Man Stabs Himself So He Doesn't Have To Work At Blockbuster

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 7, 8:52 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....TakeThisOut@brain.invalid> wrote:
> There, there Cal... Be a good fellow and drink your milk.
> Mommy is bringing you your tinfoil hat and will chase all
> the big bad liberals away...

Unfortunately the liberals are here to stay. A grim consolation
in all this is that those liberals who are not so extreme, but have
enabled the extremists, are going to suffer for what they have
brought on everyone.

And that includes you, unless you are merely posing as a
liberal for the fun of it. Who knows, or cares?

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 7, 9:29 am, trotsky <gmsi... DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
> moviePig wrote:
> > On Nov 6, 8:19 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> >> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 6, 5:27 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> >>>> On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>> On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... DeleteThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> "calvin" <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>> So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
> >>>>>>>>>>>> and other things on which they vote, is okay?
> >>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
> >>>>>>>>>>> Please provide proof.
> >>>>>>>>>> Here ya go:
> >>>>>>>>>>http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
> >>>>>>>>> Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
> >>>>>>>>> the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
> >>>>>>>>> little value.
> >>>>>>>>> Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
> >>>>>>>>> of touch with modern business thought.
> >>>>>>>>> How about another, more credible, source?
> >>>>>>>> Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
> >>>>>>>> yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
> >>>>>>>> Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
> >>>>>>>> want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
> >>>>>>>> ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
> >>>>>>>> complaining is right-wing or not.
> >>>>>>>> In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
> >>>>>>>> is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
> >>>>>>>> dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
> >>>>>>>> don't bother to report it.
> >>>>>>>> I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
> >>>>>>>> documents from the National Archives, and I documented
> >>>>>>>> it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
> >>>>>>>> the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
> >>>>>>>> to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
> >>>>>>>> Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
> >>>>>>>> is wrong.
> >>>>>>> If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
> >>>>>>> DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
> >>>>>> Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
> >>>>>> removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
> >>>>>> been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
> >>>>>> non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
> >>>>>> shall become unionized or not.
> >>>>> If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
> >>>>> it instead as inadvertent honesty...
> >>>> My point is only that these are news items, not
> >>>> editorials.
> >>> My point is only that, for convincing others of something, citing only
> >>> Limbaugh and Hume might not be maximally efficient.
> >> When the mainstream media don't care enough
> >> to report that which makes the left uncomfortable,
> >> then Limbaugh and Hume become as efficient as
> >> one will be able to find to cite.
>
> >> Your innate cynical devining rod is always strangely
> >> inert in the presence of mischief on the left.
>
> > Jeez, and there I was thinking I'd *just* made somewhere up there an
> > analogous remark about Olbermann and DailyKos. Must've been an
> > artefact of Liberal DTs...
>
> Or artifact, as the case may be.

Per Wiki -- "# artefact or artifact: In British usage, artefact is the
main spelling and artifact a minor variant. In American English,
artifact is the usual spelling. Canadians prefer artifact and
Australians artefact, according to their respective dictionaries.
Artefact reflects Arte-fact(um), the Latin source."

I debated, but relied on the most recent instance I recalled --
probably in British subtitles. So, I admit that you and your Canadian
friends seem indeed to be correct... (if a bit arty-factual...)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 7, 9:55 am, "Stone me" <sun....TakeThisOut@boulevard.hwd> wrote:
> "calvin" <cri....TakeThisOut@windstream.net> wrote in message
>
> news:31e1934d-25a9-4856-951b-3bef9dee53a0@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 7, 8:52 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....TakeThisOut@brain.invalid> wrote:
>
> > There, there Cal... Be a good fellow and drink your milk.
> > Mommy is bringing you your tinfoil hat and will chase all
> > the big bad liberals away...
>
> Unfortunately the liberals are here to stay. A grim consolation
> in all this is that those liberals who are not so extreme, but have
> enabled the extremists, are going to suffer for what they have
> brought on everyone.
>
> And that includes you, unless you are merely posing as a
> liberal for the fun of it. Who knows, or cares?
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> Re: liberals and a liberal society.
> Perhaps liberals are those who have a different point of view.
> The word extreme seems to be a value you place with liberals,
> yet I detect no such concerns about those who are to the right
> of your point of view. Did GWB "enable" Right wing extremists,
> I wonder?
> Generally most of us are committed to our differing points of view,
> and elections make no difference in the way we cast our vote(s).
> Those who do change their votes from the choice of two have
> no trouble with the concerns you raise.
> The people I suspect elections are for are like that woman who
> complained that she had voted for Obama, but her husband and
> herself were unemployed so she will be voting Republican next
> time.
> In the UK, many people have expressed a desire to vote for the
> Fascist party, BNP at the next election. Fortunately most of them
> could not find their way to a polling station.
> Liberals as you insist on calling them are people who want a
> society that has been well described. The difference is a moral
> rather than a fiscal one.
> Obama has by his taking the highest office in the land, made a
> section of people feel that the American Dream can still be
> something they can dream in too.
> I think of Nat King Cole, who, when taking up residence in a
> Hollywood street, was approached by one of his neighbours,
> (presumably after the word "n....r" was burned or dug into his lawn)
> "we just want to live in an area where there are no bad people"
> To which Cole replied, "me too".

(Don't take it as future obligation, but... that's a pretty good
post.)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 7, 9:55 am, "Stone me" <sun....TakeThisOut@boulevard.hwd> wrote:
> ...
> Obama has by his taking the highest office in the land, made a
> section of people feel that the American Dream can still be
> something they can dream in too.
> I think of Nat King Cole, who, when taking up residence in a
> Hollywood street, was approached by one of his neighbours,
> (presumably after the word "n....r" was burned or dug into his lawn)
> "we just want to live in an area where there are no bad people"
> To which Cole replied, "me too".

I haven't been ranting about racial issues. I've said before
that the one good thing about Obama's election was the
breaking of the color barrier. It's what Obama's agenda is
bringing to the country that is the problem. It would have
been an unmixed great thing if the color barrier had been
broken by the election of someone like Condoleezza Rice,
who would not have brought economic destruction along
with her.

The Giant Brain · External Since: Aug 19, 2009 Posts: 25

"calvin" <crice5.RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:4de47316-ba83-48e0-98a2-15bcbef5b513@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 6, 10:33 pm, "The Giant Brain" <gi....RemoveThis@brain.invalid> wrote:
> The dittoheads are amusing when they complain about the "liberal press" but
> don't say a word about the rightwing nutjobs like Limbaugh, Hannity and
> O'Reilly...

The right has FoxNews and most of talk radio. The left has
NBC, CBS, ABC, MSNBC, CNN, The New York Times, The
Washington Post, The Los Angeles Times, Newsweek, Time, ...

Currently the media of the right care about what is happening
to the country. The media of the left (see above) care only
that the first black President succeeds in doing whatever he
wants to do. They couldn't care less what the horrific effects
might be, so long as he is a success. Do they care that the
near trillion dollar stimulus bill was only a pork bill? No, he
wanted it, so it was good. Do they care that the 'cap and trade'
bill will cripple U.S. industry? No, he wants it, so it will be
good. Do they care that the 2000 page healthcare bill that will
cost a trillion dollars is for the most part incomprehensible to
anyone who cares to read it? No, he wants it, so we can find
out after it passes whatever it is that it says, or they will claim it
says.

The Obama administration is absolute madness, destined to
wreck the country, but only the right cares; the left steamrolls
onward, blindly following their extremist leaders. They won the
election, so the country be damned.
----------------------------------------------------------

There, there Cal... Be a good fellow and drink your milk. Mommy is bringing you
your tinfoil hat and will chase all the big bad liberals away...

The Giant Brain · External Since: Aug 19, 2009 Posts: 25

"calvin" <crice5.DeleteThis@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:31e1934d-25a9-4856-951b-3bef9dee53a0@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 7, 8:52 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi....DeleteThis@brain.invalid> wrote:
> There, there Cal... Be a good fellow and drink your milk.
> Mommy is bringing you your tinfoil hat and will chase all
> the big bad liberals away...

Unfortunately the liberals are here to stay. A grim consolation
in all this is that those liberals who are not so extreme, but have
enabled the extremists, are going to suffer for what they have
brought on everyone.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Relax bunky, the Republic is in no danger.
We survived 8 years of Dubya (barely) and can take a few more years of Obama (I
think he's a one-termer.)
Middle-of-the-road republicans are being disenfranchised by the extreme right ,
as represented by Limbaugh, Hannity, O'Reilly, FOX News and the
bimbo-of-the-month Palin.
The pendulum swings both ways, now it's swinging to the left. It will eventually
swing back, it always does.

********************************************************************

And that includes you, unless you are merely posing as a
liberal for the fun of it. Who knows, or cares?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
You know you care Cal!
Actually I am conservative on many fiscal issues and liberal on social issues.
I think there should be a single-payer health system in this country, managed by
the government and financed by making the wealthy pay their fair share of taxes.
Sputter on Cal...

trotsky · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 2503

moviePig wrote:
> On Nov 6, 8:19 pm, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Nov 6, 5:27 pm, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall... RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso... RemoveThis @aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... RemoveThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "calvin" <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
>>>>>>>>>>>> and other things on which they vote, is okay?
>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide proof.
>>>>>>>>>> Here ya go:
>>>>>>>>>> http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>>>>>>>>> Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
>>>>>>>>> the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
>>>>>>>>> little value.
>>>>>>>>> Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
>>>>>>>>> of touch with modern business thought.
>>>>>>>>> How about another, more credible, source?
>>>>>>>> Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
>>>>>>>> yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
>>>>>>>> Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
>>>>>>>> want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
>>>>>>>> ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
>>>>>>>> complaining is right-wing or not.
>>>>>>>> In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
>>>>>>>> is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
>>>>>>>> dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
>>>>>>>> don't bother to report it.
>>>>>>>> I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
>>>>>>>> documents from the National Archives, and I documented
>>>>>>>> it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
>>>>>>>> the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
>>>>>>>> to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
>>>>>>>> Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
>>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>> If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
>>>>>>> DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
>>>>>> Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
>>>>>> removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
>>>>>> been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
>>>>>> non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
>>>>>> shall become unionized or not.
>>>>> If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
>>>>> it instead as inadvertent honesty...
>>>> My point is only that these are news items, not
>>>> editorials.
>>> My point is only that, for convincing others of something, citing only
>>> Limbaugh and Hume might not be maximally efficient.
>> When the mainstream media don't care enough
>> to report that which makes the left uncomfortable,
>> then Limbaugh and Hume become as efficient as
>> one will be able to find to cite.
>>
>> Your innate cynical devining rod is always strangely
>> inert in the presence of mischief on the left.
>
> Jeez, and there I was thinking I'd *just* made somewhere up there an
> analogous remark about Olbermann and DailyKos. Must've been an
> artefact of Liberal DTs...

Or artifact, as the case may be.

trotsky · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 2503

moviePig wrote:
> On Nov 7, 9:29 am, trotsky <gmsi... DeleteThis @email.com> wrote:
>> moviePig wrote:
>>> On Nov 6, 8:19 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>>>> On Nov 6, 6:08 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 6, 5:27 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 6, 3:09 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2:38 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 2:24 pm, moviePig <pwall... DeleteThis @moviepig.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 1:16 pm, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 6, 11:29 am, Tom <drso... DeleteThis @aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 10:14 am, calvin <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Nov 5, 9:46 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... DeleteThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "calvin" <cri... DeleteThis @windstream.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So, you think denial of secret ballots in union elections,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> and other things on which they vote, is okay?
>>>>>>>>>>>>> ------------------------------------------------
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Please provide proof.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Here ya go:
>>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.uschamber.com/issues/index/labor/cardchecksecrbal.htm
>>>>>>>>>>> Calvin, the low esteem with which many large American companies hold
>>>>>>>>>>> the Chamber of Commerce is a big signal the Chamber's opinion is of
>>>>>>>>>>> little value.
>>>>>>>>>>> Large companies are leaving the Chamber in droves because it is so out
>>>>>>>>>>> of touch with modern business thought.
>>>>>>>>>>> How about another, more credible, source?
>>>>>>>>>> Okay, I'll Google some others, as you could do for
>>>>>>>>>> yourself. This is a simple matter of fact, however.
>>>>>>>>>> Having to publicly sign a card saying whether you
>>>>>>>>>> want a union in your place of work is a non-secret
>>>>>>>>>> ballot. It doesn't matter whether the institution
>>>>>>>>>> complaining is right-wing or not.
>>>>>>>>>> In general, when reporting an outrage, the reporter
>>>>>>>>>> is more likely to be on the ideological side that most
>>>>>>>>>> dislikes the outrage. Those who don't mind the outrage
>>>>>>>>>> don't bother to report it.
>>>>>>>>>> I once told a poster here about Sandy Berger taking
>>>>>>>>>> documents from the National Archives, and I documented
>>>>>>>>>> it with reports by Rush Limbaugh and Brit Hume. But
>>>>>>>>>> the poster declared, "I know those guys", and refused
>>>>>>>>>> to believe therefore that Berger did anything wrong.
>>>>>>>>>> Apparently he will believe only what Keith Olbermann thinks
>>>>>>>>>> is wrong.
>>>>>>>>> If I had a "fact" that I could document only with, say, Olbermann and
>>>>>>>>> DailyKos, I'd present it as, at most, rumor.
>>>>>>>> Okay, it has been rumored that Sandy Berger was caught
>>>>>>>> removing documents from the National Archives, and it has
>>>>>>>> been rumored that the Obama Administration has supported
>>>>>>>> non-secret ballots on the question of whether workplaces
>>>>>>>> shall become unionized or not.
>>>>>>> If you're trying to make a point with irony, I gotta say I'm receiving
>>>>>>> it instead as inadvertent honesty...
>>>>>> My point is only that these are news items, not
>>>>>> editorials.
>>>>> My point is only that, for convincing others of something, citing only
>>>>> Limbaugh and Hume might not be maximally efficient.
>>>> When the mainstream media don't care enough
>>>> to report that which makes the left uncomfortable,
>>>> then Limbaugh and Hume become as efficient as
>>>> one will be able to find to cite.
>>>> Your innate cynical devining rod is always strangely
>>>> inert in the presence of mischief on the left.
>>> Jeez, and there I was thinking I'd *just* made somewhere up there an
>>> analogous remark about Olbermann and DailyKos. Must've been an
>>> artefact of Liberal DTs...
>> Or artifact, as the case may be.
>
> Per Wiki -- "# artefact or artifact: In British usage, artefact is the
> main spelling and artifact a minor variant. In American English,
> artifact is the usual spelling. Canadians prefer artifact and
> Australians artefact, according to their respective dictionaries.
> Artefact reflects Arte-fact(um), the Latin source."
>
> I debated, but relied on the most recent instance I recalled --
> probably in British subtitles. So, I admit that you and your Canadian
> friends seem indeed to be correct... (if a bit arty-factual...)

Okay, I may have seen that spelling at some point in time whilst reading
Brit. Lit., but more recently we have seen the term used ad infinitum
when discussing high end video, so I don't think the alternate spelling
comes up much. Interestingly (to a spelling geek anyway) my
spellchecker in Thunderbird underlines "artefact" as if it is an
incorrect spelling.

Stone me · External Since: Jan 11, 2009 Posts: 25

"calvin" <crice5 RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote in message
news:31e1934d-25a9-4856-951b-3bef9dee53a0@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 7, 8:52 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... RemoveThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
> There, there Cal... Be a good fellow and drink your milk.
> Mommy is bringing you your tinfoil hat and will chase all
> the big bad liberals away...

Unfortunately the liberals are here to stay. A grim consolation
in all this is that those liberals who are not so extreme, but have
enabled the extremists, are going to suffer for what they have
brought on everyone.

And that includes you, unless you are merely posing as a
liberal for the fun of it. Who knows, or cares?
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Re: liberals and a liberal society.
Perhaps liberals are those who have a different point of view.
The word extreme seems to be a value you place with liberals,
yet I detect no such concerns about those who are to the right
of your point of view. Did GWB "enable" Right wing extremists,
I wonder?
Generally most of us are committed to our differing points of view,
and elections make no difference in the way we cast our vote(s).
Those who do change their votes from the choice of two have
no trouble with the concerns you raise.
The people I suspect elections are for are like that woman who
complained that she had voted for Obama, but her husband and
herself were unemployed so she will be voting Republican next
time.
In the UK, many people have expressed a desire to vote for the
Fascist party, BNP at the next election. Fortunately most of them
could not find their way to a polling station.
Liberals as you insist on calling them are people who want a
society that has been well described. The difference is a moral
rather than a fiscal one.
Obama has by his taking the highest office in the land, made a
section of people feel that the American Dream can still be
something they can dream in too.
I think of Nat King Cole, who, when taking up residence in a
Hollywood street, was approached by one of his neighbours,
(presumably after the word "n....r" was burned or dug into his lawn)
"we just want to live in an area where there are no bad people"
To which Cole replied, "me too".

Stone me.

trotsky · External Since: Dec 07, 2004 Posts: 2503

calvin wrote:
> On Nov 7, 9:55 am, "Stone me" <sun....RemoveThis@boulevard.hwd> wrote:
>> ...
>> Obama has by his taking the highest office in the land, made a
>> section of people feel that the American Dream can still be
>> something they can dream in too.
>> I think of Nat King Cole, who, when taking up residence in a
>> Hollywood street, was approached by one of his neighbours,
>> (presumably after the word "n....r" was burned or dug into his lawn)
>> "we just want to live in an area where there are no bad people"
>> To which Cole replied, "me too".
>
> I haven't been ranting about racial issues.

No, you've been ranting about divisiveness.

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 7, 9:09 am, calvin <cri... RemoveThis @windstream.net> wrote:
> On Nov 7, 8:52 am, "The Giant Brain" <gi... RemoveThis @brain.invalid> wrote:
>
> > There, there Cal... Be a good fellow and drink your milk.
> > Mommy is bringing you your tinfoil hat and will chase all
> > the big bad liberals away...
>
> Unfortunately the liberals are here to stay. A grim consolation
> in all this is that those liberals who are not so extreme, but have
> enabled the extremists, are going to suffer for what they have
> brought on everyone.
> ...

http://tinyurl.com/ykrtoey

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

David Oberman · External Since: Jan 08, 2009 Posts: 117

calvin <crice5.RemoveThis@windstream.net> wrote:

>Even more intelligent, which liberals will never understand,
>would be to let the wealthy keep more of their money, which would
>mean it stays invested and therefore boosts the economy and provides
>jobs;

I say let all of us keep most of our money. I don't need an
"Agricultural Marketing Service" -- who does?

Look at all this waste of everyone's money:

http://www.usa.gov/Agencies/Federal/All_Agencies/index.shtml

I look at that & I scream inwardly, over & over. It's a nightmare that
never ends, an eternal anxiety attack.

"Office of Government Ethics"?! http://www.usoge.gov/
What they do to us in real life is even more sophisticated satire than
anything you can read in Swift, Pope, or Voltaire.

____
On the question of playing continuo during a Mozart concerto, I can only
reaffirm my belief that it is perfectly fine as long as it is inaudible.

-- Charles Rosen, "The Classical Style"

David Oberman · External Since: Jan 08, 2009 Posts: 117

sirblob2 <sirblob2.DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:

>no, the you and calvin variety introducing nutty far right off topic
>banter is silly. i mean how can someone with his own private language
>like you, exist? coercion is a bunny rabbit and free market doesnt
>censor because mama cass is a bunny rabbit, jesus, you prolly take
>yourself seriously cuz money allows you to, wow

How would you describe:

1. Me?
2. Sutpen?
3. Karl Rackwitz?
4. Gaza?

calvin · External Since: Feb 07, 2009 Posts: 91

On Nov 11, 7:00 pm, sirblob2 <sirbl....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> no, the you and calvin variety introducing nutty far right off topic
> banter is silly. i mean how can someone with his own private language
> like you, exist? coercion is a bunny rabbit and free market doesnt
> censor because mama cass is a bunny rabbit, jesus, you prolly take
> yourself seriously cuz money allows you to, wow

It's funny how much alike you and The Giant Brain sound;
but aside from that (hear Willie Nelson's voice now): I am
always on your mind ..... I am always on your mind.

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 11, 8:28 pm, David Oberman <dober....DeleteThis@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> sirblob2 <sirbl....DeleteThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >no, the you and calvin variety introducing nutty far right off topic
> >banter is silly. i mean how can someone with his own private language
> >like you, exist? coercion is a bunny rabbit and free market doesnt
> >censor because mama cass is a bunny rabbit, jesus, you prolly take
> >yourself seriously cuz money allows you to, wow
>
> How would you describe:
>
> 1. Me?
> 2. Sutpen?
> 3. Karl Rackwitz?
> 4. Gaza?

(Pointed. But I'm not convinced you'd be listening past #1...)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

David Oberman · External Since: Jan 08, 2009 Posts: 117

moviePig <pwallace RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:

>> How would you describe:
>>
>> 1. Me?
>> 2. Sutpen?
>> 3. Karl Rackwitz?
>> 4. Gaza?
>
>(Pointed. But I'm not convinced you'd be listening past #1...)

I do like people to talk about me, as long as it's fair & balanced.
But I would like to know what happened to Karl Rackwitz. He was a
great contributor to this group for years.

And you-know-who is still missing . . . .

moviePig · External Since: Aug 08, 2005 Posts: 1701

On Nov 11, 11:29 pm, David Oberman <dober....RemoveThis@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> moviePig <pwall....RemoveThis@moviepig.com> wrote:
> >> How would you describe:
>
> >> 1. Me?
> >> 2. Sutpen?
> >> 3. Karl Rackwitz?
> >> 4. Gaza?
>
> >(Pointed. But I'm not convinced you'd be listening past #1...)
>
> I do like people to talk about me, as long as it's fair & balanced.
> But I would like to know what happened to Karl Rackwitz. He was a
> great contributor to this group for years.
>
> And you-know-who is still missing . . . .

So is Alric Knebel, btw. (Perhaps it's the Rapture...)

--

- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com

sirblob2 · External Since: Jun 15, 2009 Posts: 24

On 12 nov, 02:28, David Oberman <dober....TakeThisOut@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> sirblob2 <sirbl....TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >no, the you and calvin variety introducing nutty far right off topic
> >banter is silly. i mean how can someone with his own private language
> >like you, exist? coercion is a bunny rabbit and free market doesnt
> >censor because mama cass is a bunny rabbit, jesus, you prolly take
> >yourself seriously cuz money allows you to, wow
>
> How would you describe:
>
> 1. Me?

you introduced me to stevie nicks and kate bush...

> 2. Sutpen?

i dont like his film writing

> 3. Karl Rackwitz?

cant remember ppl from a decade ago, the golden age of usenet when 30
ppl would talk about the use of nuns in a movie

> 4. Gaza?

he may be as fascist as steve but at least he doesnt think himself the
roland barthes of the abramovich crowd

David Oberman · External Since: Jan 08, 2009 Posts: 117

moviePig <pwallace RemoveThis @moviepig.com> wrote:

>> And you-know-who is still missing . . . .
>
>So is Alric Knebel, btw. (Perhaps it's the Rapture...)

George, Derek, Alric . . . .
I'm getting nervous.

David Oberman · External Since: Jan 08, 2009 Posts: 117

sirblob2 <sirblob2 RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>> 1. Me?
>
>you introduced me to stevie nicks and kate bush...

I also taught you that Beethoven's Enlightenment views were planted in
him by his Bonn teacher, Neefe, & explained to you why those views did
NOT affect his music (with two or three exceptions) until years
afterward. (Plus, I told you what those exceptions were.)

>> 2. Sutpen?
>
>i dont like his film writing

You don't like his personality because he's too nice for you!

>> 3. Karl Rackwitz?
>
>cant remember ppl from a decade ago, the golden age of usenet when 30
>ppl would talk about the use of nuns in a movie

These kids today have no nostalgia other than a trendy nostalgie de la
boue.

>> 4. Gaza?
>
>he may be as fascist as steve but at least he doesnt think himself the
>roland barthes of the abramovich crowd

I see what you mean . . . .