OT: Al Franken

[R. Steve Walz]

John Larkin wrote:

Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like TORY.
------------------

Nonsense.

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

There's some serious stuff behind the macho manly-man thing: you
survive and prosper by partnering with people you can trust, and you
can never trust a coward.

John
---------------

Or a brave person who disagrees with you strongly.
Figure out which is which.

-Steve
--
-Steve Walz rstevew@armory.com ftp://ftp.armory.com/pub/user/rstevew
Electronics Site!! 1000's of Files and Dirs!! With Schematics Galore!!
http://www.armory.com/~rstevew or http://www.armory.com/~rstevew/Public

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Rich Webb
<bbew.ar@mapson.nozirev.ten> wrote (in <gp8s60ljj1jelh9rb00lv70au4140fp8
0e@4ax.com&gt about 'Al Frankenstein', on Sat, 3 Apr 2004:

Not to put words in John D's mouth but for myself, I regard
liberal-conservative as one axis and (in the present context) the US
left-right as an orthogonal axis.

The conservative-right and liberal-left quadrants are the more populous
but the so-called Rockefeller Republicans on the one hand and the
Dixiecrats on the other would be examples of the liberal-right and
conservative-left, respectively.

Politics in England is certainly two-dimensional like that. We have
significant political people that can easily be placed in one of each of
the four quadrants.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that R. Steve Walz <rstevew@armory.com>
wrote (in <406E37E3.24A8@armory.com&gt about 'Al Frankenstein', on Sat, 3
Apr 2004:

There is no such thing as a Leftist "bias", because Leftism is the
Truth, not any bias!!

Of course, Your Holiness.

How do you manage to achieve this mix of good, insightful sense and
arrant nonsense? Is it a gift or did you have special training?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <udds60hir2ms9rf1i16ha06nqfee1drl8g@
4ax.com&gt about 'Al Franken', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:

Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like TORY.

What does that word 'TORY' mean to an American? Something different from
'a member of the British Conservative Party', I feel sure.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:12:43 +0100, the renowned John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <udds60hir2ms9rf1i16ha06nqfee1drl8g@
4ax.com&gt about 'Al Franken', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:
Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like TORY.

What does that word 'TORY' mean to an American? Something different from
'a member of the British Conservative Party', I feel sure.

Conservatives in Canada and Australia too- definitely the "right" end
of the political spectrum despite the Canadian variety calling
themselves "Progressive Conservatives". Probably related to that
insurgency that was going on there some years back. They didn't like
"Loyalists" or "Tories". The other side (Liberal) here would be the
"Grits", which is unrelated to US (hominy) grits, AFAIK.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Fred Bloggs]

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.
Scientific experiments have been conducted on mice that prove cowardice
is an inherited trait- switching offspring between bold mice and timid
mice at birth allowing the bold/timid to raise the timid/bold, and
mixing/matching bold/timid pairs, the offspring exhibit their
statistical biological traits regardless. Surveys show that in times of
scarcity, the bold population dwindles, killed off by predators while
recklessly foraging ever further from protection in search of food, and
the timid mice just get skinny but mostly survive. In the human domain-
the cowards do not participate in fighting- so they either enjoy the
privileges won for them by the brave or survive in slavery- either way
they keep on breeding.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote (in <406ED02D.3090009@nospam.com&gt about 'Al Franken', on Sat, 3
Apr 2004:

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.
Scientific experiments have been conducted on mice that prove cowardice
is an inherited trait- switching offspring between bold mice and timid
mice at birth allowing the bold/timid to raise the timid/bold, and
mixing/matching bold/timid pairs, the offspring exhibit their
statistical biological traits regardless. Surveys show that in times of
scarcity, the bold population dwindles, killed off by predators while
recklessly foraging ever further from protection in search of food, and
the timid mice just get skinny but mostly survive. In the human domain-
the cowards do not participate in fighting- so they either enjoy the
privileges won for them by the brave or survive in slavery- either way
they keep on breeding.

I'd like to argue strongly against that, but I don't dare to. (;-)

So, for world peace, we need to identify the boldness gene and eradicate
it?
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Jim Thompson]

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:12:43 +0100, John Woodgate
<jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <udds60hir2ms9rf1i16ha06nqfee1drl8g@
4ax.com&gt about 'Al Franken', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:
Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like TORY.

What does that word 'TORY' mean to an American? Something different from
'a member of the British Conservative Party', I feel sure.

During the Revolutionary War, British supporters/cowards were labeled
Tory.

...Jim Thompson
--
| James E.Thompson, P.E. | mens |
| Analog Innovations, Inc. | et |
| Analog/Mixed-Signal ASIC's and Discrete Systems | manus |
| Phoenix, Arizona Voice480)460-2350 | |
| E-mail Address at Website Fax480)460-2142 | Brass Rat |
| http://www.analog-innovations.com | 1962 |

I love to cook with wine. Sometimes I even put it in the food.

 

[Fred Bloggs]

John Woodgate wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com
wrote (in <406ED02D.3090009@nospam.com&gt about 'Al Franken', on Sat, 3
Apr 2004:


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.
Scientific experiments have been conducted on mice that prove cowardice
is an inherited trait- switching offspring between bold mice and timid
mice at birth allowing the bold/timid to raise the timid/bold, and
mixing/matching bold/timid pairs, the offspring exhibit their
statistical biological traits regardless. Surveys show that in times of
scarcity, the bold population dwindles, killed off by predators while
recklessly foraging ever further from protection in search of food, and
the timid mice just get skinny but mostly survive. In the human domain-
the cowards do not participate in fighting- so they either enjoy the
privileges won for them by the brave or survive in slavery- either way
they keep on breeding.



I'd like to argue strongly against that, but I don't dare to. (;-)

So, for world peace, we need to identify the boldness gene and eradicate
it?

For world peace, we need to identify the stupidity gene and eradicate
that. The bold are more victims of war more than instigators. This most
recent war was started by the non-bold to be sure.

 

[John Woodgate]

I read in sci.electronics.design that Fred Bloggs <nospam@nospam.com>
wrote (in <406EDB1D.9090202@nospam.com&gt about 'Al Franken', on Sat, 3
Apr 2004:

For world peace, we need to identify the stupidity gene and eradicate that.

But has anyone done any experiments on mice to show that there is such a
gene?

The
bold are more victims of war more than instigators.

That may well be true now, although it wasn't in the past.

This most recent war was
started by the non-bold to be sure.

There's 'bold' and 'bold'.
--
Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
The good news is that nothing is compulsory.
The bad news is that everything is prohibited.
http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk Also see http://www.isce.org.uk

 

[Spehro Pefhany]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 15:41:22 GMT, the renowned Fred Bloggs
<nospam@nospam.com> wrote:

For world peace, we need to identify the stupidity gene and eradicate
that. The bold are more victims of war more than instigators. This most
recent war was started by the non-bold to be sure.

Maybe avian DNA investigations can isolate the chickenhawk gene.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff@interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com

 

[Chuck Harris]

For those who don't know:

doctrinaire - adj. dogmatic, or fanatical about another's
acceptance of one's theories or teaching.

dogma - n. that which is held as an opinion; esp.
a definite Tenet.

dogmatic - adj. of, or pertaining to dogma.

fanatic - adj. Governed or produced by too great zeal.
excessively enthusiastic, esp. on religious
subjects.

fanatical - adj. fanatic.

Tenet - n. Any principle, dogma, belief, or doctrine,
held as true, esp. by an organization. SYN.
see doctrine.

The below should make more sense now.

-Chuck Harris

John Dyson wrote:

Thank you!!! Your understanding is similar to mine...

In a way, in a meaningful sense, the term 'conservative' is similar to
the notion of being 'doctorinare' -- perhaps with an emphasis towards
an 'unchanging' or 'traditional' aspect.

This labeling of people or belief systems as being 'conservative' or
'liberal' is misleading and mostly ends up being a name-calling game.

The notion of 'left-wing' or 'right-wing' is certainly more meaningful
than popular use of the terms 'conservative' or 'liberal', but also each
person has varying beliefs that cannot be meaningfully grossly
categorized as such.

More specifically, Rush Limbaugh gave our doctorinaire leftist friends
a 'boost' by calling them 'liberal.' In the US, generally our most common
group of 'leftists' are also MUCH MUCH more intolerant (doctorinaire
and tied up in the traditional US leftist propaganda) than the mainstream
group of right-centrists. Most often, you'll find that 'traditional right
centrists' will be shouted down in leftist communities like ivy league
colleges than the 'traditional lefties' in equivalent communities. Even
if the 'righties' would deny the exercise of freedom of speech in their
institutions, the 'righties' don't often make self-righteous claims about
their open-mindedness.

So, the use of 'liberal' when speaking of the mainstream US political
spectrum, it would probably be most accurate (but still defective) to
call the mainstream right as being 'liberal', while the mainstream left
is more 'conservative or doctorinare.' Refer to the rants of the
crazy old leaders of the US mainstream left e.g. Kennedy. Refer also
to the blocking of the constitutional process in congress by the
relatively leftist party leaders (the Dems), where that behavior is
more likely associated with doctorinare and narrow minded
crusaders.

I credit Rush with the over-emphasis and dishonest give-away to the
American left, where they are allowed to call themselves 'liberal', when
they are quite far away from being 'liberal.' It is almost as bad to
call the centrist-righties 'liberal', because even though they TEND to
be more liberal, they aren't really 'liberal.'

Each side tends to be overly doctorinaire rather than 'thinking' and
'open.' This is why I aspire to being a radical centrist, where neither
the GOPers nor the Dems can take me for granted. As it is nowadays,
the Dems have done a wonderful job of forcing a vote that advocates
their challengers. One day in the future, I hope to see more Evan Bayh
or Lieberman styles of personality (not specifically their political
advocacy), rather than the Kerry, Kennedy, Braun, or Daschle type
of personalities. Luckily, I have been able to vote for Bayh, but not
many districts/states have had good Dems to vote for. The GOPers
also have their 'wierdos', but seem to have better people in general
(WRT stability and integrity.)

Too often, the Dems tend to INVENT new criteria for integrity, apparently
to create new axis to criticise their opponents. Equivalently, the Dems
opponents don't always have to 'INVENT' new criteria for integrity, but
the Dems are good at politically spinning the matter so that the criteria
is deemed unimportant. A good example of the 'history-spin' would be
apparently dismissing Kerry's behavior and votes -- even to the extent
of effectively claiming that a very CRUMMY vote that really counted
was somehow mitigated by the very appropriate vote that didnt' count
(his silly claim about voting for a bill before voting against it.)

The Dems opponents only have to repeat the Dems behavior which
clearly impeaches the Dem. The GOPer usually gets attacked by behavior
that has invented criteria (or even a behavior that would be deemed
acceptable for a Dem.) This pattern isn't 100% true, but is much more
true than not.

Another good example of different criteria for Dems is that when the Bush
administration increased funding for terror by 5X over Clinton (before the
9/11) it
is apparently not deemed sufficient. When the attack is fully staged and
funded
by the end of 2000, with a large part of the attackers already past the US
frontier,
the Dems seem to imply that it is Bush's fault that the attacks happened on
his
watch (after BY FAR most of the failings occuring during Clinton.) Also,
if you look at the 'recession', it technically started in the Month
immediately
after Bush took office (when Clinton's policies were still 100% in force,
and
ABSOLUTELY no way for Bush policies to have taken hold), and the stock
market was already screwed up EVEN BEFORE BUSH WAS NOMINATED,
yet the Dems blame Bush for screwups during Clinton's presidency (even as
the transition from Clinton to Bush was impeded by McAuliffe/Gore/etc.)

I guess that even the Dems have higher standards for GOPers than for the
Dems themselves. This is an implicit admission about the inferiority of the
Dems candidates, and the fact that GOPers really do have to be better
than the Dems.

Sadly, I do try to vote for any Dem with integrity, and there are few who
have been able to get my vote. However, those who are really good people
(e.g. Bayh) do get my attention.

The Dem party MUST be encouraged to develop more good candidate. WHen
thinking of the Dems vs. GOPers (for involvement of Blacks), it is easy
to compare Condi (perhaps the closest person to the president other than
his wife) and Colin -- and then look at the Dems high-level people (e.g.
Jesse
Jackson, Carol M Braun, Sheila J Lee, Sharpton, etc.)

John

 

[Chuck Harris]

Jim Thompson wrote:

During the Revolutionary War, British supporters/cowards were labeled
Tory.

...Jim Thompson
That the British supporters were labeled Tory is indisputable. That

they were cowards, is in the eyes of the beholder. To the British, they
were heroes, to the newly founded Americans, they were beneath contempt.

-Chuck Harris

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

In news:tnbs60h3l9q7d8svjbrljos4nfolo5dddl@4ax.com,
John Larkin typed:

Ann is a kick.

But she (Coulter) defends McCarthy. She also said once (maybe in '96)
that she'd vote for either Forbes or Buchanan. I was a Forbes delegate,
and I see no similarity. They were more different than any other two
candidates, so it seems that she just wanted a political outsider
regardless of what he thinks. She's intellectually shallow.


--
-Reply in group, but if emailing add 2 more zeros-
-and remove the obvious-

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

In news:7qcs60pp4f7lqt8q2e8d63dn7dbpt2ut5r@4ax.com,
John Larkin typed:

Probably the only good leftist-feminist-lesbian writer is Camille
Paglia. Her serious stuff ("Sexual Personna" and such) are pretty
heavy going, but her essays ("Vamps and Tramps", etc) are a real hoot,
especially since she gave up men and got in touch with her Inner Dyke.
She's been pretty quiet lately, though.

And Paglia was opposed to Anita Hill. She's a truly tough woman,
whereas most feminists are the passive-aggressive kind that would turn
on the waterworks when it served their purpose.


--
-Reply in group, but if emailing add 2 more zeros-
-and remove the obvious-

 

[Bob Stephens]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 18:10:16 GMT, Tom Del Rosso wrote:

In news:7qcs60pp4f7lqt8q2e8d63dn7dbpt2ut5r@4ax.com,
John Larkin typed:

Probably the only good leftist-feminist-lesbian writer is Camille
Paglia. Her serious stuff ("Sexual Personna" and such) are pretty
heavy going, but her essays ("Vamps and Tramps", etc) are a real hoot,
especially since she gave up men and got in touch with her Inner Dyke.
She's been pretty quiet lately, though.

And Paglia was opposed to Anita Hill. She's a truly tough woman,
whereas most feminists are the passive-aggressive kind that would turn
on the waterworks when it served their purpose.

God, I wish I'd said that... and I probably will

 

[Robert C Monsen]

"Richard Henry" <rphenry@home.com> wrote in message
news:EOkbc.21922$Q45.14505@fed1read02...

"Jim Thompson" <thegreatone@example.com> wrote in message
news:cmar60dsb3cji0joufalrujd0cb8b4fktk@4ax.com...
I decided to be fair with the leftists and listen to Al Franken's new
talk show (I've found him funny on Leno, etc.).

Looks like he loses his humor capability when immersed into a talk
show environment.

Whenever I want a quick laugh I listen to Rush.

Whenever I want a quick laugh I listen to somebody who listens to Rush.

 

[Tom Del Rosso]

In news:406ED02D.3090009@nospam.com,
Fred Bloggs typed:

Natural selection favors cowardice- the brave are killed off in wars.
Scientific experiments have been conducted on mice that prove
cowardice is an inherited trait- switching offspring between bold

So which gene is dominant?


--
-Reply in group, but if emailing add 2 more zeros-
-and remove the obvious-

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 12:59:22 GMT, Spehro Pefhany
<speffSNIP@interlogDOTyou.knowwhat> wrote:

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:12:43 +0100, the renowned John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <udds60hir2ms9rf1i16ha06nqfee1drl8g@
4ax.com&gt about 'Al Franken', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:
Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like TORY.

What does that word 'TORY' mean to an American? Something different from
'a member of the British Conservative Party', I feel sure.

Conservatives in Canada and Australia too- definitely the "right" end
of the political spectrum despite the Canadian variety calling
themselves "Progressive Conservatives". Probably related to that
insurgency that was going on there some years back. They didn't like
"Loyalists" or "Tories". The other side (Liberal) here would be the
"Grits", which is unrelated to US (hominy) grits, AFAIK.

Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany

Please don't besmurch the name of that noble breakfast (and around
here, occasionally, dinner) food.

Anybody wany my recipe for fried grits?

John

 

[John Larkin]

On Sat, 03 Apr 2004 08:24:33 -0700, Jim Thompson
<thegreatone@example.com> wrote:

On Sat, 3 Apr 2004 12:12:43 +0100, John Woodgate
jmw@jmwa.demon.contraspam.yuk> wrote:

I read in sci.electronics.design that Jim Thompson
thegreatone@example.com> wrote (in <udds60hir2ms9rf1i16ha06nqfee1drl8g@
4ax.com&gt about 'Al Franken', on Fri, 2 Apr 2004:
Cowardice actually IS a political persuasion, sort of like TORY.

What does that word 'TORY' mean to an American? Something different from
'a member of the British Conservative Party', I feel sure.

During the Revolutionary War, British supporters/cowards were labeled
Tory.

...Jim Thompson

There were revolutionaries and loyalists in the Revolutionary War, but
few cowards.

John