Connect with us

OT: Al Franken

Discussion in 'CAD' started by Jim Thompson, Apr 2, 2004.

Scroll to continue with content
  1. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest


    So why isn't humanity 100% cowards by now?

    John
     
  2. What does it taste like? Is it one of those things like tofu that only
    tastes good or even okay because of what goes with it?

    From the description I looked up on the net, it seems like lutefisk
    only made with corn instead of codfish.

    http://www.ecst.csuchico.edu/~atman/ic/lutefisk.html

    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
     
  3. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest


    Well, people who disagree with you strongly are known quantities, and
    you can make rational decisions about how to deal with them. If they
    turn out to be cowards, you win. It's cowardly "allies" that are truly
    dangerous. The problem is, you can't really tell who has guts and
    honor until things get tough; that's why old, proven friends are the
    most reliable.

    It's surprising how many weenies there are, and who turns out to be
    brave when it matters. I think humans sort of naturally arrange
    themselves in hierarchal structures, with about one leader to maybe 20
    followers in each local cluster.

    John
     
  4. I read in sci.electronics.design that John Larkin <[email protected]
    techTHISnologyPLEASE.com> wrote (in <[email protected]
    4ax.com>) about 'Al Franken', on Sat, 3 Apr 2004:
    I daren't tell you.
     
  5. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

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

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

    However, I'd also place it in the role of more liberal, in the sense that
    its policies, while economically viable and based on sound economic theory,
    were not geared towards demolishing social programs for the benefit of the
    top 5%. Thus, I'd say that the prior administration was both more
    conservative AND more liberal than the current administration.
    The terms 'left-wing' and 'right-wing' derive from the sides of the aisle
    one sits on. Consequently, its by definition a 'political' definition, since
    republicans sit on the right side, and democrats sit on the left side, as
    seen from the back. Again, I'll agree with you, in this time of utter and
    complete war between parties, which party elected a representative is far
    more important than what they actually believe. Sadly... perhaps if this
    wasn't true, some of the recent insanity, such as the invasion of Iraq,
    could have been prevented. However, if a President is willing to lie to
    Congress, its difficult for them to make objective assessments;
    consequently, its possible that even with a more bipartisan congress, we
    would have been dragged into this quagmire.
    With good reason. If Ann Coulter or Rush Limbaugh started making those
    claims, they would be completely discredited. As it stands, they are simply
    comedians. In that role, they work well. Its similar to the Andrew Dice Clay
    phenomena, or the "Shock Jock" phenomena, where they say totally outrageous,
    unsubstantiated things to get a laugh. Listening to Rush Limbaugh after the
    Clark testimony was actually quite entertaining, what with the misstatements
    of fact, outright obvious lies, and devious attempts to paint the mostly
    right wing media who were reporting on these allegations as having 'left
    wing liberal bias'. Like the Wall Street Journal is a left wing liberal
    rag... However, I guess it depends on where you are standing. To Rush, the
    left is anybody left of the American Spectator...
    This is simply wrong. Read the section above, where I compare the liberal
    and conservative natures of the Clinton and Bush administrations. You seem
    to be somewhat confused about what the terms 'conservative' and 'liberal'
    mean.
    Again, you don't really know what the term 'liberal' means. Perhaps you
    should consult some basic texts on political theory before pretending to
    understand these terms?
    Ah, you are a 'thinking man'. I like that. Far better to try and figure
    things out for yourself than to echo the corrupt thinking of Rush Limbaugh
    or Ann Coulter (or Franken, for that matter.) These folks are, after all,
    commedians. They aren't asking to be taken seriously. They are entertainers.
    You, on the other hand, are asking to be taken seriously.
    Daschle, Kerry and Kennedy are well respected members of the Senate. What is
    your specific criticism of them, other than the fact that they were elected
    as Democrat? You seem to imply that they are 'wierdos' that are unstable and
    lack integrity. You provide absolutely no evidence of this. I guess we
    simply have to trust you.
    An excellent point from a 'radical centrist'. You seem to have difficulty
    disguising your loathing for these people. Why not try looking at the issues
    objectively, rather than simply attempting to rationalize your point of view
    by calling it 'centrist'?

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

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

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

    The GOPer usually gets attacked by behavior
    You mean like LYING TO CONGRESS AND STARTING A WAR? Was that one of the
    issues the Dems invented? You don't actually list any issues, you just keep
    saying that there are issues. Perhaps _you_ have issues with them?
    Again, this is a lie. You either made this up, or have been listening to
    somebody like Rush Limbaugh. Did I mention that Rush Limbaugh is a COMEDIAN?
    You probably shouldn't be taking what he says seriously...

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

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

    However, nobody blamed the recession on Bush. Everbody knew that the bubble
    had burst, and that there was going to be a downturn. The real question is
    what they did about it. Using their dogmatic approach, income tax cuts, did
    nothing to help (nobody really expected them to help.) 9/11 clearly didn't
    help, but another tax cut during wartime clearly didn't help. The fact that
    we are now recovering, slowly, after 3 (or 4) years is more a statement
    about the resiliency of the american economy despite bad fiscal management
    than anything else.
    Ah, another 'radical centrist' statement. I hope you are really in the
    center. If you are, that means that there are only a few actual right
    wingers out there, and that the November election will be a breeze for the
    Democrats.
    I find it difficult to trust your ability to judge integrity in others.
    My advice to you is go write some more wonderful BSD code. Thats appears to
    be a much more productive use of your time.

    Regards,
    Bob Monsen
     
  7. Roger Gt

    Roger Gt Guest

    X-No-Archive: yes
    "John Larkin" wrote
    <snip>
    : > They didn't like
    : >"Loyalists" or "Tories". The other side (Liberal) here would be
    the
    : >"Grits", which is unrelated to US (hominy) grits, AFAIK.
    :
    : Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and
    around
    : here, occasionally, dinner) food.
    : Anybody body my recipe for fried grits?

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

    When we are reduced to grits and greens we do have a depression!
     
  8. Roger Gt

    Roger Gt Guest

    X-No-Archive: yes
    "John Larkin" wrote
    : Fred Bloggs wrote
    : >Jim Thompson wrote:
    : >>
    : >> Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like
    TORY.
    : >>
    : >> However, as I've recently been found out, I'm more
    Libertarian than
    : >> Republican, though I do have an intense aversion to cowards
    ;-)
    : >> ...Jim Thompson
    : >
    : >Natural selection favors cowardice- the brave are killed off in
    wars.
    <snip>:
    : So why isn't humanity 100% cowards by now?

    Because it isn't true
     
  9. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

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

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

    "Grits" is always singular.

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

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


    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
     
  11. I had it in my Nvy days with boiled okra and chicken-fried rabbit. they
    didn't help the grits.
     
  12. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

    So my "mush" recollection was correct?

    ...Jim Thompson
     
  13. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

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

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

    John
     
  14. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

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

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

    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
     
  16. John Fields

    John Fields Guest

    ---
    Actually, boiled okra is like tapioca held together with snot, but
    slice it into disks and and heat it up with diced tomatoes and onions
    that have been sauteed along with a little garlic (the onions, not the
    tomatoes) and you'll be in for a treat!

    Cooking oatmeal for too long is what makes it gross, but even that can
    be rescued by stirring in a handful of raw oatmeal just before it's
    served.
     
  17. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

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

    ...Jim Thompson
     
  18. John Larkin

    John Larkin Guest

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

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

    Best regards,
    Spehro Pefhany
     
  20. Jim Thompson

    Jim Thompson Guest

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

    ...Jim Thompson
     
Ask a Question
Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?
You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.
Electronics Point Logo
Continue to site
Quote of the day

-