[extropy-chat] competent superhack
Mike Lorrey
mlorrey at yahoo.com
Mon Aug 8 19:40:05 UTC 2005
This is one reason why I find the left's hatred of Bush so laughable:
they can't seem to decide if he is a retard or a genius supervillain.
C'mon, MOVE ON, make up your minds already.
--- Al Brooks <kerry_prez at yahoo.com> wrote:
> America could have a true heavyweight president yet they feel more
> comfortable with competent hacks. Bush is tough & competent, self
> assured. But he, like his father was, is in government for the Career
> of Service-- emphasis on Career. That's how they were brought up,
> high at their level they see it as their calling but also their due.
> Joe Bloch told me "you hate Bush". No, not at all; there's not enough
> there to hate. He isn't smart enough to attempt an imperial
> presidency, as Nixon did. He's not interested, he just wants to serve
> his term of office, write his memoirs, look after grandchildren later
> on. If Bush is a monster, he is a monster-cornball. I don't see a
> sinister usurper in Bush, merely a competent superhack.
>
> 1) I didn't call 51% of the US idiots, just the ones that voted for
> Bush the second time (well, okay, the first time too). That was far
> less than 51% of Americans, even voting-age americans. Morelike 22%.
> I stand by my statement that those who did are dumbf*cks.
> 2) I thought it was funny, sorry you didn't.
> 3) I do understand the right and why they win elections - they cheat.
> 4) No people "represent constituents" for me, but rather are just
> thinking individuals who decide for themselves what to do. If someone
>
> in Texas is upset by me calling their state dumbf*ckistan, they're
> probably neo-cons anyway and I couldn't care less what they think.
> Our
> hope is that they'll continue sending their offspring to war en masse
>
> and eventually evolution will kick in and the warmongering dipsh*ts
> will die off OR they'll finally see that on the other side of the
> ridicule, there's a better way.
>
> I -used to be- one of those nice politically correct liberals (before
> I
> was a former libertarian, I was a former socialist...now I've
> realized
> that situational pragmatism is the only way to work politics) that
> would let people have their say even if they were lying snooty jerks,
>
> and then respond politely and with clear discursive argumentation.
> Now, if I see a lying snooty jerk, I call them a lying snooty jerk.
> This is a bit reactionary, it certainly breaks the rule my mamma told
>
> me "If you use bad words it's because you don't have anything to
> say".
>
> I got tired of the conservative pundits having all the fun making fun
>
> of liberals and so decided to join in and since I've long since said
> everything I have to say about the war, it's bad words time - and my
> mamma forgives me in this particular case.
>
> In fact, I think I have understood one major part of what causes
> those
> dipsh*ts to be conservatives, they like the fact that they can make
> fun
> of someone, it makes them feel superior. Well, if what they like is
> ridicule then I say give'em what they want. -Remember that Wally
> George, Imus and Rush Limbaugh are their HEROS-.
>
> Put it in conservative language. There comes a time for talking, when
>
> you have an honest disagreement with someone, and you think there's a
>
> chance to come to a peaceful resolution. But sometimes the enemy is
> soo beligerent, so oppressive and so self-absorbed that any rational
> discussion is useless. Then what? In grade school it was time to
> start kicking the shins. Since I'm a nonviolent person, I won't shoot
>
> senators. I don't have enough money to afford the kind of lawyers
> that
> would be needed to tie them up in court so I do what I can - I tell
> the
> truth about what they do and then yell mean names at them 'till I'm
> blue in the face hoping that EVENTUALLY people will come to see
> things
> my way - even if they end up hating me in the process.
>
> Thankfully, this has recently happened:
>
> Zogby reports his overall approval rating from "likely voters" to be
> less than 50% and declining for two weeks straight (currently at
> 42%).
> On Iraq he's 60% disapprove, 40% approve according to CNN.
>
> Things like this make my day. I hope this lasts until the 2006
> mid-terms. What with gas prices on the rise, the economy still in the
>
> slumps, the ever-increasing defecit, the body bags and the plans to
> nuke Iran, I don't foresee a lot of forthcoming popularity. On the
> other hand, he may be able to drag us into another war in order to
> bolster his popularity. Ve shall see.
>
> Meanwhile, if you like to play the part of the nice liberal, by all
> means, go for it! The ear doesn't try to be the eyes does it?
>
> R
>
>
> On Aug 7, 2005, at 11:25 PM, Brian Lee wrote:
>
> > I find it comical that you harangue the red staters for being
> stupid
> > and then express your own stupidity by calling them
> "country-bumpkin
> > citizens of dumbf*ckistan".
> >
> > There's a name for those who can't understand the viewpoints of
> > others: fundamentalists. You're acting like a fundamentalist in
> your
> > belief that you are correct and tons of others are wrong. It goes
> both
> > ways. I think calling 51% of the US idiots is no way to further
> your
> > cause. You're going to need to understand the right and why they
> win
> > elections in order to regain control of the US. Belittling
> > constituents is not the way to go about it.
> >
> > BAL
> >
> >> From: Robert Lindauer
> >> To: ExI chat list
> >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
> >> Date: Sun, 7 Aug 2005 20:15:10 -1000
> >>
> >> Then why bother asking the war protesters to do better. The
> >> convinced are convinced - so vat else is new?
> >>
> >> "nobody's innocent" - Kingpin
> >>
> >> In any case, us war protesters have done our job and thank
> goodness,
> >> saying we haven't is just absurd.
> >>
> >> Robbie
> >>
> >>
> >> On Aug 7, 2005, at 10:37 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
> >>
> >>> This is comprehensive post. But nothing I've read convinces me
> the
> >>> war ought to be terminated now. If you want to think my position
> is
> >>> America's role in Iraq is innocent until proven guilty, fine. It
> >>> probably is.
> >>> And of course the war is mainly about oil, it is a given;
> petroleum
> >>> is the lifeblood of the economy.
> >>>
> >>>> Great.
> >>>>
> >>>> Al, baby. War protesters DO BETTER. In fact, now that the
> >>>> administration's approval rating on Iraq is down to 38%, I'd say
>
> >>>> that
> >>>> the anti-war message is finally getting across effectively. Body
>
> >>>> bags
> >>>> and information tend to do that and every once in a while
> stories
> >>>> from
> >>>> Iraq do get home - mostly the bad news of more dead people. Go
> team!
> >>>> Kill, Kill, Kill!
> >>>>
> >>>> Secondly, it's easy to make fun of idiots. That's why people no
> >>>> longer
> >>>> make fun of that drug addict with the white hair and television
> >>>> show.
> >>>>
> >>>> In fact, it's too easy. In fact, the anti-war movement makes
> such a
> >>>> good rational case for not being at war with Iraq that it
> appears
> >>>> the
> >>>> only thing left to do is make fun of the idiots that still buy
> into
> >>>> it.
> >>>> If you doubt this, please explain why we're at war in Iraq
> >>>> remembering
> >>>> some essential facts:
> >>>>
> >>>> 1) There are ! now WMD's there, there haven't been for years,
> and
> >>>> both
> >>>> the CIA and British intelligence KNEW this and told the American
> and
> >>>> British Administrative branches BEFORE they decided to go to war
> and
> >>>> make the case before the UN. The UN inspectors were there
> verifying
> >>>> this before the war and when they were kicked out by US threats
> of
> >>>> war,
> >>>> they exclaimed that there simply was no threat there. This is
> >>>> unsuprising given the years of UN inspections and the awesome
> >>>> economic
> >>>> burden we put on Iraq after the Kuwait Invasion.
> >>>>
> >>>> 2) Al quaeda was completely uninvolved in Iraq before the war
> and
> >>>> their current involvement is at best questionable. In fact, due
> to
> >>>> the
> >>>> outrage at us having invaded Iraq, the level of islamic
> extremist
> >>>> terrorist threat worldwide, but especially for US and British
> >>>> targets,
> >>>> has increased - as predicted by the CIA prior to the invasion of
>
> >>>> Iraq.
> >>>>
> >>>> 3) The level of nepotism in Iraq is unparalleled. Haliburton -
> the
> >>>> company ! that still gives Cheney a million dollars a year -
> LOST a
> >>>> billion dollars after having won an unreviewed government
> contract
> >>>> without competition. UDI, a subsidiary of the Carlyle Group on
> whose
> >>>> board sits Pappy Bush himself, is the biggest defense contractor
>
> >>>> and to
> >>>> date the one who's made the most money from this war. Prior to
> the
> >>>> war
> >>>> itself, Iraqi expatriots and a few oil companies met to divvy up
> the
> >>>> spoils and our own deputy defense minister said that it was "job
>
> >>>> number
> >>>> 1" to secure the oil fields. Make no mistakes, they're in it for
> the
> >>>> money.
> >>>>
> >>>> 4) There are other countries in the world that actually DO have
> >>>> weapons of mass destruction - like Korea and Pakistan - that
> >>>> actually
> >>>> ARE ruled by maniacs - and Pakistan is an ally of our and we're
> not
> >>>> invading North Korea any time soon. Why? Because it's not our
> job to
> >>>> fix all the governments in the world. It's neither our job nor
> is it
> >>>> within our reasonable reach. We simply c! ouldn't fight North
> Korea
> >>>> and
> >>>> Iraq at the same time without fundamentally changing our country
>
> >>>> into a
> >>>> complete war machine - re-instituting the draft, raising taxes,
> >>>> further
> >>>> plunging our country into debt, not to mention the body bags -
> and
> >>>> you
> >>>> know what, voter here wouldn't stand for it any more than they
> stood
> >>>> for vietnam or Korea. And worse than that, the terrorists would
> have
> >>>> won. America would be dead. America is a dream of freedom,
> >>>> opportunity, peace and prosperity. If we don't start remembering
> >>>> quickly what those core values are and acting on them, America
> will
> >>>> be
> >>>> gone anyway.
> >>>>
> >>>> 5) Finally the fiscal point. After the idiot in chief got
> himself
> >>>> punditted into office by the supreme court (notably not the
> supreme
> >>>> court of Florida who -actually- had jurisdiction there) and some
> >>>> talking heads, we were plunged into a dreadful recession
> (perhaps
> >>>> you
> >>>> didn't notice), and the idiot in chief had no idea what to do
> about
> >>>> it,
> >>>> h! imself having been the ceo of a couple of failed companies.
> So
> >>>> what
> >>>> did he do? He started a war to give people something else to
> think
> >>>> about and spend money on. Oh and did I mention the money - 9
> >>>> Trillion
> >>>> dollars of debt in 6 years. That's right, the LIBERALS had
> balanced
> >>>> the budget. Until, well, the belly-up ceo of our country decided
> to
> >>>> bankrupt it. This is the kind of thing that happens when you
> leave
> >>>> your 11-year-old kid to mind the store while you and the wife go
> on
> >>>> vacation for a month. This point -should- bother people like
> Lorrey,
> >>>> but of course that -kind- of libertarian has their head stuck so
>
> >>>> far up
> >>>> the unmentionable orifices of the establishment that it's not
> >>>> surprising their ocular nodes don't work being themselves soaked
>
> >>>> with
> >>>> odoriferous bile.
> >>>>
> >>>> But of course, these points were well made a few years ago. That
> the
> >>>> right wing fascist pigs that run this country and the
> >>>> country-bumpkin
> >>>> citizens of dumbf*ckistan in t! he red states can't fathom why
> >>>> anyone is
> >>>> against the war is only a sign of either their malice or
> stupidity.
> >>>> Consequently, when what's left of the so-called liberal media
> only
> >>>> pokes fun at the evil and stupid, how can you blame them? What
> more
> >>>> is
> >>>> there to say? Was something overlooked?
> >>>>
> >>>> Robbie Lindauer
> >>>>
> >>>> PS - NOW that someone with an opposing view has spoken up,
> should
> >>>> you
> >>>> take this to extro-freedom or should we allow this f-ing liberal
> to
> >>>> continue to ridicule the stupid/evil people on the hawkish side
> of
> >>>> the
> >>>> fence?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On Aug 6, 2005, at 10:36 AM, spike wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> >> -----Original Message-----
> >>>> >> From: extropy-chat-bounces at lists.extropy.org
> >>>> [mailto:extropy-chat-
> >>>> >> bounces at lists.extropy.org] On Behalf Of Robert Lindauer
> >>>> >> Sent: Saturday, August 06, 2005 12:44 PM
> >>>> >> To: ExI chat list
> >>>> >> Subject: Re: [extropy-chat] can't war protesters do better?
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >&! gt; I wonder, does -this- thread belong on ex=freedom or
> >>>> whatever?
> >>>> >
> >>>> >
> >>>> > Let's let it sputter on a while. Doesn't look like it is
> >>>> > going anywhere in particular. spike
> >>>> >
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >> On Aug 6, 2005, at 9:14 AM, Al Brooks wrote:
> >>>> >>
> >>>> >>> Polemics are valuable, I'm accused of being a "pabulum
> >>>> spewer" and
> >>>> >>> for
> >>>> >>> "mistaking twaddle for objectivity" by leftwing
> stormtroopers
> >>>> in
> >>>> >>> this
> >>>> >>> most politically polarized town I live in...
> >>>> >
> >>>> > _______________________________________________
> >>>> > extropy-chat mailing list
> >>>> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >>>> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >>>>
> >>>> _______________________________________________
> >>>> extropy-chat mailing list
> >>>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >>>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >>> Start your day with Yahoo! - make it your home
> >>> page_______________________________________________
> >>> extropy-chat mailing list
> >>> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >>> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >>
> >> _______________________________________________
> >> extropy-chat mailing list
> >> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> >> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > extropy-chat mailing list
> > extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> > http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
> _______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com >
_______________________________________________
> extropy-chat mailing list
> extropy-chat at lists.extropy.org
> http://lists.extropy.org/mailman/listinfo/extropy-chat
>
Mike Lorrey
Vice-Chair, 2nd District, Libertarian Party of NH
Founder, Constitution Park Foundation:
http://constitutionpark.blogspot.com
Personal/political blog: http://intlib.blogspot.com
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
More information about the extropy-chat
mailing list