OT: Al Franken

Yes, I do. I've only had grits as a breakfast dish with a big pat of butter. What are fried grits like? Is that the same as "mush"?

...Jim Thompson

enough

UNTRUE

The term 'liberal' generally seems to imply an open attitude towards progressive social programs, such as Lyndon Johnson's "Great Society" legislation. Conservative, on the other hand, seems to imply a more fiscally conservative attitude, which is usually associated with basing actions on established economic principles. So, I'll agree with you. Under the Clinton years, these terms were upended. The Clintons were generally quite a bit more concered with economics than with progressive social policy, whereas the Bush administration has shown itself to be dogmatic in the extreme, giving tax cuts during wartime. This was unprecedented, and almost universally condemned by economists. So, with regards to the term 'conservative', I'd place the Clinton administration in the role of more conservative.

However, I'd also place it in the role of more liberal, in the sense that its policies, while economically viable and based on sound economic theory, were not geared towards demolishing social programs for the benefit of the top 5%. Thus, I'd say that the prior administration was both more conservative AND more liberal than the current administration.

The terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' derive from the sides of the aisle one sits on. Consequently, its by definition a 'political' definition, since republicans sit on the right side, and democrats sit on the left side, as seen from the back. Again, I'll agree with you, in this time of utter and complete war between parties, which party elected a representative is far more important than what they actually believe. Sadly... perhaps if this wasn't true, some of the recent insanity, such as the invasion of Iraq, could have been prevented. However, if a President is willing to lie to Congress, its difficult for them to make objective assessments; consequently, its possible that even with a more bipartisan congress, we would have been dragged into this quagmire.

With good reason. If Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh started making those claims, they would be completely discredited. As it stands, they are simply comedians. In that role, they work well. Its similar to the Andrew Dice Clay phenomena, or the "Shock Jock" phenomena, where they say totally outrageous, unsubstantiated things to get a laugh. Listening to Rush Limbaugh after the Clark testimony was actually quite entertaining, what with the misstatements of fact, outright obvious lies, and devious attempts to paint the mostly right wing media who were reporting on these allegations as having 'left wing liberal bias'. Like the Wall Street Journal is a left wing liberal rag... However, I guess it depends on where you are standing. To Rush, the left is anybody left of the American Spectator...

This is simply wrong. Read the section above, where I compare the liberal and conservative natures of the Clinton and Bush administrations. You seem to be somewhat confused about what the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal' mean.

Again, you don't really know what the term 'liberal' means. Perhaps you should consult some basic texts on political theory before pretending to understand these terms?

Ah, you are a 'thinking man'. I like that. Far better to try and figure things out for yourself than to echo the corrupt thinking of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter (or Franken, for that matter.) These folks are, after all, commedians. They aren't asking to be taken seriously. They are entertainers. You, on the other hand, are asking to be taken seriously.

Daschle, Kerry and Kennedy are well respected members of the Senate. What is your specific criticism of them, other than the fact that they were elected as Democrat? You seem to imply that they are 'wierdos' that are unstable and lack integrity. You provide absolutely no evidence of this. I guess we simply have to trust you.

An excellent point from a 'radical centrist'. You seem to have difficulty disguising your loathing for these people. Why not try looking at the issues objectively, rather than simply attempting to rationalize your point of view by calling it 'centrist'?

By the way, which criteria have they invented for judging integrity? Perhaps you are referring to the issue of "Not Lying to Congress about issues that will cost blood and money?". That one seems to be coming up alot lately.

A good example of the 'history-spin' would be

Apparently, you didn't really understand what he was getting at. Thats the problem I see with Kerry, he is too smart for the average person to understand. This is in contrast to Bush, who seems to be understandable by any smart 6th grader. Also, if you don't really get what he is saying, the banner behind him is always pretty clear.

Actually, I don't think I'm smart enough to be president, so I really want the president to be much smarter than I am, more able to undersand complex issues in this age of terrorism. I'd also like a president who doesn't LIE TO CONGRESS ABOUT ISSUES OF BLOOD AND MONEY. I think that, based on these two criteria, I'll be voting against Bush.

You are assuming facts not in evidence. Also, your prose style lacks grace.

The GOPer usually gets attacked by behavior

You mean like LYING TO CONGRESS AND STARTING A WAR? Was that one of the issues the Dems invented? You don't actually list any issues, you just keep saying that there are issues. Perhaps _you_ have issues with them?

Again, this is a lie. You either made this up, or have been listening to somebody like Rush Limbaugh. Did I mention that Rush Limbaugh is a COMEDIAN? You probably shouldn't be taking what he says seriously...

When the attack is fully staged and

on

Again, you apparently haven't been paying attention. This is simply wrong. Its clear that Clinton had 'other problems', in the form of a concerted attempt by his political rivals to impeach him. However, they knew the danger, and were paying attention. They simply didn't have the political clout to take out the taliban, which they WANTED to do, according to Richard Clark. You are misinformed, and slant everything to your own personal political agenda. You sound like you get your news from Rush Limbaugh. You do know that he is a comedian, don't you?

Also,

This is a damned lie. Nobody impeded Bush, rumors to that effect were all discredited by later statements by Bush's staffers. Where do you get your news? (sigh...)

However, nobody blamed the recession on Bush. Everbody knew that the bubble had burst, and that there was going to be a downturn. The real question is what they did about it. Using their dogmatic approach, income tax cuts, did nothing to help (nobody really expected them to help.) 9/11 clearly didn't help, but another tax cut during wartime clearly didn't help. The fact that we are now recovering, slowly, after 3 (or 4) years is more a statement about the resiliency of the american economy despite bad fiscal management than anything else.

the

Ah, another 'radical centrist' statement. I hope you are really in the center. If you are, that means that there are only a few actual right wingers out there, and that the November election will be a breeze for the Democrats.

I find it difficult to trust your ability to judge integrity in others.

My advice to you is go write some more wonderful BSD code. Thats appears to be a much more productive use of your time.

Regards, Bob Monsen

X-No-Archive: yes "John Larkin" wrote

: > They didn't like : >"Loyalists" or "Tories". The other side (Liberal) here would be the : >"Grits", which is unrelated to US (hominy) grits, AFAIK. : : Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and around : here, occasionally, dinner) food. : Anybody body my recipe for fried grits?

Now THAT is a threat to destroy your diet! RUN while you still can!

When we are reduced to grits and greens we do have a depression!

X-No-Archive: yes "John Larkin" wrote : Fred Bloggs wrote : >Jim Thompson wrote: : >>

: >> Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like TORY. : >>

: >> However, as I've recently been found out, I'm more Libertarian than : >> Republican, though I do have an intense aversion to cowards ;-) : >> ...Jim Thompson : >

: >Natural selection favors cowardice- the brave are killed off in wars. : : So why isn't humanity 100% cowards by now?

Because it isn't true

Funny! But grits isn't like that. Trust me.

Grits is just a down-home, slightly granier, white version of polenta: bleached corn meal. Cooked right, it has a slightly wheaty, faintly bitter flavor and a soft but still granular, not gummy, texture. It's wonderful with lots of butter, salt, and black pepper, with a couple of runny fried eggs on the side.

If you cook a *lot*, you might have some leftovers: refrigerate overnight, slice into thin slabs, and pan-fry in butter the next day; serve with syrup like pancakes. Yum.

"Grits" is always singular.

Send me your address and I'll ship you a box.

John

Maybe it is. You'd have to ask "compared to what". By insect standards, we're probably very cowardly. By dog standards, less so.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

I had it in my Nvy days with boiled okra and chicken-fried rabbit. they didn't help the grits.

So my "mush" recollection was correct?

...Jim Thompson

Okra is like asparagus held together with Elmer's Glue, and my experience with wild-shot chicken-fried rabbit is that it tastes like a ditch-diggers glove. Terrible things to do to perfectly good grits.

Navy grits was probably over-cooked; that makes it gummy and gross, sort of like oatmeal.

John

The important difference is that bugs and dogs don't shake peoples' hands and make commitments. Well, some dogs do.

John

Employees, even if you feed them for years, won't attack and bite threatening people several times their own size. Well, some will.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Ever had two female employees get into a fight? I have. I'd rather try to separate two mad dogs ;-)

...Jim Thompson

The only really serious (and I mean work-stalking, home-stalking, love-letters-and-death-threats-sending) sexual harassment thing we've ever had was between two women. The victim was twice the age of the pursuer. Kinda, umm, different. Worked it out, though.

John

No, not a physical fight, just the relentless cruel calculated sniping that females are socialized to do so well. I'm not sure which would be worse.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

I've had that sort of thing as well, but a male and a female, arguing over *religion*. Needless to say I just asserted that one more mention of religion was grounds for firing ;-)

...Jim Thompson

Don't jump to conclusions. The dirty old men who gathered to create "Liberal Talk Radio" were under the wildly false impressions that "Conservative Talk Radio" had been created under the same circumstances.

It wasn't.

It was created over a period of years by trial and error. That is: Try a format and a content and see if anyone listens. Maybe nobody but me remembers the "errors" from 1986-1996: Jim Hightower, Tom Leykis (pre-sleaze political phase), and many, many, many more at the local level.

All the present set of personalities and formats on the air (except for "Liberal Talk Radio") got there by having large, spendthrift audiences. The "errors" demonstrated loud, nasty, cheap, etc., audiences in small numbers over long time periods. Fact.

IAW: If Ho Chi Min's funding came from TV ad sales in Hanoi, he'd have happily run John Wayne movies 24/7. Same with all the current media moguls. Except for the dirty old men who founded "Liberal Talk Radio." Until they run out of their own money (or get it funded via PBS)....or the listening audience changes its preferences.

We'll see. webpa

I remember Leykis, he did a tour here in Phoenix at KFYI. Sometimes funny, but mostly a trash mouth. Last contact I had with him was while surfing radio stations while driving thru L.A. on my way to the Bakersfield Business Conference a few years ago.

...Jim Thompson