Discussion:
OT: Bushie--Don't it make you proud?
(too old to reply)
OrangeSFO
2003-08-27 23:48:52 UTC
Permalink
November '04 is coming...

(from The Nation) "When the World Trade Center towers collapsed, the
air was filled with particulate matter -- including asbestos, lead,
glass fibers and concrete dust -- and gases from jet fuel-fed fires,
including PCBs, dioxin and various evaporated metals.

At the time, the Environmental Protection Agency insisted the air was
still safe. Now it turns out EPA had no basis for saying that, and
what's more, wanted to warn New Yorkers about things to do to keep
themselves safe. But the EPA allowed itself to be meekly overruled by
the White House. That's according to the EPA's own Inspector General's
office, which issued a report last Friday criticizing EPA's work. The
White House, the report says, "convinced EPA to add reassuring
statements and delete cautionary ones," and insisted on having
Condoleeza Rice's National Security Council vet all EPA announcements
on the matter.

"When EPA made a Sept. 18 announcement that the air was 'safe' to
breathe, the agency did not have sufficient data and analyses to make
the statement," the report says. In other words, it lied. And because
of that, many people got sick. New Yorkers are enraged, and rightly
so, and calling for a Congressional investigation.

So we have a White House conspiracy to cover up a clear health threat
and let the American people get sick (with Condoleeza Rice "massaging"
the intelligence). It's the sort of thing people should go to jail
over. Adding insult to injury, American taxpayers will no doubt soon
be shouldering the costs of enormous court-ordered punitive damages
against the Bush Administration. Think of it as yet another of those
hidden Bush tax hikes.

* * *

Newsday columnist Jimmy Breslin is one of those who got sick after
9/11 from breathing all that foul air.

"I did not feel well for two months," Breslin writes. "I never said
anything because I was too embarrassed. A couple of thousand had died.
So many others were scorched and broken and maimed. I had no right to
open my mouth, I thought. Besides, from the first day, the
government's Environmental Protection Agency had announced that air
was remarkably clean. Work on. Breathe on. You're fine. ...

"This lying with the lives of the people of the nation is not solely
the habit of Bush and his crew, although it is more widespread and
being done in so many cases by so many of their people that it looks
like a generation of liars.

"This war with Iraq started with the full government standing right up
and looking you in the eye and openly lying about why we had to invade
Iraq immediately. Bush said the Iraqis had weapons of mass
destruction. Why, they were starting to make nuclear bombs. He had a
statement about this in his State of the Union speech. When it was
shown to be a lie, Bush had people like Condoleezza Rice say, Why are
you so worried about 26 words in a speech? That the 26 words were
about nuclear weapons seemed beyond her. Out in the streets, you can
scare people with only three words: 'Stick 'em up.'

"I sit here in New York and I don't believe one single solitary word
of what the government says. Can you believe anything Bush says? Only
if you're a rank sucker."
Harry Clyde
2003-08-28 07:16:04 UTC
Permalink
Right O, SFO- here's exactly how it happened:


George: Hey Dick, how are we going to punish New York for voting for
Hillary?

Dick: I know, we'll tell them the air is just fine to breathe so they won't
spend the next six months in the Hamptons. Then, after breathing all that
crap, they'll just die. That'll teach 'em

Christie: But sir, we have a duty to protect ALL the citizens. We
should....

George: Shut the fuck up bitch. You're here only because I need a token
twat with an actual environmental policy background.


Yep, that's the way it was. Republicans just want everyone to choke to
death on noxious fumes.

Well, now that you've had your enjoyable little dream OrangeSFO- WAKE THE
FUCK UP! November 4 is coming and you're not gonna be happy. There'll be
tears, there'll be crying.
OrangeSFO
2003-08-29 00:18:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Clyde
George: Hey Dick, how are we going to punish New York for voting for
Hillary?
Dick: I know, we'll tell them the air is just fine to breathe so they won't
spend the next six months in the Hamptons. Then, after breathing all that
crap, they'll just die. That'll teach 'em
Christie: But sir, we have a duty to protect ALL the citizens. We
should....
George: Shut the fuck up bitch. You're here only because I need a token
twat with an actual environmental policy background.
Yep, that's the way it was. Republicans just want everyone to choke to
death on noxious fumes.
Well, now that you've had your enjoyable little dream OrangeSFO- WAKE THE
FUCK UP! November 4 is coming and you're not gonna be happy. There'll be
tears, there'll be crying.
So...just to make sure I have this straight: You're disputing the
report of the Inspector General of the EPA; the report which says:

"...the White House convinced EPA to add reassuring
statements and delete cautionary ones, and insisted on having
Condoleeza Rice's National Security Council vet all EPA announcements
on the matter."

You do understand this is the report of the EPA, dont' you?...GEORGE
W. BUSH'S EPA?? You understand that Bush has been "President" for
nearly 3 years now, right? This isn't a DNC report, or a Hillary
Clinton stinkbomb. Please tell me you didn't just skip the
inconvenient details and proceed straight to your half-witted reply.

If you want to debate, come with some ammo. Otherwise I will assume
you're just another tragically credulous dupe of BushCo.
Harry Clyde
2003-08-29 04:09:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrangeSFO
So...just to make sure I have this straight: You're disputing the
"...the White House convinced EPA to add reassuring
statements and delete cautionary ones, and insisted on having
Condoleeza Rice's National Security Council vet all EPA announcements
on the matter."
You do understand this is the report of the EPA, dont' you?...GEORGE
W. BUSH'S EPA?? You understand that Bush has been "President" for
nearly 3 years now, right? This isn't a DNC report, or a Hillary
Clinton stinkbomb. Please tell me you didn't just skip the
inconvenient details and proceed straight to your half-witted reply.
If you want to debate, come with some ammo. Otherwise I will assume
you're just another tragically credulous dupe of BushCo.
Ahem, do you know anything at all about government? The EPA, like every
other government bureaucracy is usually headed by political appointees, but
largely staffed by career-service employees. These employees self-select
into their positions. The EPA is FILLED with tree hugging liberals like
yourself. It is not BUSH's EPA.

This "report" came from a self-appointed watchdog group of the EPA. Armed
with inside information from co-conspirators, they weave a tale of lies to
support their cause. Liberals are in a panic, desperately trying to pile on
everything they can to bring down George Bush. This is one more nugget on
the shit pile.

In no way, shape, or form, does George Bush or ANY other Republican want
people to breathe dirty air. Repealing the heavy-handed, broad-brushed
regulations of Bill Clinton does not amount to turning Bush into the
deformed, evil polluters one finds on the cartoon propaganda of Captain
Planet. Nobody believes your bullshit anymore.
Gary Carson
2003-08-29 05:18:38 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:09:57 GMT, "Harry Clyde"
Post by Harry Clyde
Post by OrangeSFO
So...just to make sure I have this straight: You're disputing the
"...the White House convinced EPA to add reassuring
statements and delete cautionary ones, and insisted on having
Condoleeza Rice's National Security Council vet all EPA
announcements
Post by Harry Clyde
Post by OrangeSFO
on the matter."
You do understand this is the report of the EPA, dont'
you?...GEORGE
Post by Harry Clyde
Post by OrangeSFO
W. BUSH'S EPA??
Ahem, do you know anything at all about government? The EPA, like
every>other government bureaucracy is usually headed by political
appointees, but>largely staffed by career-service employees. These
employees self-select>into their positions. The EPA is FILLED with
tree hugging liberals like>yourself. It is not BUSH's EPA.
Post by Harry Clyde
This "report" came from a self-appointed watchdog group of the EPA.
No, the report came from the EPA. From the Office of Inspector
General of the EPA to be exact.

http://www.epa.gov/oigearth/
Post by Harry Clyde
In no way, shape, or form, does George Bush or ANY other Republican
want>people to breathe dirty air.

They didn't want people to know they were breathing dirty air.
OrangeSFO
2003-08-29 17:35:10 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Clyde
The EPA is FILLED with
tree hugging liberals like yourself.
How bout bringing it down a notch? Does it occur to you that when you
use comically ridiculous phrases like "tree hugging liberal" then I
should have every reason to assume that you favor "cutting down every
tree in sight"?

But I don't. So why all the cliches straight from the Rush playbook?
Just cool off and try to express a few thoughts that you come up with
on your own. I'm willing to listen.

I'm not sure trees were the subject in the first place.
OrangeSFO
2003-08-30 02:42:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Clyde
The EPA is FILLED with
tree hugging liberals like yourself.
And I see I accidentally attributed that to Gary Carson. Sorry.
Harry Clyde
2003-08-30 03:14:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by Harry Clyde
The EPA is FILLED with
tree hugging liberals like yourself.
How bout bringing it down a notch?
WE should bring it down a notch? You start a post referring to "Bushies",
supported by Augie who calls our president "Shrub" and insults people who
believe in God as believing in "fairy tales" and "invisible people". You
use the words "war crimes", "heinous", "criminal" about our president
without solid evidence. You post your worthless garbage on a poker site
because it's free to do so, spreading your propaganda. And WE should tone
it down. HAH.
Post by OrangeSFO
Does it occur to you that when you
use comically ridiculous phrases like "tree hugging liberal" then I
should have every reason to assume that you favor "cutting down every
tree in sight"?
Wrong answer. First of all, "tree hugging liberal" is not at all comical,
ridiculous or facetious. I was in Muir Woods National Park last week (yes,
Republicans actually love the woods) and there were SEVERAL books, pins,
poserts, bumper stickers, etc. with the "Hug a Tree" idea on them.

As for your stupid assumption, just because TREE-HUGGERS like you impose
onerous restrictions on the use of natural resources DOES NOT imply that
opposing your far-left, corporate-hating means we want to strip the world
bare and pave it over. I LOVE being out in nature and so does EVERY
Republican I know. NO republican wants people to breathe dirty air, drink
dirty water, or tolerate reckless devastation of our environment. The
problem is that your FAR LEFT environmental extremism, linked with your
socialist economic views make anyone else look far right.
Post by OrangeSFO
But I don't. So why all the cliches straight from the Rush playbook?
Just cool off and try to express a few thoughts that you come up with
on your own. I'm willing to listen.
Every one of these thoughts are my own. The fact that I share beliefs with
anyone else doesn't make it a conspiracy. I would be content to say NOTHING
about my political beliefs on this site. I don't plaster my car with bumper
stickers. I don't hold protests, demonstrations, sit ins, marches, and
other forms of political temper tantrums when I don't get my way. I work
within the rules of our republic to change the situation. Liberals will do
anything, within or beyond those rules to get what they want.

And you don't listen. You don't debate. You just jibber.
Post by OrangeSFO
I'm not sure trees were the subject in the first place.
The subject was, STFU.
OrangeSFO
2003-08-29 17:29:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Clyde
It is not BUSH's EPA.
You're right. It's my EPA and yours. If Bush had his way there
wouldn't BE an EPA. (Or he'd get Adm. Poindexter to run it.
Harry Clyde
2003-08-30 03:16:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by Harry Clyde
It is not BUSH's EPA.
You're right. It's my EPA and yours. If Bush had his way there
wouldn't BE an EPA. (Or he'd get Adm. Poindexter to run it.
There you go again making BASELESS accusations. What the FUCK do you know
about what George Bush would do with the EPA if he had his way? NOTHING!

He appointed Christie Todd Whitman to run it. A fine choice!
FL Turbo
2003-08-30 14:31:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 03:16:26 GMT, "Harry Clyde"
Post by Harry Clyde
Post by OrangeSFO
Post by Harry Clyde
It is not BUSH's EPA.
You're right. It's my EPA and yours. If Bush had his way there
wouldn't BE an EPA. (Or he'd get Adm. Poindexter to run it.
There you go again making BASELESS accusations. What the FUCK do you know
about what George Bush would do with the EPA if he had his way? NOTHING!
He appointed Christie Todd Whitman to run it. A fine choice!
Aww, now don't be so hard on Orangie.
I like him.

He's a good, steady supplier of OT threads.
Hell, if it wasn't for OT threads, I wouldn't have anything to post at
all.

It's not as if reasoned arguments will convince the comitted
activists, but they can influence undecided people in the middle.

I think that "undecided" defines most people here.
They might read these threads, but would not even think of posting.
Maybe some closet conservatives would not like to express their views
for fear of getting into a fight with their liberal colleagues.
And ironically, they might find out that many assumed "liberals"
actually agreed with them.

Nope, better to post on a nice safe topic like playing A10o UTG.

I first heard that view posted on a gun control thread.
The guy was explaining why he was so patient with the anti-gun
zealots.
He said he wasn't trying to convince them, it was the people that had
not formed an opinion yet.

Something in my little brain went
"Ding - We have a clue"

Prolly no news to the professional Bush-bashers here:
most likely their strategery all along.

PS
Give 'em hell, Harry
OrangeSFO
2003-08-30 19:58:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Clyde
There you go again making BASELESS accusations. What the FUCK do you know
about what George Bush would do with the EPA if he had his way? NOTHING!
He appointed Christie Todd Whitman to run it. A fine choice!
Please tell me you read a newspaper from time to time...

Little news flash for you:

Christie Todd Whitman QUIT the EPA because she couldn't sleep at night
selling what little of her soul was left on behalf of the
"President's" policies.
Sam Croy
2003-08-28 12:01:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrangeSFO
November '04 is coming...
(from The Nation) "When the World Trade Center towers collapsed, the
air was filled with particulate matter -- including asbestos, lead,
glass fibers and concrete dust -- and gases from jet fuel-fed fires,
including PCBs, dioxin and various evaporated metals.
Yeah but at least when Connie Rice sucks Geo. Dubya's cock they have
enough decency to step into the cloak room first...



-- Sam Croy
O-PGManager
2003-08-28 14:44:24 UTC
Permalink
The man comes here with credible information from a credible source. The
GOP response:

-"It's a left wing fantasy." Umm, no, it's not. This is not some rumor
floating around on ultra-liberal websites, this is a confirmed fact.

-"I come here to read about Poker." Well then avoid the threads marked
OT-[politics]

-"Bush is going to get re-elected!" That may be true, but it doesn't mean
his administration isn't guilty of heinous actions against civilization.
Keep up that arrogance though, it really helped Sr. in 92.

Can one of you provide a real defense to Orange's post? Just concede,
Bush was wrong, that was indefensible. Most of us conceded that Clinton
was guilty of being a scumbag during the Lewinsky scandal, but you people
never seem to give a single inch even when confronted with
incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing.

_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
Harry Clyde
2003-08-29 04:13:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by O-PGManager
-"I come here to read about Poker." Well then avoid the threads marked
OT-[politics]
Right, just go away and be apathetic. No, I'd rather tell you to STFU.
Post by O-PGManager
-"Bush is going to get re-elected!" That may be true, but it doesn't mean
his administration isn't guilty of heinous actions against civilization.
Keep up that arrogance though, it really helped Sr. in 92.
Puleeeeeease. Heinous actions against civilization? Are you for fucking
real?
Post by O-PGManager
Can one of you provide a real defense to Orange's post? Just concede,
Bush was wrong, that was indefensible. Most of us conceded that Clinton
was guilty of being a scumbag during the Lewinsky scandal, but you people
never seem to give a single inch even when confronted with
incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing.
George Bush is a moral, honest, decent, and straightforward man. The
majority of the populace regard him as such. Your mudslinging is getting
nowhere.
Post by O-PGManager
_________________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com - http://www.recpoker.com
OrangeSFO
2003-08-30 02:55:17 UTC
Permalink
Post by Harry Clyde
George Bush is a moral, honest, decent, and straightforward man. The
majority of the populace regard him as such. Your mudslinging is getting
nowhere.
Well, then, you're beyond help. The next year promises to be a rude
awakening for you.
FL Turbo
2003-08-29 15:19:48 UTC
Permalink
On 28 Aug 2003 14:44:24 GMT, "O-PGManager"
Post by O-PGManager
The man comes here with credible information from a credible source. The
-"It's a left wing fantasy." Umm, no, it's not. This is not some rumor
floating around on ultra-liberal websites, this is a confirmed fact.
-"I come here to read about Poker." Well then avoid the threads marked
OT-[politics]
-"Bush is going to get re-elected!" That may be true, but it doesn't mean
his administration isn't guilty of heinous actions against civilization.
Keep up that arrogance though, it really helped Sr. in 92.
Hoo boy
"heinous actions against civilization"
A phrase right out of the Leftists Handbook of Rhetoric.

Weren't you just a little bit embarrassed to type that?

It sure blows your cover as an "impartial, concerned citizen" simply
out to present the facts.
Post by O-PGManager
Can one of you provide a real defense to Orange's post? Just concede,
Bush was wrong, that was indefensible. Most of us conceded that Clinton
was guilty of being a scumbag during the Lewinsky scandal, but you people
never seem to give a single inch even when confronted with
incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing.
Orangie's posts are regurgitations of the latest talking points from
Party Headquarters.

Don't ask me which party, though.
He won't say.
Maybe some coalition of left wing populists, but I don't know.

The theme, as you probably noticed, is always about the despicable
Bush and his administration.

Ironically, I can't recall any involving "heinous actions against
civilization"
You get a prize for that one.

It's never a good idea to give a Lefty an inch.
It means you let them frame the debate, and that puts you at an
immediate disadvantage.

Imagine a debate over "heinous actions, etc."
A right-wing redneck conservative silly enough to seriously debate
that one would win the debate, but all the casual reader would see is
a Heinous<-->Bush theme in all the statements, pro and con.

As "they" say;
A wise man never argues with a fool because a casual listener might
not be able to immediately tell the difference.

In this era of TV viewers with the attention span of a chimpanzee, it
makes a big difference.

Liberals have done a good job at making their ideas the conventional
wisdom of the day, simply by repetition.

The mindless attacks on Bush's credibility, intentions, intelligence,
morals, sobriety, etc deserve only the "Hey Look Over There" attack on
the Hill&Billy administration.

As in warfare, football, poker, and politics, a good offense is the
best defense.
Craig Permenter
2003-08-29 22:00:00 UTC
Permalink
I love RGP!

But seriously folks.

Don't you just see that ya'll are simply opposite sides of the same coin
that have been separated by the demagoguery of those who yearn for power.
Post by FL Turbo
On 28 Aug 2003 14:44:24 GMT, "O-PGManager"
Post by O-PGManager
The man comes here with credible information from a credible source. The
-"It's a left wing fantasy." Umm, no, it's not. This is not some rumor
floating around on ultra-liberal websites, this is a confirmed fact.
-"I come here to read about Poker." Well then avoid the threads marked
OT-[politics]
-"Bush is going to get re-elected!" That may be true, but it doesn't mean
his administration isn't guilty of heinous actions against civilization.
Keep up that arrogance though, it really helped Sr. in 92.
Hoo boy
"heinous actions against civilization"
A phrase right out of the Leftists Handbook of Rhetoric.
Weren't you just a little bit embarrassed to type that?
It sure blows your cover as an "impartial, concerned citizen" simply
out to present the facts.
Post by O-PGManager
Can one of you provide a real defense to Orange's post? Just concede,
Bush was wrong, that was indefensible. Most of us conceded that Clinton
was guilty of being a scumbag during the Lewinsky scandal, but you people
never seem to give a single inch even when confronted with
incontrovertible evidence of wrong doing.
Orangie's posts are regurgitations of the latest talking points from
Party Headquarters.
Don't ask me which party, though.
He won't say.
Maybe some coalition of left wing populists, but I don't know.
The theme, as you probably noticed, is always about the despicable
Bush and his administration.
Ironically, I can't recall any involving "heinous actions against
civilization"
You get a prize for that one.
It's never a good idea to give a Lefty an inch.
It means you let them frame the debate, and that puts you at an
immediate disadvantage.
Imagine a debate over "heinous actions, etc."
A right-wing redneck conservative silly enough to seriously debate
that one would win the debate, but all the casual reader would see is
a Heinous<-->Bush theme in all the statements, pro and con.
As "they" say;
A wise man never argues with a fool because a casual listener might
not be able to immediately tell the difference.
In this era of TV viewers with the attention span of a chimpanzee, it
makes a big difference.
Liberals have done a good job at making their ideas the conventional
wisdom of the day, simply by repetition.
The mindless attacks on Bush's credibility, intentions, intelligence,
morals, sobriety, etc deserve only the "Hey Look Over There" attack on
the Hill&Billy administration.
As in warfare, football, poker, and politics, a good offense is the
best defense.
Erik Iversen
2003-09-04 04:53:26 UTC
Permalink
Hitler accussed liberals as being socialists. You sound just like him.
They were socialists. You don't know German history, do you.
HAHA... That's pretty funny. The Nazi's were facist, not socialist, despite
what there name was. False advertising, eh?
FL Turbo
2003-09-05 00:32:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Iversen
Hitler accussed liberals as being socialists. You sound just like him.
They were socialists. You don't know German history, do you.
HAHA... That's pretty funny. The Nazi's were facist, not socialist, despite
what there name was. False advertising, eh?
Yep, the National Socialists in Germany got pretty good at false
advertising.

They weren't stupid.

They knew they needed to come up with a competing brand of socialism
to keep from getting swallowed up by Uncle Joe's brand of Soviet
socialism.

It's a delicious irony that gets the liberal/socialists in this
country hopping mad.

They've gotten so used to the commie label that it doesn't mean
anything any more.

Besides that, commies these days are rare, even more so than the
National Socialists were in post-war Germany.

Liberal/socialists in this country prefer "progressive"

What's the difference between a progressive and a socialist?
A socialist KNOWS when he's lying to you.
Augie Chiausa
2003-09-05 18:42:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
Post by Erik Iversen
Hitler accussed liberals as being socialists. You sound just like him.
They were socialists. You don't know German history, do you.
HAHA... That's pretty funny. The Nazi's were facist, not socialist, despite
what there name was. False advertising, eh?
Yep, the National Socialists in Germany got pretty good at false
advertising.
They weren't stupid.
They knew they needed to come up with a competing brand of socialism
to keep from getting swallowed up by Uncle Joe's brand of Soviet
socialism.
Their brand of socialism was to abolish labor unions, set up a military
industrial complex which made the multinational and German corporations
flush with cash, and violate the internationalist premise of socialism. The
Nazis were a right wing dictatorship.
Post by FL Turbo
It's a delicious irony that gets the liberal/socialists in this
country hopping mad.
??? Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union were dicatorships. They were never
anything approaching socialism. Nothing about socialism or stalinism or
fascism has me hopping mad, except that they are failed systems. I'm sure
they looked appealing to the folks in the '30s, who discovered the fallacy
of lassez faire, unregulated capitalism. The good news is liberalism
provided a balance to protect the lives and fortune of the people, by
providing social safety nets, opportunities for people to improve
themselves, and regulations to keep greed from destroying our nation.
Liberal democracies seem to be the only systems worth a damn. You probably
don't get it.
Post by FL Turbo
They've gotten so used to the commie label that it doesn't mean
anything any more.
Besides that, commies these days are rare, even more so than the
National Socialists were in post-war Germany.
Liberal/socialists in this country prefer "progressive"
You don't understand the differences between liberalism, socialism, and the
neoprogressives? Too bad. It makes you look ignorant.
Post by FL Turbo
What's the difference between a progressive and a socialist?
A socialist KNOWS when he's lying to you.
Did you get this from Rush?
Harry Clyde
2003-09-05 03:38:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Iversen
Hitler accussed liberals as being socialists. You sound just like him.
They were socialists. You don't know German history, do you.
HAHA... That's pretty funny. The Nazi's were facist, not socialist, despite
what there name was. False advertising, eh?
HAHA, I wasn't saying the Nazi's were socialists you dolt. Augie said that
the Nazi's accused liberals of being socialist, and since I accuse liberals
of being socialist, I must be a Nazi.

i.e. All cats have a tail. Rover has a tail. Therefore Rover is a cat.


I was saying, if you had read carefully, that the "liberals" to whom Augie
was referring were, in fact, socialists/communists. Post WWI Germany was
torn apart by two extremist factions: the Nazi's and the Communists. Both
groups were murderous thugs. Augie wants to think that I am a member of the
former. I assure him that I am not. I, on the other hand, am quite sure
that he is (or strongly sympathizes) with the latter.

Just a hunch.

BTW Augie, you didn't answer my question: how many bumper stickers do you
have on your car?
Augie Chiausa
2003-09-05 19:05:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Erik Iversen
Post by Erik Iversen
Hitler accussed liberals as being socialists. You sound just like
him.
Post by Erik Iversen
They were socialists. You don't know German history, do you.
HAHA... That's pretty funny. The Nazi's were facist, not socialist,
despite
Post by Erik Iversen
what there name was. False advertising, eh?
HAHA, I wasn't saying the Nazi's were socialists you dolt. Augie said that
the Nazi's accused liberals of being socialist, and since I accuse liberals
of being socialist, I must be a Nazi.
"The main plank in the Nationalist Socialist program is to abolish the
liberalistic concept of the individual and the Marxist concept of humanity
and to substitute for them the folk community, rooted in the soil and bound
together by the bond of its common blood." , - Hitler

That sounds like you trying to defend Smirk.

"The question of the movement's inner organization is one of expediency and
not of principle." - Hitler

This sounds like your propaganda and apologism regarding President Stupid.

"A people of scholars, if they are physically degenerate, weak-willed and
cowardly pacifists, will not storm the heavens, indeed, they will not be
able to safeguard their existence on this earth." Hitler

Sounds a lot like your anti-intellectualist arguments to defend the Chimp in
Chief.

"The greatness of every mighty organization embodying an idea in this world
lies in the religious fanaticism and intolerance with which, fanatically
convinced of its own right, it intolerantly imposes its will against all
others." - Hitler

I don't remember if you ever used the tems "Godless commies" to describe
liberals, but you probably believe it anyway.

"The severest obstacle to the present-day worker's approach to the national
community lies not in the defense of his class interests, but in his
international leadership and attitude which are hostile to the people and
the fatherland." - Hitler

You've called me Baghdad Augie because I think this war was a serious error
in judgement.

"The same boy who feels like throwing up when he hears the tirades of a
pacifist 'idealist' is ready to give up his life for the ideal of his
nationality." - Hitler

You sure you're not Hitler himself?

"In the economic sphere Communism is analogous to democracy in the political
sphere." - Hitler

Yep, this sure sounds like you.

(all above quotes are from: Alan Bullock, Hitler: A Study in Tyranny)
Post by Erik Iversen
i.e. All cats have a tail. Rover has a tail. Therefore Rover is a cat.
When you waddle like a duck, type like a duck, I figure it's time to cook
you, press you, and toss you on a rice pancake with some hoisin sauce.
Post by Erik Iversen
I was saying, if you had read carefully, that the "liberals" to whom Augie
was referring were, in fact, socialists/communists. Post WWI Germany was
torn apart by two extremist factions: the Nazi's and the Communists.
Both
Post by Erik Iversen
groups were murderous thugs. Augie wants to think that I am a member of the
former. I assure him that I am not. I, on the other hand, am quite sure
that he is (or strongly sympathizes) with the latter.
Just a hunch.
BTW Augie, you didn't answer my question: how many bumper stickers do you
have on your car?
Let's see, there's "Nuke the Whales", "Pave the Bay", and "Go Fuck
Yourself". That's three.
Augie Chiausa
2003-09-04 19:17:53 UTC
Permalink
Hitler accussed liberals as being socialists. You sound just like him.
They were socialists. You don't know German history, do you.
Where did you learn your history, an America First pamphlet? Are you
saying that the German workers owned the means of wealth production, or
don't you know what socialism is?
Bush lied to the American people, and to congress, in order to have a
preemptive war. Plain and simple. You seem to have started quite a few
ad-hominens rather than deal with that simple fact.
There is no fact here. You know NOTHING about what Bush knew. You have
no
Top Secret security clearance.
You know this for a fact? Sorry, but I'm not permitted to disclose my
level.
You don't get CIA briefings.
Bush did. He received the NIE for Iraq, which has been largely
declassified, and indicates that many of President Stupid's contentions were
wrong. Bush claimed he didn't read it.
You can't read
minds.
And Smirky the Chimp can't read the most comprehensive intellegence document
given to him, before starting a preemtive war and military occupation.
You're an ignorant, frothing at the mouth socialist.
I confess. I did once work for an employee owned company. That's about as
close to being a socialist as I ever was.
Liberals use this forum to spread their propaganda because it DOESN'T
COST
THEM ANYTHING,
I paid for my PC. I pay a monthly fee for an ISP. I paid quite a bit
in
taxes to get the net going. Stop your lying.
Marginal cost of posting- close to zero.
And who do you think is paying for the internet infrastructure if not
subscribers and tax payers? Are you really this stupid?
It costs even less when you find some left-wing site and then cut/paste
the
link, doesn't it Baghdad Augie.
It costs the same, doesn't it Gobbels Harry.
and because there is nothing a liberal loves more than the
sound of his own voice. Next time you see one of them Volvos, VW's or
Subarus with ten bumper stickers plastered on the back, you'll
understand
what I mean.
As opposed to your SUV with a confederate flag on your back window?
LOL, I must have hit the mark pretty closely.
Hardly. I drive an Acura now. When my kids were younger I had a Grand
Marquis. You're actually pretty far off the mark.
I drive a Nissan sentra. I have never owned a confederate flag. I have
never had a bumper sticker. Last year put my very first knick-knack on my
car- my university's basketball team logo.
"Just because you have a voice, doesn't mean people owe you their
ears." -
Me
If you weren't stupid enough to jump into this fray, you wouldn't have
to
hear a thing. What a maroon.
I have a PhD in Economics Augie. I am a professor at one of the best
colleges in the country. What school did you drop out of? What did you
study- theater, art, social work, education?
Lesbian studies.
suedeguy
2003-08-28 13:47:04 UTC
Permalink
Orange, I think you are going to have a nervous breakdown next
November if Bush retains the Whitehouse. Every post is Bushie this and
Bushie that. For better or worse, the reality is that Bush will most
likely be re-elected. Will the new posts say "wait till November '08"?

Most people come to this forum to learn poker strategy, talk about the
poker community, and rip on Russ. I'm not saying you don't have the
right to post off-topic material. I just wish we could leave politics
out of poker. Poker is where I go to relax. It's fun for me....fun for
many. Its the last place I want to talk politics, religion, social
issues. If I'm golfing, fishing, or holding a nut hand, I don't want
to talk about budget deficits, court nominations, or foreign policy.
Enjoy the game man and let some that anger go.

Just my thoughts.
bump
2003-08-28 20:55:03 UTC
Permalink
I have ZERO concern for what anyone thinks is legitimate or
illegitimate subject matter for this forum.
Spoken like a true left-winger.
Augie Chiausa
2003-08-28 21:11:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by bump
I have ZERO concern for what anyone thinks is legitimate or
illegitimate subject matter for this forum.
Spoken like a true left-winger.
Why is it that the wingnuts jump on a post, clearly marked OT, and whine
like little babies about off topic? It's true, Konservanazis have no sense
of irony.
bump
2003-08-29 01:44:41 UTC
Permalink
Post by Augie Chiausa
Post by bump
I have ZERO concern for what anyone thinks is legitimate or
illegitimate subject matter for this forum.
Spoken like a true left-winger.
Why is it that the wingnuts jump on a post, clearly marked OT, and whine
like little babies about off topic? It's true, Konservanazis have no sense
of irony.
Actually it looks like you're the one whining like a little baby. But
that is to be expected from an unintelligent left-wing freak.
Joe Long
2003-08-29 04:45:56 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:11:57 GMT, "Augie Chiausa"
Post by Augie Chiausa
Why is it that the wingnuts jump on a post, clearly marked OT, and whine
like little babies about off topic? It's true, Konservanazis have no sense
of irony.
So putting "OT" in the subject makes this ridiculous left-wing
political ranting acceptable on a POKER newsgroup? Amazing. I guess
it's OK to rob a bank as long as you wear a sign saying "bank robber?"
--
Joe Long
jlong (at) rnbw (dot) com
OrangeSFO
2003-08-29 16:55:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Long
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:11:57 GMT, "Augie Chiausa"
Post by Augie Chiausa
Why is it that the wingnuts jump on a post, clearly marked OT, and whine
like little babies about off topic? It's true, Konservanazis have no sense
of irony.
So putting "OT" in the subject makes this ridiculous left-wing
political ranting acceptable on a POKER newsgroup? Amazing. I guess
it's OK to rob a bank as long as you wear a sign saying "bank robber?"
Wow, that's an incredibly most ham-handed attempt at analogy.

Try again.
Augie Chiausa
2003-09-02 17:06:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Long
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 21:11:57 GMT, "Augie Chiausa"
Post by Augie Chiausa
Why is it that the wingnuts jump on a post, clearly marked OT, and whine
like little babies about off topic? It's true, Konservanazis have no sense
of irony.
So putting "OT" in the subject makes this ridiculous left-wing
political ranting acceptable on a POKER newsgroup?
You've made good use of it for your gobbelesque right wing rants.
Post by Joe Long
Amazing. I guess
it's OK to rob a bank as long as you wear a sign saying "bank robber?"
I gave up robbing banks. Now if only you could give up being stupid.
Joe Long
2003-09-02 23:12:42 UTC
Permalink
On Tue, 02 Sep 2003 17:06:52 GMT, "Augie Chiausa"
Post by Augie Chiausa
Post by Joe Long
So putting "OT" in the subject makes this ridiculous left-wing
political ranting acceptable on a POKER newsgroup?
You've made good use of it for your gobbelesque right wing rants.
Wrong, as usual. I have never started any kind of OT thread, and
seldom responded to them. But ideologues never let the truth stand in
the way of a chance to attack someone.

I would accept your apology, but I very much doubt you would ever
offer one.
--
Joe Long
jlong (at) rnbw (dot) com
Augie Chiausa
2003-09-02 17:11:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Long
So putting "OT" in the subject makes this ridiculous left-wing
political ranting acceptable on a POKER newsgroup? Amazing. I guess
it's OK to rob a bank as long as you wear a sign saying "bank robber?"
Well you just HAD to read it didn't you? Is there another right wing
nutcase Nazi sitting there twisting your arm and making you respond
with your own rant?
Actually, I skip nearly all of the political threads, but every once
in a while I read one this bozo starts just to see how far off the
deep end he's getting now. You're right that I shouldn't taunt him,
though. People that far out of touch with reality can be actually
harmed by it.
Bullshit. A brownshirt, such as yourself, never seems to miss an
opportunity for a cyberkristallnacht.
Who responded just because he likes to piss off right wing
reactionaries.
Thanks ... I'm libertarian, and proudly so.
Not a very good one, are you?
suedeguy
2003-08-28 22:54:43 UTC
Permalink
Orange, I never said that I don't have politcal interests. On the
contrary. I have worked on several political campaigns since the age
of 14. I registered to vote the week I turned 18 and have not missed
an major election since. When there is an issue that is of particular
concern to me, I contact my local representative. I read most major
news publications, political websites, and news stations daily. If
this were a political newsgroup, I'd probably bite and debate on the
positives and negatives of the current administration. Believe me, I
care deeply about the direction of the country and who is running it.
If this were a political newsgroup, I'd probably bite and debate on
the positives and negatives of the current administration.

I just like to put all that aside when I'm sitting at the poker table.
My post was more of a general thought and should not have been
personally directed at you. I said that I believe you have the right
to post whatever topic you want. I just wish I didn't have to sift
through the multitude of "Bush sucks" or "Liberals are idiots" posts
on this board. Its my choice to come here, so I realize that it comes
with the territory. I was just trying to lighten the mood.
Post by suedeguy
Orange, I think you are going to have a nervous breakdown next
November if Bush retains the Whitehouse. Every post is Bushie this and
Bushie that. For better or worse, the reality is that Bush will most
likely be re-elected. Will the new posts say "wait till November '08"?
Most people come to this forum to learn poker strategy, talk about the
poker community, and rip on Russ. I'm not saying you don't have the
right to post off-topic material. I just wish we could leave politics
out of poker. Poker is where I go to relax. It's fun for me....fun for
many. Its the last place I want to talk politics, religion, social
issues. If I'm golfing, fishing, or holding a nut hand, I don't want
to talk about budget deficits, court nominations, or foreign policy.
Enjoy the game man and let some that anger go.
Just my thoughts.
Suedeguy,
I have ZERO concern for what anyone thinks is legitimate or
illegitimate subject matter for this forum. When I go off-topic, I
clearly tag it as such. You claim to have no interest in political
talk, yet here you are reading my post.
As I've said before, I like to see RGP as a big poker table. And
people talk about all kinds of things over a game of cards. One of
the things that I want to talk about these days is the direction in
which our country is heading under a leadership that is unashamedly
committed to the needs of the rich; that is driving us toward a state
of perpetual war; that looks you in the eye and declares that up is
down.
If I'm bugging you, that's too bad. People should be bugged about
what's going on. It's everyone's responsibility to monitor our
government and talk publicly about what's right and what's wrong--to
not blindly swallow whatever they're fed. I'm going to do whatever I
can to keep the crimes of the Bush administration under the lights,
and one of the ways I'm going to do it is right in here. If I make
one person stop and think, then my mission's accomplished. I can take
any rocks I get thrown at me and I welcome any reasoned debate.
If you see "OT" followed by my name...you've been warned.
Samuel C. Croy
2003-08-28 23:14:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by suedeguy
I just like to put all that aside when I'm sitting at the poker table.
My post was more of a general thought and should not have been
personally directed at you. I said that I believe you have the right
to post whatever topic you want. I just wish I didn't have to sift
through the multitude of "Bush sucks" or "Liberals are idiots" posts
on this board. Its my choice to come here, so I realize that it comes
with the territory. I was just trying to lighten the mood.
Then use your newsreader and filter out any posts that have OT in the
subject line. But it does give perspective on just how many people are
more interested in their poker game than how many people are standing
in the bread lines of this current depression we are in.
It will take 20 years before anyone admits this is a depression, but
by then they will label it the greatest depression, or the new
millenieum depression or some such other asinine label.
I was always told that history repeats itself. I never thought I'd
live to see it happen with the Hoover administration though. But I
guess truth really is stranger than fiction.
Thanks, George Herbert Hoover.




-- Sam Croy
Harry Clyde
2003-08-29 04:04:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel C. Croy
Then use your newsreader and filter out any posts that have OT in the
subject line. But it does give perspective on just how many people are
more interested in their poker game than how many people are standing
in the bread lines of this current depression we are in.
It will take 20 years before anyone admits this is a depression, but
by then they will label it the greatest depression, or the new
millenieum depression or some such other asinine label.
I was always told that history repeats itself. I never thought I'd
live to see it happen with the Hoover administration though. But I
guess truth really is stranger than fiction.
Thanks, George Herbert Hoover.
Oh horse shit! This is the ole "turn the channel argument". The Left
spares no opportunity to raise their voice on someone else's dime. But make
them spend their own bucks and they grumble.

This is a poker site. That is not to say we can't have OT discussions. But
OrangeSFO, Augie, and Pugum use this forum as a method for disseminating
their vulgar garbage propaganda. They don't engage in discussion - they
rant. Every day they flood this site with their filth as if they have a
public duty to spread the gospel according to Karl Marx. Imagine if some
Mormon or Baptist posted their proselytizing messages here every day. Augie
would then begin ranting about people and their fairy tales.

These people don't believe in free speech, truth, or debate. They are
left-wing ideologues spreading their lies broad and deep. They are
politically desperate and isolated from the rest of America.
Gary Carson
2003-08-29 18:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Right. A report by the Bush Administration's own EPA is "vulgar
garbage propaganda."
It is not Bush's EPA. Any report by the EPA is generally vulgar
garbage.
How about the report on air quality that was vetted by Ms. Rice before
it was released? Was that vulgar garbage? Are you saying if the
reports are vetted by the WH before release that it's still not Bush's
EPA?
OrangeSFO
2003-08-30 20:06:39 UTC
Permalink
You understand, don't you that Nuclear power is under the umbrella of the
EPA. You understand don't you that Nuclear power is a strategic and
tactical target, yes?
Are you high? Do all those letters confuse you?

Nuclear power is "under the umbrella" of the DOE (Department of
Energy) and the NRC (Nuclear Regulatory Commission...one of those
pesky "big government" agencies ShrubCo would prefer not to have to
deal with--unlike the "Department of Homeland Insecurity")
OrangeSFO
2003-09-03 05:54:50 UTC
Permalink
I heard of a case where somebody was out walking down the street
during his lunch hour, and watched a solicitor for Greenpeace step
over a burger wrapper on the sidewalk.
You heard of a case? You HEARD...OF...A...CASE?

That's your contribution? Your big point? Your discussion-ender?

Well, I heard of a case where the "President" of a superpower nation
was selling the country off, brick by brick, to corporations;
attacking another country for it's oil, cutting taxes while at war and
simultaneously underfunding security at home, and eliminating jobs by
the truckload.

Thing is... I have material to back up what I HEARD.

What have YOU got?
FL Turbo
2003-09-04 11:31:08 UTC
Permalink
Post by OrangeSFO
I heard of a case where somebody was out walking down the street
during his lunch hour, and watched a solicitor for Greenpeace step
over a burger wrapper on the sidewalk.
You heard of a case? You HEARD...OF...A...CASE?
I could tell you exactly where I heard it and who said it.
It was somebody who neither you nor anyone here is likely to have
heard of.
Not a big name like Rush, for example.

No point in telling it was John Smith or Sam Jones.
You would immediately jump up and exclaim:
"Who the hell is that? Anecdotal evidence."

You would be exactly right, of course.
Post by OrangeSFO
That's your contribution? Your big point? Your discussion-ender?
Think of it as a parable, of sorts.

Thank you for the opportunity to expand the point.

The point is that many of the "environmental activist" corporations
are so involved in raising money for the organization that they don't
have the time to even pick up a piece of trash on the street.

The average city sanitation worker does more in one day to actually DO
something to clean up the environment than the orginization will do
during their entire existence.

They are great at PR and lobbying the government for tax money for
their pet project of the moment.

If my little parable can keep even 1 person from wasting even 1 dollar
on these phonies, it will have been worth it.

Now don't get me wrong, here, I fully support clean water.

If I find an organization dedicated to eliminating the pollution of
our water supply by dihydrous monoxide, I will certainly contribute.
Post by OrangeSFO
Well, I heard of a case where the "President" of a superpower nation
was selling the country off, brick by brick, to corporations;
attacking another country for it's oil, cutting taxes while at war and
simultaneously underfunding security at home, and eliminating jobs by
the truckload.
Selling the country to corporations? That's terrible.
Say, that gives me an idea.
A giant corporation says they have some kind of claim on my house.
I have neighbors with the same problem.
Have you found some way to help people get full claim to their houses?
Those corporations must have gotten the title from the president in
the first place, so it's only fair to make the corporations give it
back.

And the sheer incompetence of that oil thing. I hear that it's a hell
of a job getting the oil pumped, and then piped out to sell.
All of that work invading a country for its oil and then finding out
what a pain in the neck it is to get at it.
Could just have bought the damn oil in the first place, but nooo..
Would have saved a pile of money in the long run, for sure.
A guy would like to think there was some other reason to invade, but
what else could it be?

Cutting taxes in peacetime is bad enough.
People might not use that money for good reasons, and just piss it
away buying stuff for themselves or their kids..
But in wartime? That's worse yet.

I know there's been truckloads galore of jobs going south across the
border, but do you think them people would stay there and take the
job? No.
The ungrateful bastards are piling north across the border and taking
the few jobs left.
Post by OrangeSFO
Thing is... I have material to back up what I HEARD.
What have YOU got?
Well, Nothing

Just a pile of dandruff on the floor from scratching my head trying to
figure it all out.
Joe Long
2003-08-29 22:00:31 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 04:04:06 GMT, "Harry Clyde"
<***@kein.spam.hotmail.com> wrote:

...
Post by Harry Clyde
These people don't believe in free speech, truth, or debate. They are
left-wing ideologues spreading their lies broad and deep. They are
politically desperate and isolated from the rest of America.
That sums it up nicely. What's really funny is that they believe
themselves to be "open-minded" and call those who don't share their
warped view "reactionary."
--
Joe Long
jlong (at) rnbw (dot) com
Paul Phillips
2003-08-29 04:13:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Samuel C. Croy
Then use your newsreader and filter out any posts that have OT in the
subject line. But it does give perspective on just how many people are
more interested in their poker game than how many people are standing
in the bread lines of this current depression we are in.
Thanks, mother teresa. I'm sure your fanatical attention to the
wellbeing of others (here on the poker newsgroup) is really helping
all those poor people in the bread lines. I hope you're similarly
enlightening those selfish idiots on the backgammon, chess, and
bridge newsgroups -- the fools, all they want to talk about is the
group's topic instead of bemoaning the fate of the world!

May they all perish horribly.
--
Paul Phillips | It struck me that I was wearing too many patterns
Everyman | and bright colors; time to shift into neutral gear.
Empiricist |
up hill, pi pals! |----------* http://www.improving.org/paulp/ *----------
Samuel C. Croy
2003-08-29 12:03:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Paul Phillips
Post by Samuel C. Croy
Then use your newsreader and filter out any posts that have OT in the
subject line. But it does give perspective on just how many people are
more interested in their poker game than how many people are standing
in the bread lines of this current depression we are in.
Thanks, mother teresa. I'm sure your fanatical attention to the
wellbeing of others (here on the poker newsgroup) is really helping
all those poor people in the bread lines. I hope you're similarly
enlightening those selfish idiots on the backgammon, chess, and
bridge newsgroups -- the fools, all they want to talk about is the
group's topic instead of bemoaning the fate of the world!
May they all perish horribly.
As usual you prove to be the sensitive prick that we all know and love
Paul. If you want to talk about poker why the fuck are you reading
this thread?

-- Samuel C.Croy
FL Turbo
2003-08-29 13:51:03 UTC
Permalink
On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 23:14:32 GMT, Samuel C. Croy
Post by Samuel C. Croy
Post by suedeguy
I just like to put all that aside when I'm sitting at the poker table.
My post was more of a general thought and should not have been
personally directed at you. I said that I believe you have the right
to post whatever topic you want. I just wish I didn't have to sift
through the multitude of "Bush sucks" or "Liberals are idiots" posts
on this board. Its my choice to come here, so I realize that it comes
with the territory. I was just trying to lighten the mood.
Then use your newsreader and filter out any posts that have OT in the
subject line. But it does give perspective on just how many people are
more interested in their poker game than how many people are standing
in the bread lines of this current depression we are in.
It will take 20 years before anyone admits this is a depression, but
by then they will label it the greatest depression, or the new
millenieum depression or some such other asinine label.
I was always told that history repeats itself. I never thought I'd
live to see it happen with the Hoover administration though. But I
guess truth really is stranger than fiction.
Thanks, George Herbert Hoover.
-- Sam Croy
I think it would be an educational experience for you to find someone
in their 80's and explain to them how conditions today are even worse
than in the 1930's.

If they weren't struck speechless by your theory, you might just get
an education on what hard times are really like.

That is, if they didn't laugh hysterically or launch into a tirade
about how the kids these days are spoiled rotten.

Personally, I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry.

I didn't live through it myself, but I grew up hearing stories about
the Depression.

This little blip in the economy ain't your grandfather's Depression.

The surest thing about history repeating itself is that the newer
generation thinks their problems have got to be the worst thing ever
faced by anyone in history.

It must really be entertaining to hear a group of whiny, pampered
Leftists get together over a latte supreme to talk about hard times.

Is it true that the Lefties have let their intense hatred of Bush turn
their brains into porridge?

Not you, of couse, but it might be something to consider.
Samuel C. Croy
2003-08-29 15:00:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by FL Turbo
I think it would be an educational experience for you to find someone
in their 80's and explain to them how conditions today are even worse
than in the 1930's.
If they weren't struck speechless by your theory, you might just get
an education on what hard times are really like.
That is, if they didn't laugh hysterically or launch into a tirade
about how the kids these days are spoiled rotten.
Personally, I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry.
I didn't live through it myself, but I grew up hearing stories about
the Depression.
This little blip in the economy ain't your grandfather's Depression.
The surest thing about history repeating itself is that the newer
generation thinks their problems have got to be the worst thing ever
faced by anyone in history.
It must really be entertaining to hear a group of whiny, pampered
Leftists get together over a latte supreme to talk about hard times.
Is it true that the Lefties have let their intense hatred of Bush turn
their brains into porridge?
Not you, of couse, but it might be something to consider.
You are so full of shit your eyes must be brown. I don't suppose
you've heard there are 4 million people in this country that can't
afford basic food, shelter and clothing? I didn't think so. Spending
your day in a casino or at a poker table doesn't leave much time for
current events I suppose.
Just because the corporate side of the economy isn't suffering as bad
as in the thirties, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of common
citizens out there hurting just as bad or worse than in the great
depression.
Try reading a newspaper or periodical once in a while. You will not
find any of this mentioned in the "Theory of Poker".



-- Samuel C.Croy
FL Turbo
2003-08-30 02:23:39 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:00:51 GMT, Samuel C. Croy
Post by Samuel C. Croy
Post by FL Turbo
I think it would be an educational experience for you to find someone
in their 80's and explain to them how conditions today are even worse
than in the 1930's.
If they weren't struck speechless by your theory, you might just get
an education on what hard times are really like.
That is, if they didn't laugh hysterically or launch into a tirade
about how the kids these days are spoiled rotten.
Personally, I couldn't decide whether to laugh or cry.
I didn't live through it myself, but I grew up hearing stories about
the Depression.
This little blip in the economy ain't your grandfather's Depression.
The surest thing about history repeating itself is that the newer
generation thinks their problems have got to be the worst thing ever
faced by anyone in history.
It must really be entertaining to hear a group of whiny, pampered
Leftists get together over a latte supreme to talk about hard times.
Is it true that the Lefties have let their intense hatred of Bush turn
their brains into porridge?
Not you, of couse, but it might be something to consider.
You are so full of shit your eyes must be brown. I don't suppose
you've heard there are 4 million people in this country that can't
afford basic food, shelter and clothing? I didn't think so. Spending
your day in a casino or at a poker table doesn't leave much time for
current events I suppose.
Wow, 4 million naked, starving people in this country living on the
street. I have to admit that I haven't looked for them, but maybe I
just don't go down the right streets.

Now, I have seen people with "Will work for food" signs, but I never
heard of a case where they actually did any work for anybody.
It's usually a "No, I'll just take the money, please"

I can understand that.
They would have to give up their place on the corner to go do the work
and then eat the food, and their place could be taken by somebody
else.

I've seen welfare rights people on TV demonstrating for more money,
but it didn't seem like they were starving, either.
A lot even looked downright fat, if I may be judgmental for the
moment.
Probly a win-win situation if they gave up some of their food to those
starving folks.

I get plenty of info on current events, on the radio and the net.
Gotta love the net. I can annoy people worldwide.

Watched some cable news networks last weekend.
It only took about 30 minutes before they all began repeating things
they had reported earlier.

Been waiting and waiting for the new liberal talk radio network.
I figure it will open my mind.
Guys like Franken and Michael Moore will be informative, and
entertaining as well.
Post by Samuel C. Croy
Just because the corporate side of the economy isn't suffering as bad
as in the thirties, doesn't mean there aren't plenty of common
citizens out there hurting just as bad or worse than in the great
depression.
Good news for you here.
The corporate side of the economy is doing even better lately.
A good, slow, steady, sustainable growth is just what we need.
Good for the common citizen.

Cheer up.
By this time next year, the economy will be even better.
Post by Samuel C. Croy
Try reading a newspaper or periodical once in a while. You will not
find any of this mentioned in the "Theory of Poker".
-- Samuel C.Croy
Samuel C. Croy
2003-08-29 15:04:49 UTC
Permalink
PS
Since I'm nearly 60 I don't have to look far to find someone from my
father's (not grandfather's) generation to ask about it.
They interviewed a man on 60 min. II story about over 800 people in
breadline in Marietta, Ohio who had been in breadlines in 1932 and is
back in one at age 80+. He didn't seem to share your fantasy about
history.

-- Samuel C.Croy
Gary Carson
2003-08-29 15:15:42 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:04:49 GMT, Samuel C. Croy
Post by Samuel C. Croy
PS
Since I'm nearly 60 I don't have to look far to find someone from my
father's (not grandfather's) generation to ask about it.
They interviewed a man on 60 min. II story about over 800 people in
breadline in Marietta, Ohio who had been in breadlines in 1932 and is
back in one at age 80+. He didn't seem to share your fantasy about
history.
In the 30's they let them sleep in the park. Can't do that anymore.

My grandfather did have to work in a WPA road crew for a while, but
was never out of work during the depression. His family never went
hungry.
Bjgkaraoke
2003-08-29 16:04:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Gary Carson
In the 30's they let them sleep in the park. Can't do that anymore.
My grandfather did have to work in a WPA road crew for a while, but
was never out of work during the depression. His family never went
hungry.
My Father and Mother were married during the depression. They each lived at
home until they could get jobs. They started living together after they got
jobs in a Tango parlor at Ocean Park, which they lost after Tango was voted
out. They lived on welfare and my Dad worked on the WPA. Shortly before I was
born he got a job at Douglas Aircraft. My Mom managed to save enough to pay
for the doctor and hospital so she wouldn't have to go to the County hospital.
They had some great stories about those days.
Barbara Gallamore
FL Turbo
2003-08-30 02:32:01 UTC
Permalink
On Fri, 29 Aug 2003 15:04:49 GMT, Samuel C. Croy
Post by Samuel C. Croy
PS
Since I'm nearly 60 I don't have to look far to find someone from my
father's (not grandfather's) generation to ask about it.
So why is it that you never asked them, then?

You sure had me fooled.
From the tone of the message you sounded like a 20-something college
student who had just read a college newspaper over his latte.

Well, scrap that theory.
On to Theory B

You're a perfessser at that college, who teaches the 20-something
students how to write the newspaper.

Yeah, that's it. thats the ticket.
Post by Samuel C. Croy
They interviewed a man on 60 min. II story about over 800 people in
breadline in Marietta, Ohio who had been in breadlines in 1932 and is
back in one at age 80+. He didn't seem to share your fantasy about
history.
-- Samuel C.Croy
Ah, 60 Minutes.
Isn't that the show that scoured the Iraqi countryside to find a bunch
of soldiers willing to bad-mouth the president and the secdef on
camera?
It must have taken some serious research.
Easy enough to get a grunt to talk about the REMF's over a few beers,
but sober, and in front of a camera?

Does anyone know how they selected Marietta, Ohio?
Did they advertise so people would know when the cameras would be
rolling?
I don't know if there are even 800 people in the whole town, but
perhaps you can enlighten me.

My guess is that the 80+ year old guy could have easily gotten into a
Housing for the Elderly facility, but chose not to.
Can't say I blame him.

Believe it or not, both the Ee-vil Dubya and I both agree that elderly
people without assets should be taken care of.

A selfish motive on my part to be sure, since I will be one of them if
I live long enough.

But then, I'm sure you have considered all that yourself, being in
your 50's.

Don't know what you mean about a "fantasy about history".
I have heard enough first hand stories about the depression to know it
was grim reality, and no fantasy.

I didn't see the show, but my guess is that the 80+ guy's analysis
went something like this:

"This country has been living way too high off the hog for too long
now, paying for everything with borrowed money,
One of these days the whole thing is gonna come crashing down and make
the last depression look like a picnic."

That analysis has been expounded by some old-timers as long as I can
remember.

Am I close?

I'll believe this is a depression when I see a picture of Carson
holding a sign:
"Will teach poker for food"
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...