OT: political leanings are half genetic

[still me]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 11:09:58 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>The Dems knew Foley was gay, so they set him up. Then, AFTER the
>inappropriate e-mails and IMs were saved, they waited until close to the
>election to release them. Then, they had the hypocritical NERVE to accuse
>the Republicans of trying to cover it up /at the expense of children/ when
>in fact they had sat on the story for months.

As an independent who doesn't like any politicians, I have to tell you
that you really do come from a distorted viewpoint, Bill. Your support
for "party at all costs" is admirable for it's loyalty, but it's
making you look really foolish here.

Democrats AND Republicans knew he was gay. The Republicans covered up
that as well as his illicit behavior with young boys as long as they
could but the truth has a habit of surfacing sooner or later. No one
forced or entrapped the young-man lover Foley - his actions were his
own as were those who tried to cover it up.

Blaming the Democrats for not revealing it sooner is nonsense. They
were just playing politics as would be expected. The Republicans do
the same when they can. It's expected. The Republicans knew all the
sorted details long before the Democrats revealed the facts and could
have made it public. They chose to try to hide it instead. Their
mistake.

This really is one of the most non-sensical arguments the Republican
marketing machine has foisted on the public.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 11:09:58 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
wrote:
[about claim that Foley was enticed by "Democratic operative" with
teen aged pages]
>It's a well-known story. Conservatives talked about it a lot during the
>Foley Affair, but of course the MM gave it no play.

Please at least tell me where you learned this information.

It's also interesting that tou've been asked many, many times for the
sources of your political information, but as far as I can tell you
haven't answered. Are you embarrassd by revealing where you get your
information.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On May 30, 12:41 pm, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:
> Short explanation why government hasn't cracked down on corrupt Dems: when
> Bush became President (controversy, FL, SCOTUS, etc.), he didn't "clean
> house" the way Presidents normally do. He left many Clinton appointees in
> place, and not just in hi-vis positions like head of CIA. Part of his
> attempt to unite and not divide, one supposes.

This is pretty much the archetypal Sorni moment on politics: totally
nutty.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Bill Westphal]

landotter <[email protected]> writes:

> On May 28, 9:49 pm, Ozark Bicycle
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>> Yikes! Have a preference for right wingnuts like Limbaugh, Cheney and
>> Coulter may not be wholly a matter of choice:
>
>
> Certainly not. But those personalities being in the mainstream show a
> societal sickness. They're by no means traditional conservatives, but
> canaries showing a societal draw to strict ideology and
> authoritarianism. It's something to be worried about. In the US, since
> the "Republican Revolution" of the Newt, we've gone from dialog to the
> politics of personal destruction. It's been fairly one-sided, due to
> the relaxation of the "fairness doctrine" of the media.
>
> I'm a proud liberal, but have no problem appreciating and debating
> traditional conservative economic or foreign policy--but the problem
> in the US lays in the polarization we've experienced here in the last
> twenty years. The left of center has been left toothless, partially
> self-inflicted to be sure, and the right has veered to the far far
> right without the traditional friendly and tempering dialog that used
> to be common in DC and elsewhere.
>
> America is in a deep crisis right now, that's for certain.
> Conversation used to contain things like "I disagree, but" or "I
> concede your point, but add this" and has devolved to gems like, "Why
> do you adore Al Queada?" and "You hate America, why?".
>
> Ugh.

Excellent! Very well put!! Hey, if you haven't yet seen the recent
Al Gore on Charlie Rose you have GOT to check it out on google video,
or via charlierose.com. It's very much in the same vein, with him
attacking to misguiding priorities of people -- guided by moneyed
interests -- being at the root of our problems, and the guy is just
brilliant, and inspiring. This is all clear and obvious, but he puts
it well, and meters out the emotion just right. Hell, I'd work for
him if he'd have me. I think he's a lot more electable than Hillary
or Obama. They can't repair their "problems" (black and female) but
he can his (fat, although our new Montana Senator Tester is pretty fat
too, surprisingly), although being associated with the environment is
probably a HUGE minus for the electorate, to the point of ruining his
chances. I.e. the special interests and lobbies would attack him
viciously in rural America because of that. He also made some
comments attacking people using their "direct line to God" to
influence elections, so they'd do him in for that too.

But the unfortunate thing about these polititions is they look and
sound dull and uninspiring while they're running or in office and
avoiding getting caught by a nasty sound bite, but when "free" and can
speak their mind freely, they become very distasteful for too many, or
enough to ruin their chances for election, but you see what brilliant
they really are. Dole, I recall, although I disagree very VERY
strongly with him, was a very impressive person once he was no longer
running.

One really has to question the value of American-style democracy, or
democracy itself if it's going to render the planet uninhabitable.

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:32:51 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

> Please name me
>just one mass media that is supportive of Bush and the conservatives other
>than the two I have already mentioned.

You may not realize this, but in major news organizations in the US
the reporters generally try to be objective, neither supporting or
working against the US government (or anyone in particular) but
instead trying to report what they see and learn. At a minimum that's
the ideal. Not always achieved, but that is the goal.

To even call for the name of a major US media outlet that is
supportive of a particular person or party shows you don't understand
the basic premise of journalism.

On the other hand, the editorial pages of newspapers, columnists and
also TV commentators are not the same as reporters and often do take a
particular point of view.

Of two of the biggest newspapers in the US, both the NYTimes and
Washington Post's editorial pages were very supportive of President
Bush's war efforts for several years, and the Washington Post's still
is. The Times editoral pages are now more generally against Bush, but
that change is probably due to the fact he's screwed up a lot of stuff
and that's becoming apparent.

--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Donald Gillies]

Chalo <[email protected]> writes:

>How many conscientious objectors are right wingers, for instance?

That's like asking how many lemmings will stop and look before diving
over the cliff ? Most republicans believe things like, "personality,
god, authority, and money are the only things in life to be respected.
The individual is nothing but a pawn that can be used to achieve more
money and authority which is next to godliness."

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 15:55:12 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Not everyone can be chaste like Saint Edward the Great. Yea, sinners are
>everywhere, but the Dems do not even acknowledge their sins. They try to
>make a virtue out of them, especially when it comes to sexual peccadilloes.

Actually one reason, among elected officials at least, that sex
scandals are not as damaging to liberals is that liberals are more
tolerant of lack of "perfection" and of diversity in family relations,
and don't claim to be better and more chaste than other people. So
if, say, two different officials are having affairs, for the one that
claimed to be for "traditional families" it's hypocrisy that's
inconsistent with their public views, while for the other it's just a
private problem.

Apart from the Foley bit that relates to an adult pursuing relations
with very young subordinates, the Republican anti-gay and
anti-extramarital sex viewpoints came back to bite him, big time.

Which is fitting.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Paul Myron Hobson]

Donald Gillies wrote:
> Chalo <[email protected]> writes:
>
>> How many conscientious objectors are right wingers, for instance?
>
> That's like asking how many lemmings will stop and look before diving
> over the cliff ? Most republicans believe things like, "personality,
> god, authority, and money are the only things in life to be respected.
> The individual is nothing but a pawn that can be used to achieve more
> money and authority which is next to godliness."
>

You put that in quotes. Where'd it come from?
\\paul

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Conservatives are not really into government like liberals are.
> Conservatives mainly just want to make some money and live the good
> life. But liberals truly want to govern. Therein lies your
> explanation.

Nah. The difference is that liberals think the government can actually
be good for something.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> I attribute my success with liberals to my refusing ever to be a
> gentleman with them.

That's one theory. The other is that you are a self-deluding moron like
all too many self-proclaimed conservatives. Since liberals believe that
everyone can learn, when the run into trolls like you who stubbornly
insist on keeping your heads in your asses, they keep trying to reason
with you. It's a waste of time, of course. Your faith in the lies of
modern conservatism trumps your perception of reality.

You're just a tiny little *****, Ed, who's convinced himself that he's a
big man.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> > In article <[email protected]>,
> > Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> On May 29, 1:40 am, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
> >> > Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > From the article:
> >> > > ,------|Quote|
> >> > > |
> >> > > |"Whether you prefer Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann has to
> >> > > |do with your genes and your psychology, according to a new
> >> > > |study.
> >> > > |
> >> > > |People who are more conscientious and prefer order, structure
> >> > > |and closure in their lives tend to be more conservative,
> >> > > |whereas creative people who are open to new experiences tend
> >> > > |to be more politically liberal, says John Jost, a
> >> > > |psychologist at New York University..."
> >> > > `------|Unquote|
> >> >
> >> > > It took a PhD to figure that out? Geez, anyone could have
> >> > > told you that.
> >> >
> >> > Conservatives? Conscientious? On what planet?
> >> >
> >> > I guess if you disregard murdering people, being greedy,
> >> > obstructing fair play, being mean, being unforgiving, and a few
> >> > other little things like that, then the American Right could be
> >> > characterized as conscientious. But not unless.
> >> >
> >> > How many conscientious objectors are right wingers, for
> >> > instance?
> >> >
> >> > I wonder if this is another instance of political conservatives
> >> > trying to destroy the meaning of a word in order to deny its use
> >> > to their rivals. See "values", "liberal", "terrorism",
> >> > "support", "defense", etc., for examples.
> >> >
> >> > Chalo
> >>
> >> I'm pretty certain I'm a bit more to the right of the political
> >> spectrum than Chalo is but darned if I can recall murdering
> >> anyone, being greedy, obstructing fair play, being mean, etcetera.
> >> The Left has managed to destroy the meaning of the word "liberal"
> >> with virtually no help from the Right.
> >
> > And sadly the Right has managed to destroy conservatism all on
> > their own.
>
> Tim McNamara is not qualified to have an opinion on Conservatives
> since he is a Minnesota Democrat Farmer-Labor moron. I mean, would
> you vote for Mondale like he did? Hells Bells, he probably even liked
> that freaking Hubert Horatio Humphry. Thank God he is dead now
> (bladder cancer) and no longer orating here in Minnesota.

Ah, you're delusional again, Ed. You're wrong on just about every
single point in your paragraph there. I'm not a DFLer, I didn't vote
for Mondale, and I didn't even live in Minnesota when HHH was around.

However, the abundant evidence of the Right's destruction of
conservatism is all around you. Pull your head out of your ass and get
some fresh air. There are medications that can help you.

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:

> "Chalo" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > How many conscientious objectors are right wingers, for instance?
>
> How many cowards and traitors are left wingers, for instance?

Versus the cowards and traitors running the White House as we speak?

 

[Ozark Bicycle]

On May 30, 4:31 pm, Tim McNamara <[email protected]> wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > "Tim McNamara" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >news:[email protected]...
> > > In article <[email protected]>,
> > > Bob <[email protected]> wrote:
>
> > >> On May 29, 1:40 am, Chalo <[email protected]> wrote:
> > >> > Paul Myron Hobson wrote:
>
> > >> > > From the article:
> > >> > > ,------|Quote|
> > >> > > |
> > >> > > |"Whether you prefer Rush Limbaugh or Keith Olbermann has to
> > >> > > |do with your genes and your psychology, according to a new
> > >> > > |study.
> > >> > > |
> > >> > > |People who are more conscientious and prefer order, structure
> > >> > > |and closure in their lives tend to be more conservative,
> > >> > > |whereas creative people who are open to new experiences tend
> > >> > > |to be more politically liberal, says John Jost, a
> > >> > > |psychologist at New York University..."
> > >> > > `------|Unquote|
>
> > >> > > It took a PhD to figure that out? Geez, anyone could have
> > >> > > told you that.
>
> > >> > Conservatives? Conscientious? On what planet?
>
> > >> > I guess if you disregard murdering people, being greedy,
> > >> > obstructing fair play, being mean, being unforgiving, and a few
> > >> > other little things like that, then the American Right could be
> > >> > characterized as conscientious. But not unless.
>
> > >> > How many conscientious objectors are right wingers, for
> > >> > instance?
>
> > >> > I wonder if this is another instance of political conservatives
> > >> > trying to destroy the meaning of a word in order to deny its use
> > >> > to their rivals. See "values", "liberal", "terrorism",
> > >> > "support", "defense", etc., for examples.
>
> > >> > Chalo
>
> > >> I'm pretty certain I'm a bit more to the right of the political
> > >> spectrum than Chalo is but darned if I can recall murdering
> > >> anyone, being greedy, obstructing fair play, being mean, etcetera.
> > >> The Left has managed to destroy the meaning of the word "liberal"
> > >> with virtually no help from the Right.
>
> > > And sadly the Right has managed to destroy conservatism all on
> > > their own.
>
> > Tim McNamara is not qualified to have an opinion on Conservatives
> > since he is a Minnesota Democrat Farmer-Labor moron. I mean, would
> > you vote for Mondale like he did? Hells Bells, he probably even liked
> > that freaking Hubert Horatio Humphry. Thank God he is dead now
> > (bladder cancer) and no longer orating here in Minnesota.
>
> Ah, you're delusional again, Ed. You're wrong on just about every
> single point in your paragraph there. I'm not a DFLer, I didn't vote
> for Mondale, and I didn't even live in Minnesota when HHH was around.
>
> However, the abundant evidence of the Right's destruction of
> conservatism is all around you. Pull your head out of your ass and get
> some fresh air. There are medications that can help you.

May I suggest strychnine?

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for the left wing media to reveal why Rush
> > Limbaugh was in Haiti with two other men and a big bottle of
> > fraudulently obtained Viagra.
>
> The same Haiti where the Kennedy family trust runs the long distance
> telephone monopoly?

The same Haiti that is a well-known sex tourism destination.

As for the other issue, the only things I can find (even amongst the
rabid right Web sites) is that former Rep Joseph Kennedy was (and
perhaps is) on the board of Fusion Telecommunications International. It
is a publicly traded company and is not, as far as I can find out, run
by the Kennedy family. In addition to the Kennedy's, however, there
appear to be quite a few Republicans on board. Apparently making lots
of money is something that both Democrats and Republicans agree on.

 

[[email protected]]

without exception, the people of the great state of minnesota are
well educated, well read and mannered possessing heritage breeding and
couth,

 

[Tim McNamara]

In article <[email protected]>,
"Bill Sornson" <[email protected]> wrote:

> Tim McNamara wrote:
> > I'm still waiting for the left wing media to reveal why Rush
> > Limbaugh was in Haiti with two other men and a big bottle of
> > fraudulently obtained Viagra.
>
> Why don't you get illegally searched just for who you are and get
> back to us? (Nice editing, BTW.)

Illegally searched? He was coming back through Customs, Bill. They get
to search you if they want.

And, big oops, mea culpa, etc., Rush was in the Dominican Republic not
in Haiti. Not that it makes much difference.

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/0706062rush1.html

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 16:39:51 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>I am all on tender hooks waiting for your
>latest revelation.

http://wsu.edu/~brians/errors/tender.html

(I make lots of typos. In contrast, here I think you actually don't
know the word you're using).
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 17:14:30 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>And, oh yes, get out of Iraq even though our
>casualties there have been minimal. Hey Tim, how many? A few thousand - even
>though we are nation of 300 million.

I think most people would agree that that number of casulaties is not
large if the cause is just and the fighting is effective. That's what
US soldiers do, and it's a good thing.

It's sad that over three thousand US soldiers have died for nothing,
or worse than nothing. It's a tragedy.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************

 

[Bill Sornson]

still me wrote:
> On Wed, 30 May 2007 11:09:58 -0700, "Bill Sornson" <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
>> The Dems knew Foley was gay, so they set him up. Then, AFTER the
>> inappropriate e-mails and IMs were saved, they waited until close to
>> the election to release them. Then, they had the hypocritical NERVE
>> to accuse the Republicans of trying to cover it up /at the expense
>> of children/ when in fact they had sat on the story for months.
>
> As an independent who doesn't like any politicians, I have to tell you
> that you really do come from a distorted viewpoint, Bill. Your support
> for "party at all costs" is admirable for it's loyalty, but it's
> making you look really foolish here.

Psst. I'm not a Republican. Really. Truly. Honest. I just know
dishonesty and hypocrisy when I see it. (AND when I see it ignored and
covered up.)

> Democrats AND Republicans knew he was gay. The Republicans covered up
> that

Oooh, how dare they let one of THEM in their midst!

> as well as his illicit behavior with young boys

Young boys are 8, 9, 12, 13. These were young men of 18, 19, 20... Big
difference. As for "illicit behavior", did Foley ever actually touch
anyone? Please enlighten me.

> as long as they
> could but the truth has a habit of surfacing sooner or later. No one
> forced or entrapped the young-man lover Foley - his actions were his
> own as were those who tried to cover it up.

They played and preyed on his weaknesses. Again, if the sitution were
reversed and Republicans set out to ruin a Gay Democrat like that, the story
would have played out COMPLETELY differently.
>
> Blaming the Democrats for not revealing it sooner is nonsense. They
> were just playing politics as would be expected. The Republicans do
> the same when they can. It's expected. The Republicans knew all the
> sorted details long before the Democrats revealed the facts and could
> have made it public. They chose to try to hide it instead. Their
> mistake.
>
> This really is one of the most non-sensical arguments the Republican
> marketing machine has foisted on the public.

You totally lost me. I just gave my opinion about something that happened
many months ago. I AM NOT A MACHINE!!! LOL

Buh-bye...

 

[John Forrest Tomlinson]

On Wed, 30 May 2007 18:01:22 -0500, "Edward Dolan" <[email protected]>
wrote:

>It only seems that way and of course that is what they want you to think but
>any number of studies have shown that reporters are consistently left
>leaning. Ask any reporter who he votes for in a national election.

I'm not sure what you mean by "left leaning" -- are you talking about
their personal political views or the reporting itself? And
similarly, the way someone votes doesn't necessarily determine the way
they report what they see.

In fact, if we look at the content of what is reported in the US, we
see that progressive voices (that is, voices of people who are poor,
or of underrepresented communities in society) are much less common
than voices of people who are part of the status quo in the US -- big
business and government. By that sort of view, mass media in the US
tends to be conservative.
--
JT
****************************
Remove "remove" to reply
Visit http://www.jt10000.com
****************************