rec.bicycles.racing

Ronde Champ said:

Hey
Could we please keep all posts in rec.bicycles.racing
(RBR) on the
topic of bicycle racing at all times. All the political,
religious,
and otherwise non bicycle racing discussions have their
own forum.
Thanks, Ronde Champ

sorry, my rec.bicycles.[censored] comment should have been posted under
this thread. Thanks Pedalchick.

--

Ronde Champ said:

Hey

Could we please keep all posts in rec.bicycles.racing (RBR) on the
topic of bicycle racing at all times. All the political, religious,
and otherwise non bicycle racing discussions have their own forum.

Thanks,
Ronde Champ

That's the last straw for me. Defintely above and beyond the typical
sophomoric (and moronic) R.B.R. trolling.

*plonk*

Ah, that's better.

Regards,
H.
(making R.B.*. better one *plonk* at a time.)

pedalchick said:

Ronde Champ said:

Hey
Could we please keep all posts in rec.bicycles.racing
(RBR) on the
topic of bicycle racing at all times. All the political,
religious,
and otherwise non bicycle racing discussions have their
own forum.
Thanks, Ronde Champ

sorry, my rec.bicycles.[censored] comment should have been posted under
this thread. Thanks Pedalchick.

Originally, it made more sense in the other thread.
But now, on a meta-level, it makes more sense here.

Quoted message said:

Hey

Could we please keep all posts in rec.bicycles.racing (RBR) on the
topic of bicycle racing at all times. All the political, religious,
and otherwise non bicycle racing discussions have their own forum.

Thanks,
Ronde Champ

I was wondering, who you think is going to win the presidential election
here in the US.

Respectfully,
Curt

Quoted message said:

From: "curt" [email hidden]
Date: 6/11/2004 6:07 PM Eastern

Quoted message said:

I was wondering, who you think is going to win the presidential election
here in the US.

Respectfully,
Curt

I saw a poll somewhere this week, I think it was in the Boston Globe that has
Kerry up by 10 percent nationally. I think that it's a slam dunk unless he does
something incredibly stupid.
If he picks a centrist southern VP it's over.
Just my discounted $.02
Bill C

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: "curt" [email hidden]
Date: 6/11/2004 6:07 PM Eastern

Quoted message said:

I was wondering, who you think is going to win the presidential election
here in the US.

Respectfully,
Curt

I saw a poll somewhere this week, I think it was in the Boston Globe that has
Kerry up by 10 percent nationally. I think that it's a slam dunk unless he does
something incredibly stupid.
If he picks a centrist southern VP it's over.
Just my discounted $.02
Bill C

It's been so long I've forgotten who the guy was from NC he was running
against. I think Kerry's got to do two things to get elected:

1. Pick John Edwards.
2. Play it cool.

John McCain for VP? Nope nope nope, but he sure looks better as a
president then Dubya, as time goes by.

In article <[email hidden]>,

Richard Adams said:

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: "curt" [email hidden]
Date: 6/11/2004 6:07 PM Eastern

Quoted message said:

I was wondering, who you think is going to win the presidential election
here in the US.

Respectfully,
Curt

I saw a poll somewhere this week, I think it was in the Boston Globe that
has
Kerry up by 10 percent nationally. I think that it's a slam dunk unless he
does
something incredibly stupid.
If he picks a centrist southern VP it's over.
Just my discounted $.02
Bill C

It's been so long I've forgotten who the guy was from NC he was running
against. I think Kerry's got to do two things to get elected:

1. Pick John Edwards.
2. Play it cool.

John McCain for VP? Nope nope nope, but he sure looks better as a
president then Dubya, as time goes by.

I always thought McCain could be a bit of a hot-head, and, while I still
think that, I now think he'd be unlikely to something stupid when he was
[censored]. No lashing out like "make some heads roll" Bush.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Copper will never be gold"
Shellac

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

(TritonRider) said:

Quoted message said:

From: "curt" [email hidden]
Date: 6/11/2004 6:07 PM Eastern

Quoted message said:

I was wondering, who you think is going to win the presidential election
here in the US.

Respectfully,
Curt

I saw a poll somewhere this week, I think it was in the Boston Globe that
has
Kerry up by 10 percent nationally. I think that it's a slam dunk unless he
does
something incredibly stupid.
If he picks a centrist southern VP it's over.

Hmmm: http://www.theonion.com/news/index.php?issue=4023&bypass=1

--
tanx,
Howard

"Copper will never be gold"
Shellac

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

TritonRider said:

I saw a poll somewhere this week, I think it was in the Boston Globe
that has Kerry up by 10 percent nationally. I think that it's a slam
dunk unless he does something incredibly stupid.
If he picks a centrist southern VP it's over.

1. Never underestimate the ability of the Democrats to [censored] defeat from
the jaws of victory.
2. Although the head-to-head polls show Kerry improving, it's not clear
how solid those ratings are. Bush got a little bounce in job approval:
http://anonymous.coward.free.fr/temp/bushjobapproval_12jun04.png

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Richard Adams <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

John McCain for VP? Nope nope nope, but he sure looks better as a
president then Dubya, as time goes by.

I always thought McCain could be a bit of a hot-head, and, while I still
think that, I now think he'd be unlikely to something stupid when he was
[censored]. No lashing out like "make some heads roll" Bush.

I disagree with a lot of McCain's politics (except regarding
international security) but the thing I like A LOT about him is
honesty. He's principaled and emotional and doesn't just try to spin
things his way. Compare him to G. W. Bush and the Bush
administration. It's night and day.

JT

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Richard Adams <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

John McCain for VP? Nope nope nope, but he sure looks better as a
president then Dubya, as time goes by.

I always thought McCain could be a bit of a hot-head, and, while I still
think that, I now think he'd be unlikely to something stupid when he was
[censored]. No lashing out like "make some heads roll" Bush.

I disagree with a lot of McCain's politics (except regarding
international security) but the thing I like A LOT about him is
honesty. He's principaled and emotional and doesn't just try to spin
things his way. Compare him to G. W. Bush and the Bush
administration. It's night and day.

JT

I haven't seen or heard what McCain has had to say about the recent
torture revelations, but considering his former POW status (and torture)
he had to be livid.

In article <[email hidden]>,

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Richard Adams <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

John McCain for VP? Nope nope nope, but he sure looks better as a
president then Dubya, as time goes by.

I always thought McCain could be a bit of a hot-head, and, while I still
think that, I now think he'd be unlikely to something stupid when he was
[censored]. No lashing out like "make some heads roll" Bush.

I disagree with a lot of McCain's politics (except regarding
international security) but the thing I like A LOT about him is
honesty. He's principaled and emotional and doesn't just try to spin
things his way. Compare him to G. W. Bush and the Bush
administration. It's night and day.

JT

The "principaled" part of that is what makes him a not-so-good
"politician", at least as we see what that is right now. I do agree with
your take on him, though. With the Bush admin., politics takes precedence
over policy 100% of the time.

From Paul Krugman (http://www.nybooks.com/articles/16911):
"According to people who observed him in Texas, Karl Rove is a devotee of
Machiavelli, and particularly of The Prince . And as Phillips points out,
"Twenty-first-century American readers of The Prince may feel that they
have stumbled on a thinly disguised Bush White House political memo." For
Machiavelli's book was all about how to gain and hold power, not about what
to do with it."

--
tanx,
Howard

"Copper will never be gold"
Shellac

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Richard Adams said:

John Forrest Tomlinson said:

Howard Kveck said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
Richard Adams <[email hidden]> wrote:

Quoted message said:

>John McCain for VP? Nope nope nope, but he sure looks better as a
>president then Dubya, as time goes by.
>

I always thought McCain could be a bit of a hot-head, and, while I still
think that, I now think he'd be unlikely to something stupid when he was
[censored]. No lashing out like "make some heads roll" Bush.

I disagree with a lot of McCain's politics (except regarding
international security) but the thing I like A LOT about him is
honesty. He's principaled and emotional and doesn't just try to spin
things his way. Compare him to G. W. Bush and the Bush
administration. It's night and day.

JT

I haven't seen or heard what McCain has had to say about the recent
torture revelations, but considering his former POW status (and torture)
he had to be livid.

He was.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Copper will never be gold"
Shellac

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

On 12 Jun 2004 11:02:22 EDT, Richard Adams <[email hidden]>

Quoted message said:

I haven't seen or heard what McCain has had to say about the recent
torture revelations, but considering his former POW status (and torture)
he had to be livid.

Yes. And livid too by some attempts to downplay it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/inhofe.abuse/

JT

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Yes. And livid too by some attempts to downplay it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/inhofe.abuse/

JT

I don't think that anyone who isn't a complete political hack is trying to
defend this [censored]. The few that are will hopefully be run out of office at the
next possible chance.
Bill C

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Yes. And livid too by some attempts to downplay it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/inhofe.abuse/

JT

I don't think that anyone who isn't a complete political hack is trying to
defend this [censored]. The few that are will hopefully be run out of office at the
next possible chance.
Bill C

The first I heard of the President summoning a lawyer to define what is
and what isn't torture, was on the BBC and some guy, just the way he
spoke and how he tried to spin things made me worry, yet again that
things were definitely taking another turn in the downward spiral of US
credibility.

Effectively if we say the law is "this is torture" then "that which
falls outside it" isn't torture, and we can do as much of "that" as we
like and still hold the moral arguement that it's all in the cause of
Freedom.

I'm also getting pretty sick of the way that man says 'Freedom', he's
debasing the word terribly.

"Richard Adams" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

The first I heard of the President summoning a lawyer to define what is
and what isn't torture, was on the BBC and some guy, just the way he
spoke and how he tried to spin things made me worry...

or defining ketchup as a vegetable (Reagan)
or depending on what your definition of is is (Clinton)
or using exclusivistic religious categories in a specious attempt to refute
exclusivistic religious categories (not a politician but he plays one in
rbr)
or carefully crafting responses to inquiries about doping to reflect
conformance to existing UCI rules, not necessarily denying the use of
performance enhancing stuff (Carmichael was it?)

The torture spin is the overall leader though at the moment.

JF

In article <uXMyc.35616$%i1.26028@edtnps89>,

Jim Flom said:

"Richard Adams" wrote ...

Quoted message said:

The first I heard of the President summoning a lawyer to define what is
and what isn't torture, was on the BBC and some guy, just the way he
spoke and how he tried to spin things made me worry...

or defining ketchup as a vegetable (Reagan)
or depending on what your definition of is is (Clinton)
or using exclusivistic religious categories in a specious attempt to refute
exclusivistic religious categories (not a politician but he plays one in
rbr)
or carefully crafting responses to inquiries about doping to reflect
conformance to existing UCI rules, not necessarily denying the use of
performance enhancing stuff (Carmichael was it?)

The torture spin is the overall leader though at the moment.

JF

C'mon, Jim, couldn't you have thought of at least one for Nixon (heh)???

By the way, if you get into a disagreement with someone in this forum
and you vigorously verbally thrash them, can they be said to have been
Flombe'd? Ahem.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Copper will never be gold"
Shellac

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?

In article <[email hidden]>,

Richard Adams said:

TritonRider said:

Quoted message said:

From: John Forrest Tomlinson [email hidden]

Quoted message said:

Yes. And livid too by some attempts to downplay it.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/ALLPOLITICS/05/11/inhofe.abuse/

JT

I don't think that anyone who isn't a complete political hack is trying to
defend this [censored]. The few that are will hopefully be run out of office at
the
next possible chance.
Bill C

The first I heard of the President summoning a lawyer to define what is
and what isn't torture, was on the BBC and some guy, just the way he
spoke and how he tried to spin things made me worry, yet again that
things were definitely taking another turn in the downward spiral of US
credibility.

Effectively if we say the law is "this is torture" then "that which
falls outside it" isn't torture, and we can do as much of "that" as we
like and still hold the moral arguement that it's all in the cause of
Freedom.

I'm also getting pretty sick of the way that man says 'Freedom', he's
debasing the word terribly.

The part of the memos that is really jaw-dropping is this (comes from
the Wall Street Journal and I don't have a direct non-subscriber link):

-------------
To protect subordinates should they be charged with torture, the memo
advised that Mr. Bush issue a "presidential directive or other writing"
that could serve as evidence, since authority to set aside the laws is
"inherent in the president."
-------------

The idea that the pres. can set aside laws on a whim is astounding to
me. What the hell happened to the other two branches of our government?
What a can of worms that opens up.

--
tanx,
Howard

"Copper will never be gold"
Shellac

remove YOUR SHOES to reply, ok?