The Patriot Files Forums  

Go Back   The Patriot Files Forums > General > Political Debate

Post New Thread  Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #61  
Old 09-06-2003, 04:42 AM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Little Sparrow,
Merely because I hesitate to claim that America is THE GREATEST anything, in no way means that I do not love this country, nor does it mean that I wish God would NOT Bless this country, nor anything else of the kind. Nothing in what I have ever said would lead anyone to such a conclusion.

A little humility would go a long way in resolving a good many of the serious ailments all of us are one way and another working to resolve at home and elsewhere.

I can, for example, think immediately of other dynastic regimes in world history whose people and governments constantly repeated to themselves and everyone else how GREAT they were and would always be... Rome, Byzantium, Persia, Russia, France, Greece, Britain, Egypt and Nazi Germany.

Complacency is extremely dangerous to freedom. Simply because one is analytical of our government and way of life does not mean anything more than that... our history is filled with those patriots who have done so, and future generations have been mighty glad they did.

Scout -
American Enterprise Institute, becomes dangerous to our liberty when its (or any other such group, e.g. ABA, ACLU, AFL-CIO, NAACP etc.) ties to the government-in-charge are inseparable from it, as they now are... when the boundary between elected and non-elected officials exists as a diplomatic conflict of interest, and when extremely serious foreign and domestic policy cannot be distinguished as to authorship. Far more threatening to us now, is Project for the New American Century whose ties with AEI are conceptually and strategically "genetic". This is not paranoia, it is "triangulation" of a kind every bit as pernicious as anything Slick Willy and the kids used to do.

The very worst that TV media has done, is to get us fighting amongst ourselves over the philosophical crumbs of arguments which are defined FOR us... so long as we keep that up, we won't be watching (nor will they!) in the direction of the coming storms. This happened before during Vietnam, and is a major part of the cause behind why our soldiers were denegrated in some quarters when coming home, and for how it was that the many many victories of our warriors were erroneously interpreted as a defeat in war.

I have no personal knowledge that Cronkite ginned up his report about the Tet Offensive defeat of our enemy, at the time I was too busy trying to help win that one to be watching much TV. I have no reason to doubt your take on it either. It is quite possible that either he did that on his own, or that the information he was supplied from his producers gave that impression, or even that the information his producers received from Vietnam suggested a victory that was not there. I have no idea, and no proof either way. What I do know is that I felt more or less assured that we were getting straight talk from him, in a decent humane manner.

Sean Hannity is a bully O'Reilly wanna-be. O'Reilly is a bully Limbaugh wanna-be. They appear to have chosen conservative viewpoints because doing so supplies them with a paycheck. My beef with them is mostly in the WAY they do what they do. I shudder to think that O'Reilly's ratings are as high as they are... what that means about the mood, independence and tolerance of our people. They all operate at the threshhold of being out of bounds, and remind me (the three mentioned above) of Gestapo hate-mongers, demonizing anything or anyone with which or whom they disagree, and having become egocentric mouthpieces for government who abuse the power of the Press. They are newsmakers, not yet journalists. Most of their ideas are NOT well-reasoned, they are scripted for effect, like a Hollywood movie. Their points of view fuel the flames of terrorism when rebroadcast or reported to the enemy, and often have the effect of polarizing americans as to domestic issues just as the extremes of liberal opinion do. Luckily there are numerous other able and intelligent conservative reporters from which to choose, some of whom I have previously named, but would have included Wm. F. Buckley among them, and would name Molly Ivins and Michael Kinsley among the more helpful of the opposition.

Even liberalism doesn't fail 100% of the time. Without it there would be no balance in our government or media at all.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg tina's camera 075.jpg (349.2 KB, 20 views)
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #62  
Old 09-06-2003, 06:23 AM
SuperScout's Avatar
SuperScout SuperScout is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Out in the country, near Dripping Springs TX
Posts: 5,734
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default BLUE

If it had only been Cronkite's lies about Vietnam, sanity, logic and facts might have prevailed, but coupled with his regurgitation of the bile he was being fed, and the other mainstream news outlets at the time, and the bias that they had from the beginning, and our cause was lost from the gitgo. The bias continue to this day - the press, and a lot of there willing sympathisers (I won't insult true professionals by calling them "jounalists") still hate the military and do their best to present our forces in the worst light.

Sorry, but I can't share your fears, misgivings or furrowed brow about the AEI. Real threats to America exist in the UN, in uncontrolled illegal immigration, in legitimizing wetbacks by granting them drivers' licenses, and by the Quebecinization of America that's happening in California.
__________________
One Big Ass Mistake, America

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 09-06-2003, 08:01 AM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Scout -
One thing I know for certain about you and many others here on PF is that if and when an ill wind doth blow, hard or otherwise, then one of us will at least see it first and tell the others as best we can. I believe this is a common thread which binds most veterans, an instinct, if you will.

One wonders, on other of your points, exactly why (if true) certain of the Press do so despise the military... or is it simply that they might never have served, know zero about our way of life, have yet to experience a threat of the kind only a military can resolve, or over-generalize concerning our sense of duty first, perhaps. I don't have as clear an image of that as you seem to have. I am amused at the naivete in various reports and Q&A briefings, that is for sure! But, I am not aware of full out hatred, must've missed that. During Vietnam, it was, however, very very clear that by the WAY in which protests were reported, giving undue emphasis to the squeakiest wheel and (I believe) often intentionally choosing the least articulate advocates for the "other side" in debate, a skewing of american mood was broadcast worldwide... not unlike Hanoi Jane's little "regrettable misstep" back then. I would regard some of the inflammatory remarks of certain newspeople today as being equivalent, from the opposite thrust, with aiding and abetting; in that it is not helpful when it creates new guerrilla warriors (or suicides). Our media is playing directly into the hands of the enemy, at times, especially by the messages of the more outspoken and less thoughtful extremists on both sides, in my opinion.

I am with you 100% about uncontrollable immigration.

If by "Quebecanization" of Callifornia you mean secessionist tendencies, by proxy or otherwise, then I would say under the 10th amendment it is their right to do so, even if they fail. One would think that after 216 years such things as voting and electoral issues (along with a national driving license, for example) would be firmly established and federalized. I happened, is it turned out, to be IN Toronto on the night of that secession election in 1995... watching the returns with my hosts. It brought to mind a number of thoughts apropos of another Forum and threads on PF where these matters are discussed with the benefit of generations gone before.

The U.N., ah yes, the much- beleaguered United Nations. I would be grateful if someone could please explain precisely what is so threatening about them, to anyone. You might be surprised by the vehemence with which some of my more liberal associates would agree with you, or maybe not. In any case, I still have not noticed their imminent danger to America, and have noticed countless good and humane works they perform in various ways throughout the world since their founding. Does it hurt so much as that to have just ONE international body whose sole purpose is reconciliation and peace? If the recent conflict within the Security Council over invading Iraq is an example, I would only submit that in a democracy it is the absolute right of a sovereign nation to deny giving its permission or vote to another, for any reason its government sees fit. America does so at times of convenience to itself with remarkable frequency. The fact that a nation votes against another is not a cause for wanting the destruction of the voting body, is it? I regard it as almost shameful the way many of our people have, at the goading of U.S. media and certain leaders, insulted the integrity of other nations such as France, in particular... and now when we could truly use the help of all NATO allies, we are being sent off on yet another round of insults... insults against a nation without whom there might well not have ever been an America 200+ years ago. Forgetting friends, or remembering them only when they do as WE please for them to do, does not give us (nor China or Russia either) a good recommendation nor offer a positive role model to nations at earlier stages of democratization, such as Iraq. This tendency if there is the slightest chance that war, bloodshed, destruction of property and the making of generations of future enemies (read Terrorists) could be prevented or even diminished, isn't that alone a good enough reason to have a U.N.? To slow things down, to concede, and even to give a unified blessing to armed interventions, is a better choice, No?

I will say clearly, however, I have never approved of the way in which the Security Council itself was set up, and would prefer that its membership rotate on some rational basis. Fat chance of that ever happening!

A fanciful alternative, I suppose, might be for all those from every nation who just cannot stop themselves from wanting or needing to kill and break things to gather together in any of the vast open spaces on mother earth far from domestic lives and duke it out to the last standing man with every advanced or primitive weapon available. Or, we can keep right on doing what we have been for a few thousand years, expecting different results... which is one definition of insanity. Or, we might try cooperating with the U.N., or a body of that kind which would work more to your satisfaction. So, IS there the possibility of such a body to your way of thinking?
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 09-06-2003, 04:02 PM
MORTARDUDE's Avatar
MORTARDUDE MORTARDUDE is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,849
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

quote ....

" Sean Hannity is a bully O'Reilly wanna-be. O'Reilly is a bully Limbaugh wanna-be. They appear to have chosen conservative viewpoints because doing so supplies them with a paycheck. My beef with them is mostly in the WAY they do what they do. I shudder to think that O'Reilly's ratings are as high as they are... what that means about the mood, independence and tolerance of our people. They all operate at the threshhold of being out of bounds, and remind me (the three mentioned above) of Gestapo hate-mongers, demonizing anything or anyone with which or whom they disagree, and having become egocentric mouthpieces for government who abuse the power of the Press. They are newsmakers, not yet journalists. Most of their ideas are NOT well-reasoned, they are scripted for effect, like a Hollywood movie. Their points of view fuel the flames of terrorism when rebroadcast or reported to the enemy, and often have the effect of polarizing americans as to domestic issues just as the extremes of liberal opinion do. Luckily there are numerous other able and intelligent conservative reporters from which to choose, some of whom I have previously named, but would have included Wm. F. Buckley among them, and would name Molly Ivins and Michael Kinsley among the more helpful of the opposition. "

...unquote

Gestapo hate-mongers ? Newsmakers, not yet journalists ? Most of their ideas are NOT well reasoned ? scripted for effect ? Michael Kinsley ?

For God's sake....this is so far in the left field I am left speechless..
The 3 folks you name have flaws...many. But logic is not one of them. For all his bluster, Rush Limbaugh can logically crucify most politicians on the left on just about any topic, simply by just playing a recording of their own words...Remember I am Libertarian. If using Nazi imagery is the best you can do, then I think you have failed. Prior to 1988, there wasn't a national platform for conservative views. I look at the merits of an argument. Try to look past ego, bluster and bombast. Everyone has something of value. The diatribe above totally negates any possibility of worth from these efforts. NO ONE has a lock on the truth....

OH YES >> ... quote "not unlike Hanoi Jane's little "regrettable misstep" back then" unquote

It is called TREASON !!!

DEO VINDICE

Larry
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 09-06-2003, 05:12 PM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Larry -
It may not have been treason (my attempt at understatement obviously failed), but it sure was a very stupid selfish thing to do, much like what Hannity, O'Reilly and Limbaugh often force upon us every day. I do, and have said so elsewhere, find what they offer to the debate important to keep track of if nothing else. There have been times, probably as many times as their opposite numbers can claim, when they are more Americans than conservatives... the former of which is what I keep looking for in all journalists. I have occasionally very much appreciated Limbaugh's views, as with his recent take on Social Security and government pensions et al. There are even times when O'Reilly manages to calm down long enough to get it right by going directly against the current administration when called for, as he has done about finding wmd in Iraq. The only time I have seen Hannity behave temperately was when he was, once, interviewing the wife of a reservist serving in Iraq. Granted, I have not seen or heard every single broadcast they have given, so my sampling is minimal and generalized. However, I do pay attention to their broadcasts almost daily, and was especially attentive to them, among others, during the build-up to and invasion of Iraq. It would be difficult to find a more jingoistic group of self-lovers in all of american broadcast journalism. I pay attention because, as you say, everyone has something to offer, and we are all on the same team, I hope. I would also hope that Mr. Limbaugh would one day agree with us occasionally on this point when it comes to the liberal wing of our government, who cannot possibly be totally wrong 100% of the time, and who deserve every trap they place themselves in... just as conservatives do.

Having been a conservative nearly from when I began voting, it is not my recollection that there was ever a surfeit of voices on my side, in any part of journalism. It was never the number of voices nor their volume that mattered, it was what they had to contribute. Today, on FOX and elsewhere, there are many other conservative commentators and reporters doing extremely honorable service. There is an abundance, and then this new breed of ones who can only be classified as intellectual bullies. Maybe it is this kind of behavior that so many people have felt was lacking... rudeness, accusatory name-calling, arrogance, baiting; out of place on either side is what I call it, and disreputable. I feel fairly sure now that it has arisen to such prominence, it will be generations before it can be moderated... I saw a pre-teen boy on the news some months ago, already set in his views and ready to step in when Rush retires.

I carry no brief for either side in journalism, because it is their job to report the news, all of it. That is their only job, and they need to do it because it is vital to the future of our Republic.

My reference to Nazi imagery may not have been as accurate as I had hoped it should be, but if you look back at German propaganda beginnning in in the mmid-1930s throughout war years, I believe you will see what I am referring to. Goebbels was a master of it, and had at his command hundreds of journalists who knowingly, or not, did as much as the Gestapo accomplished with terror. What I am mainly concerned with is what the logical extension of our own current crescendo of voices could become if left unchallenged.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 09-06-2003, 08:39 PM
MORTARDUDE's Avatar
MORTARDUDE MORTARDUDE is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 6,849
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

Mike ...

I won't belabor the point but...

You just compared what Hanoi Jane did to three folks who are earning an honest living....Give me a break ?????

Walter Cronkite just admitted that most print and TV journalists are "liberal" and his use of the word is as we all now recognize it to be...big government... all the time...everywhere...

As I said, prior to 1988 the "conservative" voice in media was largely nonexistent. Up until Fox News came along on TV, it still wasn't that prevalent. The failure of "liberals" to muster any alternative to the "conservative" TV and radio pundits should tell you something.....


As I said, everyone has a right to be heard. NO ONE has a lock on the truth. The sooner we realize that we are caught in an "us vs. them" game, when it is actually "all of them" against us....the better things will be..

Larry
__________________
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 09-06-2003, 11:25 PM
BLUEHAWK's Avatar
BLUEHAWK BLUEHAWK is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: May 2002
Location: Ozarks
Posts: 4,638
Send a message via Yahoo to BLUEHAWK
Distinctions
Contributor 
Default

Larry -
None of this seems belabored to me... some discussions take longer than others, no? If you want to shut this off, just say so or do so. I personally believe it is more than worth the effort, for as long as it takes.

For all the good it will never do, Ms. Fonda has recanted her actions in Hanoi, and has expressed remorse which I found believeable and sincere. She too makes an honest living. I dislike appearing to defend her, but these are also facts which will do nothing to bring back lives lost by her encouragement of the enemy. I have a personalized signed copy of Hank and Erica Holzer's book, "Aid and Comfort" on a shelf nearby. Hank and Alan Greenspan were long-time associates of the noted "conservative" (if that is even close to accurate) Ayn Rand. We know who Mr. Greenspan's wife is, and what she admirably does for a living apropos of this thread. After they gave me their book, I read it, was better informed, and attempted to donate it to the Joplin Public Library collections... patriotism is high in Joplin, and there are many vets around. The fiercely liberal director declined the offer, on the grounds, she said, that, "It just wouldn't circulate". It would not circulate because it would never see the new publications shelves, nor even be catalogued. So much for freedom of speech in public libraries, eh! Conspiracy? Nah, just selfish arrogance.

I do not mean to be contentious, but what most people might call liberal media, I tend to think of as being moderate. I realize there are some left leaning, maybe a few far lefties out there too. I am not surprised by the inability to build a truly liberal alternative TV. This would not be a political climate in which those with the money to accomplish such a mission are likely to be wastrels. Bill Maher's assessment of the relationship between financing and all the news that's fit to broadcast is about as accurate as any will ever get. Print media seems able to keep a good yeasty balance moving around all over the place, however, thusfar... no complaints there as far as I am concerned. My beef is with the people I have mentioned, not with FOX TV, where there are several fine commentators in the majority.

I do find it somewhat odd to regard liberals, anymore, as being in sole possession of the "big government all the time" mantle... facts are facts, and conservatives have been eating at that trough plenty in the past 200 years too. I guess it just depends on "whose ox is being gored", like they say.

Since this thread began with the word "Conspiracy", I hasten to add that I don't actually regard it as being one, not in total. Sometimes it might be, or want to be, but mainly it just seems to be a function of the massive scale, amount of money and number of personalities involved in electronic media... unintended consequences. The point is that we must not allow it to become one.

I suppose it would be most fair to see that O'Reilly and Hannity etc. stand for the editorial page of FOX TV, as it were. Normally, whatever is on the editorial page is the intended underlying philosophy of the group. I believe FOX could find better editors, would be one suggestion. Appealing to the "us vs them" emotions of americans is what they are doing very thoroughly these days, and as you said, the sooner we recognize and put an end to that the better.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 09-06-2003, 11:51 PM
Arrow's Avatar
Arrow Arrow is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Indian Territory
Posts: 4,240
Distinctions
POM Contributor 
Default

Mike...

If you will notice I didn't accuse you of not loving the country. I merely asked a question.

And of course that question is colored by my own experience and worldview. It would be impossible for me to love a man, die for a cause, or defend a flag if I didn't believe they were all worthy of my life and my passion. That does not mean they would be without imperfections it simply means that even with imperfections the man, the cause and the flag rise above everything I know to compare them to.

It goes along with my desire in life to keep things uncomplicated and simple.
__________________

Thomas Jefferson, Kentucky Resolutions of 1798: "In questions of power then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution."
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 09-08-2003, 07:14 AM
SuperScout's Avatar
SuperScout SuperScout is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Dec 1969
Location: Out in the country, near Dripping Springs TX
Posts: 5,734
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default BLUE

After reading again your comments and replies to others, I submit that you should change your name from BLUEHAWK to BLUEDOVE, so as to more accurately describe your positions.

1. The UN? They are not so threatening, but are virtually inept when it comes to dealing with real problems. Cases in point: Rwanda, where 500,000+ people were slaughtered, while UN peacekeepers were fleeing for their lives, and the UN itself twiddled ther collective thumbs. (The beloved leader of our last administration at the time was too busy zipping up his pants to lift a finger to stop this genocide. And then irony of ironies, he's salivated over as the First Black President.) For years following the First Gulf War, they passed resolution after sanction, condeming Iraq, and ultimately did nothing to back up their threats of action. I could cite more details, but hopefully you get the picture why thoughtful people view the UN as an anachronism at best, and a worthless debating society at worst.

1.A. Insulting France's Integrity? And if our government, talk shows, and the vast majority of Americans slam the French for their perfidious behaviour, is that really insulting France's integrity? Issuing visas for fleeings Iraqi war crimes suspects?Show us an example of France's integrity - it's as absent as their military prowess.

2. Jane Fonda's expressing remorse? BFD. Many convicted murderers have expressed remorse right before they have the needle inserted; their remorse does not absolve them of the conseqeunces of their crimes, anymore than does JF wringing her hands. She's still a traitorous bitch. What most liberals fail to grasp is that there are consequences of their actions and to their failed policies.

3. Liberal media? Why not look at accurately derived data, as in interviews with all segments of the media. These facts clearly present the reality that the press is liberal by far, in their own words (Jayson Blair notwithstanding). Who have they voted for in the past, in overwhelming numbers? Even ol' Uncle Waltie has finally admitted the truth for a change. If you think the mainstream media is moderate, you might want to go mainline another cup of coffee. And there is a truly alternative liberal TV program - or programs - just tune in to CBS, NBC and ABC. The success of the FNC stems from the fact that people grew tired of being force-fed crap by commentators trying to peddle opinion as news. Their continuing drop in viewers, all the while correspoinding to a rising viewership on the FNC should tell you something. Journalists, as you so correctly pointed out, should report the news; but what we have passing themselves off as reporters are nothing but commentators, and lousy ones at that.

4. Voting record? I find it hard to believe that you can call yourself "conservative." Your comments on these sites almost from the gitgo have spoken frequently to the contrary. Not that there's anything woring with being a liberal.... to paraphrase Seinfeld.......and defending Michael Kinsley? He's so far to the left that thankfully, he's almost out of sight.

5. Big guvmint? I condemn all efforts to increase the role and function of the federal guvmint beyond that which is constitutionally mandated. And I could care less who's the culprit of the increasing size; I'm extremely disappointed (and am taking appropriate actions) by some in Congress to add yet another entitlement to the books, thereby furthering imprisoning the present and the future to pay for this bloat. Big guvmint should be opposed at every level, not just at the federal; for example, by illegally granting drivers' licenses to wetbacks, California is enabling more taxpayer burden for the multitude of benefits these wets demand. For no other reason than this, Gray Davis should be impeached, and convicted, if not voted out of office first. And the remainder of the country will see the painful truth of what happens when big guvmint gets too big: California is about to implode upon itself, and no amount of pointing the finger at wasskely Wepublicans will convince anybody with even a modicum of brainpower that spending like a drunken sailor is a good thing, even in California.

6. Quebecinization of America is my lament of how weird, wacky, and freqeuntly ill-advised things start in California, and then are mongrelified and exported to other states. I fear that the insanity of the drivers' license issue will soon find its way eastward, thereby adding to security problems, state budget deficits, language putrification, and more crime.
__________________
One Big Ass Mistake, America

"Political correctness is a doctrine, fostered by a delusional, illogical minority, and rabidly promoted by an unscrupulous mainstream media, which holds forth the proposition that it is entirely possible to pick up a turd by the clean end."
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 09-08-2003, 10:35 AM
Seascamp Seascamp is offline
Senior Member
 

Join Date: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,754
Distinctions
VOM Contributor 
Default

In reality, we all have a bias toward eye and ear candy of our choosing. In terms of objective news and news analysis it?s a choice of least worst and no better than that. I have totally given up on CNN as being able to do anything without spin and tall tales. A few times they have reported on things I had direct and personal knowledge of and they out and out fib and fabricate and that ain?t no shit. The truth doesn?t hurt but if CNN can?t put a Liberal spin on stuff I believe they would grab their chest and fall over dead. They are simply the worst of worsts and it?s no small wonder they can no longer compete and run with second and third-rate talent. My preference is either MSNBC or Fox as they both seem to at least try to keep the BS and spin down to a dull roar. Besides that, I?m an indirect stockholder in MSNBC and ya can bet your boots they hear from me if they put up some dope or dopette up that cant speak without some stupid Liberal political spin. I just wish I had the same level of stock ownership in Fox. That outfit is red hot and growing by leaps and bounds. If I did, ya can bet I?d be sitting on a beach in Tahiti sipping some suds and watching for what the waving grass reveals.

Politically, I?m a matching bookend to Griz and have just grown very weary of the Liberal subtrafudge now ya see now ya don?t shell game. Every Sunday morning I read the San Francisco Chronicle and the Reno Gazette Journal and compare who is saying what about what and that is an astounding journey into the art of Liberal subtrafudge. Heck, I started out as a registered Democrat and feel very angry that the liberals have hijacked my home party. So that mob did a student body left, I stayed the same, so I guess that makes me a center of the road more or less Republican of sorts, maybe. But I?m mostly disinterested and resentful of all the wasteful political skullduggery and deception that plays out 24/7. Anymore, I think the best way would be to grab up a couple of rasty, feisty Tom cats, tie their tails together, label one L and one C, pitch them over a clothes line and the last one howling gets to be da King, Papa Doc, President for life. That would be a lot more honest than what we got coming down, for sure.

Scamp

P.S. And Scout,
One more deal. Unless Cal takes steps to issue a different type of drivers license to the Wets, guess who just picked up the vote franchise. In most places it only takes a drivers license to register to vote so they are in. I have a bad vision of bus loads of Mexicans coming across the border just to get a drivers license and register to vote, the going on back home to await US election time. Who knows, we could get all of northern Mexico in the Cal voting pool now. If nothing else his nibs Guv Davis deserves the Darwin Award for the most stupid suicidal government act of the century. If all this comes to fruition, the Cal vote becomes meaningless, watered down and totally without credibility. Just what we need, right.

__________________
I'd rather be a hammer than a nail, yes I would, I really would.
sendpm.gif Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
fodder for conspiracy savage grace General Posts 3 06-17-2005 01:31 PM
A Conspiracy of Lies/All The Way To The Top?? HARDCORE General Posts 0 10-24-2004 08:05 AM
Conspiracy Theories thedrifter Marines 0 01-08-2004 05:20 AM
Enigma Or Conspiracy HARDCORE General Posts 0 01-03-2003 12:05 PM
Coincidence or Conspiracy????? thedrifter General Posts 4 05-29-2002 10:11 AM

All times are GMT -7. The time now is 02:19 AM.


Powered by vBulletin, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.