From: Bill Graham on

"Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> news:2010041111083079149-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-04-11 10:36:04 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> said:
>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>> news:2010041109270377633-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>> On 2010-04-11 02:02:28 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> said:
>>>>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
>>>>> news:2010041018473517709-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>>>>> On 2010-04-10 18:06:15 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)>
>>>>>> said:
>>>>>> < Le Snip>
> [ . . . ]
>>>>> And the BIG plus for Bush, that makes up for most if not all of his
>>>>> minuses,
>>>>> is his two Supreme Court nominations. This gives us four justices who
>>>>> can
>>>>> be
>>>>> relied on to rule according to the Constitution as it is written, not
>>>>> as
>>>>> they'd prefer it was written. I shudder to think of what Gore or Kerry
>>>>> would
>>>>> have given us in SCOTUS.
>>>> That is just another "what if" fueled by FUD. There is no reason to
>>>> believe Gore or Kerry would have been able to seat some, hanging off
>>>> the
>>>> left edge of the bench type.
>>>> Personally I can think of none worse than Thomas.
>>> Why, what's wrong with Thomas? There are five on the Court right now
>>> that I
>>> think are "worse than Thomas." I like Thomas.
>> He is one of those, in my opinion, who should not have been nominated,
>> let alone confirmed. I have yet to read any meaningful opinions from him.
>> He is no Marshall,
> I'm mighty glad of that!
>> and he is certainly not on an equal footing with Scalia, Aliotto, or
>> Roberts, in terms of independant conservative judicial thinking.
>> Just a long term bench warmer.
>> Hey! That is my opinion, just as you liking him is yours.
> Well, you obviously have no respect for him, but while on the Court he has
> written a large number of opinions, concurrences and dissents. I wouldn't
> call any Supreme Court justice "just a long term bench warmer"; that seems
> pretty silly to me.
> I was given a book on Thomas at Christmas, but unfortunately haven't
> gotten to it yet. So many books, so little time, it seems. Of course if I
> spent less time on the NGs I'd have more time for books.
>>>>>> I also sincerely believe the Republican party today, is not the party
>>>>>> of
>>>>>> Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower, Goldwater, or even Nixon.
>>>>> But surely you don't think the Democratic party today is the party of
>>>>> Scoop
>>>>> Jackson, Harry S Truman or JFK?
>>>> Agreed.
>>>>>> With the Republican right bias towards corporate interests, it never
>>>>>> fails
>>>>>> to amaze me that working, or even unemployed stiffs continue to vote
>>>>>> against their own best interests.
>>>>> Now you disappoint me.
>>>> Well I can't give you everything.
>>> No, but at least we are discussing it civilly, which is a large
>>> improvement
>>> on many of the analogous exchanges here. :-)
>> I know. If we aren't careful we will be accused of being totally OT, and
>> be kill filed by the others expecting more venom.
> Heh.
>>>>> That old "corporate interests" canard is as phony as
>>>>> the day is long. Corporations have poured far more money into
>>>>> Democratic
>>>>> coffers than Republican, and so has Wall Street. And yes, they know
>>>>> what
>>>>> they're buying and they can count on getting it. This is just as true
>>>>> with
>>>>> the Obama administration as it ever was. Obama in PUBLIC harshly
>>>>> criticizes
>>>>> the big greedy insurance companies, while behind closed doors he's
>>>>> making
>>>>> deals with them enabling them to make more money than they ever did.
>>>>> Other
>>>>> examples of the same sort of public condemnation of corporations while
>>>>> wheeling and dealing with them abound.
>>>> I didn't say the Dems were any better. In some cases they are worse, in
>>>> others they are part of the same bunch, tag teaming the blind public.
>>>> The issue is the Dems camoflage many of their moves, and there is
>>>> always
>>>> the hope the working stiff wouldn't get screwed this time. Whereas with
>>>> the Republicans there is no doubt, they get screwed and get kicked out
>>>> of
>>>> bed when it is done.
>>>>>> In that respect I might consider my self opposed to the current
>>>>>> Republican
>>>>>> Party and this silly "Tea Party" fringe, who seem to interpret
>>>>>> history
>>>>>> very loosely.
>>>>> How so? The Tea Party movement now has quite a following, and they are
>>>>> making a lot of politicians nervous, including some soft Republicans.
>>>>> I
>>>>> think that is to the good. Whether you agree with their ideas or not,
>>>>> they
>>>>> are sincere, and more devoted to their country than to their own
>>>>> interests,
>>>>> which is more than you can say for the average congresscritter.
>>>> Just as any mob makes politicians nervous.
>>> Oh, come on, they're not a "mob."
>> Of course they are a mob. Their roots lie in that quintessential mob back
>> in Boston.
> This Tea Party is only named symbolically -- they haven't thrown anybody's
> property in the harbor or done anything else remotely equivalent to that,
> or injured anyone. They are not a mob. They "peaceably assemble," in
> perfect accordance with the Constitution. I should think that as a former
> police officer you'd have a clearer idea of what a real mob is.
As a former police officer, his vision is clouded by blind allegiance to the
state and its laws. Otherwise, how could he have spent his life chasing down
and arresting hookers and pot smokers, just because they exist, and not
because they hurt anyone else? His very existence is the antithesis of
libertarian. His basic philosophy is, "If it is a law, then it must be good,
and we should enforce it." The very idea that there are some laws that are
better than others, and some that are very bad laws, is inconceivable to
him. "The state, and its assembly, can do no wrong" is his mantra. There was
a guy like him (many actually) back in Germany in the thirties, He herded
his good friend and neighbor, Mrs. Nussbaum, into a railway car one night,
and watched her hauled off to the concentration camp, because it was, "The

From: Savageduck on
On 2010-04-13 14:48:32 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:

> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> news:2010041212104835001-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> I did view a little more of Fox News back then than I do now. That was
>> when their bias became only too obvious.
> All the news services are biased.....
> The only way to be well informed is to watch a sampling of them all. I
> even go so far as to listen to the BBC on short wave (and PBS) whenever
> I can find the time. By cutting out FOX news you are putting a hole in
> your knowledge, and giving the Obama administration a pass on lots of
> their questionable policies.

You are consistently wrong regarding my sources of information, and the
total level of my knowledge on domestic and global issues.



From: Savageduck on
On 2010-04-13 15:33:50 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)> said:

> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}> wrote in message
> news:2010041220465454666-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-04-12 20:31:08 -0700, tony cooper <tony_cooper213(a)> said:
>>> On 13 Apr 2010 02:52:40 GMT, Chris Malcolm <cam(a)>
>>> wrote:
>>>> In Bill Graham <weg9(a)> wrote:
>>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)> wrote in message
>>>>> news:UdydnardqMi3DVzWnZ2dnUVZ_j-dnZ2d(a)
>>>>>> Forget Beck, Hannity and O'Reilly and watch daytime Fox News, which really
>>>>>> is much more news than commentary -- and what commentary there is is much
>>>>>> better.
>>>>> It is, by far, the most watched news on the planet. And for a good reason.
>>>>> It is the most logical, and the least biased.
>>>> The most popular news source is the most logical and the least biased?
>>>> Because most people there are well above average in intelligence,
>>>> education, and political maturity? I've heard of that extraordinary
>>>> planet, but I've forgotten its name.
>>> In one of the groups there was a link to an article in "The Onion". A
>>> statement that Fox is the most logical and the least biased news
>>> source is something that "The Onion" would offer as satire...sardonic
>>> satire.
>> The Onion has targeted Fox & Fox News quite a few times, here is a sample;

> me.....I clicked on those links expecting to get some real example of
> FOX news bias, so I could (hopefully) refute it.....All I got was a
> augh. - Which I appreciate, by the way, but no meat........

A laugh is what the Onion is for. So I am glad it worked.



From: tony cooper on
On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:06:19 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)>

>But a pickle does have the constitutional right to be a peach, and a tomato
>does have the constitutional right to be a vegetable. So, by your own
>analogy, I am right.

Our Latin term of the day is "Non compos mentis". Not of sound mind.

Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
From: Bruce on
On Wed, 14 Apr 2010 01:12:37 -0400, "stephe_k(a)"
<stephe_k(a)> wrote:
>I have zero interest in owning a hand gun, personally I don't like them
>but at the same time I think you have every right to own one if YOU
>want. What you don't seem to grasp is you feel it's OK to limit the
>freedoms of other people if you don't feel the same way they do but at
>the same time don't want anyone telling you what you can and can't do.

Doesn't that define Republicanism?

First  |  Prev  |  Next  |  Last
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21
Prev: a portrait - Ellen DeGeneres
Next: iPad practical jokes