Mcallister wrote: Alright, two can play at this game. You fellas want to further pollute Vortex with this shit . . . Speaking for myself, my remarks on this subject are carefully considered, well researched and calm. I do not consider them shit. I say that you, Kyle Mcallister, are out line referring to them as such. You should apologize. First of all, I didn't really direct anything against any one person. I was going more for the 'sawed off shotgun' effect. Mafioso It's not personal, it's business. /Mafioso Second of all, you don't realize how corrosive some of the things your side say really are. You say them politely, I say them rather crudely. Quibbling over the windowshades clashing with the vinyl siding is ridiculous when the whole house is burning down. Put another way: you can say something terribly offensive to many, just as completely out of touch with reality, and make it look beautiful and heartwarming with the right application of words. Your side has mastered this, as the Russian Revolution attitude around me seems to demonstrate, at least here. My comments are probably equally offensive to many. The difference is, I don't try to hide the fact with pleasing words. If I say a few swear words along the way, well, that's what us little-guy working-class need-to-do-right white man/need-to-get-ahead-,man red men do. And yet, the silence is deafening. Again I say, to all you bleeding hearts and high minded liberals: What have /YOU/ done? The moving hand writes, and having writ, moves on... --Me, Myself, and Eye.
Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails
haha...If you are just talking about income level, them stick to low, middle, high *income* distinctions, rather than that sanctimonious neo-Marxist term working-class. Harry - Original Message - From: Kyle Mcallister kyle_mcallis...@yahoo.com Date: Thursday, January 22, 2009 8:17 pm Subject: Re: [Vo]:OT: Limbaugh: I hope [BO] fails --- Jed Rothwell jedrothw...@gmail.com wrote: Kyle Mcallister wrote: Alright, two can play at this game. You fellas want to further pollute Vortex with this shit . . . Speaking for myself, my remarks on this subject are carefully considered, well researched and calm. I do not consider them shit. I say that you, Kyle Mcallister, are out line referring to them as such. You should apologize. First of all, I didn't really direct anything against any one person. I was going more for the 'sawed off shotgun' effect. Mafioso It's not personal, it's business. /Mafioso Second of all, you don't realize how corrosive some of the things your side say really are. You say them politely, I say them rather crudely. Quibbling over the windowshades clashing with the vinyl siding is ridiculous when the whole house is burning down. Put another way: you can say something terribly offensive to many, just as completely out of touch with reality, and make it look beautiful and heartwarming with the right application of words. Your side has mastered this, as the Russian Revolution attitude around me seems to demonstrate, at least here. My comments are probably equally offensive to many. The difference is, I don't try to hide the fact with pleasing words. If I say a few swear words along the way, well, that's what us little-guy working-class need-to-do-right white man/need-to-get-ahead-,man red men do. And yet, the silence is deafening. Again I say, to all you bleeding hearts and high minded liberals: What have /YOU/ done? The moving hand writes, and having writ, moves on... --Me, Myself, and Eye.
