Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6notg.4x2y6fmrnm4gN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
hwhit <soupert@stil.com> wrote:
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6ndls.17y9eum134oafsN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
hwhit <soupert@stil.com> wrote:
[..]
easy. bush won because myopic, idealistic [supreme court] voters,
after absorbing [bush senior's] [undue influence] gave bush the
election. :)
I've corrected your statement. You can thank me later.
you can whinge about the scotus decision all you want. the REALITY is
that it may or may not have been a bad or good decision. that is a
question for legal scholars that will be debated ad infinitum. but, the
scotus wouldn't even have had to have ruled if myopic idealistic NADER
voters had voted tactically instead of having their heads up their
collective okoles.
they LOST gore the election. period. he would have trounced bush if
they
had the brains to vote for a REAL candidate.
Whit, I *do* appear to have gotten under your skin. All this lashing
out... What can I have done to elicit this response from you?
paul, let me make this very clear. this is just fun. it's usenet. i enjoy
ribbing you about nader for two reasons
1) it's fun
2) i think you are deluding yourself.
but, it's not personal. it's just usenet stuff.
nothing i have ever read in SP has gotten under my skin.
whit
--
"As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones..."
.
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
29 Dec 2003 03:22:46 AM |
|
|
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6notg.4x2y6fmrnm4gN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
hwhit <soupert@stil.com> wrote:
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6ndls.17y9eum134oafsN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
hwhit <soupert@stil.com> wrote:
[..]
easy. bush won because myopic, idealistic [supreme court] voters,
after absorbing [bush senior's] [undue influence] gave bush the
election. :)
I've corrected your statement. You can thank me later.
you can whinge about the scotus decision all you want. the REALITY is
that it may or may not have been a bad or good decision. that is a
question for legal scholars that will be debated ad infinitum. but,
the scotus wouldn't even have had to have ruled if myopic idealistic
NADER voters had voted tactically instead of having their heads up
their collective okoles.
they LOST gore the election. period. he would have trounced bush if
they had the brains to vote for a REAL candidate.
Whit, I *do* appear to have gotten under your skin. All this lashing
out... What can I have done to elicit this response from you?
paul, let me make this very clear.
Yes, yes... very serious... We shall adopt a posture of sitting up
straight and listening attentively. <ahem>
this is just fun.
Oh, is *that* what it is? I thought were all sitting-up-straight and
attentive.
it's usenet.
Yes, this we know.
i enjoy ribbing you about nader for two reasons
1) it's fun
2) i think you are deluding yourself.
but, it's not personal. it's just usenet stuff.
Ah, so even though ribbing me is for you, as you say, about cruel fun
and making light of my deeply-held political beliefs, it's *not
personal.*
Sheesh, whit. You're sooooo transparent.
When you first showed up, I was glad there was someone who was at least
giving lip service to tossing aside partisanship and really discussing
stuff, but Oh Fucking Well. Now it's all about who's an elitist, who's a
left-wing shill, who has and hasn't read Hayek... Oh, wait... That was
back then. Scratch that last one.
nothing i have ever read in SP has gotten under my skin.
There's a first time for everything, isn't there?
--
"As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "thewhit" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
29 Dec 2003 04:51:00 AM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6pd7q.1r0ndeh16te8qiN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6notg.4x2y6fmrnm4gN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
hwhit <soupert@stil.com> wrote:
"Paul Mitchum" <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6ndls.17y9eum134oafsN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
hwhit <soupert@stil.com> wrote:
[..]
easy. bush won because myopic, idealistic [supreme court]
voters,
after absorbing [bush senior's] [undue influence] gave bush the
election. :)
I've corrected your statement. You can thank me later.
you can whinge about the scotus decision all you want. the REALITY
is
that it may or may not have been a bad or good decision. that is a
question for legal scholars that will be debated ad infinitum. but,
the scotus wouldn't even have had to have ruled if myopic idealistic
NADER voters had voted tactically instead of having their heads up
their collective okoles.
they LOST gore the election. period. he would have trounced bush
if
they had the brains to vote for a REAL candidate.
Whit, I *do* appear to have gotten under your skin. All this lashing
out... What can I have done to elicit this response from you?
paul, let me make this very clear.
Yes, yes... very serious... We shall adopt a posture of sitting up
straight and listening attentively. <ahem>
this is just fun.
Oh, is *that* what it is? I thought were all sitting-up-straight and
attentive.
it's usenet.
Yes, this we know.
i enjoy ribbing you about nader for two reasons
1) it's fun
2) i think you are deluding yourself.
but, it's not personal. it's just usenet stuff.
Ah, so even though ribbing me is for you, as you say, about cruel fun
cruel? are you serious? why is it cruel? it's frigging usenet. how can
comments that you don't take seriously be cruel.
and making light of my deeply-held political beliefs, it's *not
personal.*
i am not making light of your BELIEFS.
i respect your BELIEFS.
it was your TACTICS that i think are silly.
Sheesh, whit. You're sooooo transparent.
When you first showed up, I was glad there was someone who was at least
giving lip service to tossing aside partisanship and really discussing
stuff, but Oh Fucking Well. Now it's all about who's an elitist, who's a
left-wing shill, who has and hasn't read Hayek... Oh, wait... That was
back then. Scratch that last one.
hayek rools. burke, too.
nothing i have ever read in SP has gotten under my skin.
There's a first time for everything, isn't there?
that's why i never mention my family, and things like that in usenet.
because it is purely 'fun'. i know some people (personally) from usenet who
did that, and got hurt. literally.
that sux.
i've met some really kewl people through usenet. THAT's the real world.
prattling in SP is just fun. i enjoy the exchange of ideas, even though i
think you keep misstating what i am saying.
i RESPECT your beliefs as a green.
but you tactics imo, were wrong.
it would be like protesting speeders by jumping into the street to yell at
them (and getting hit by a car)
you make your point, but is it WORTH it?
not that i am comparing the bush presidency to an auto-ped collision.
whit
--
"As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Paul Mitchum" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
29 Dec 2003 03:46:15 PM |
|
|
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
i enjoy ribbing you about nader for two reasons
1) it's fun
2) i think you are deluding yourself.
but, it's not personal. it's just usenet stuff.
Ah, so even though ribbing me is for you, as you say, about cruel fun
cruel? are you serious? why is it cruel? it's frigging usenet. how can
comments that you don't take seriously be cruel.
That's an interesting question.
and making light of my deeply-held political beliefs, it's *not
personal.*
i am not making light of your BELIEFS.
i respect your BELIEFS.
it was your TACTICS that i think are silly.
Obviously. But I'm not under your skin, am I?
[..]
i've met some really kewl people through usenet. THAT's the real world.
prattling in SP is just fun. i enjoy the exchange of ideas, even though i
think you keep misstating what i am saying.
You really don't get it, do you? :-)
i RESPECT your beliefs as a green.
It's interesting to discover that I'm a Green. Where did you find this
out, so that I can go and do some research?
but you tactics imo, were wrong.
Well, you think I'm a member of the Green party, so obviously you don't
know much of anything about my tactics.
it would be like protesting speeders by jumping into the street to yell at
them (and getting hit by a car)
you make your point, but is it WORTH it?
I didn't get hit by a car. I voted, and my candidate lost. I share this
quality with anyone who didn't vote for Bush. That's how democracy
works, sometimes. You'll learn about losing in the next election.
not that i am comparing the bush presidency to an auto-ped collision.
Except that you *are.* Maybe there's hope for you yet.
--
"As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones..."
.
|
|
|
| User: "thewhit" |
|
| Title: Re: What would be the definition of a dictator in America ? |
29 Dec 2003 04:14:28 PM |
|
|
Paul Mitchum <usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3> wrote in message
news:1g6qbq3.1ahbyehh2hqsaN%usenet@mile23.com.r3m0v3...
thewhit <thewhit@whitt.com> wrote:
i enjoy ribbing you about nader for two reasons
1) it's fun
2) i think you are deluding yourself.
but, it's not personal. it's just usenet stuff.
Ah, so even though ribbing me is for you, as you say, about cruel fun
cruel? are you serious? why is it cruel? it's frigging usenet. how
can
comments that you don't take seriously be cruel.
That's an interesting question.
and making light of my deeply-held political beliefs, it's *not
personal.*
i am not making light of your BELIEFS.
i respect your BELIEFS.
it was your TACTICS that i think are silly.
Obviously. But I'm not under your skin, am I?
of course not.
[..]
i've met some really kewl people through usenet. THAT's the real world.
prattling in SP is just fun. i enjoy the exchange of ideas, even though
i
think you keep misstating what i am saying.
You really don't get it, do you? :-)
apparently, not.
i RESPECT your beliefs as a green.
It's interesting to discover that I'm a Green. Where did you find this
out, so that I can go and do some research?
fine. restated: i respect your beliefs that would lead you to prefer Nader
over bush or gore.
but you tactics imo, were wrong.
Well, you think I'm a member of the Green party, so obviously you don't
know much of anything about my tactics.
i corrected myself. excuuuuuuuuuse me.
it would be like protesting speeders by jumping into the street to yell
at
them (and getting hit by a car)
you make your point, but is it WORTH it?
I didn't get hit by a car. I voted, and my candidate lost. I share this
quality with anyone who didn't vote for Bush.
i am on numerous mailing lists - progressive ones. many of these groups
were screaming bloody murder that it was the nader voters who lost gore the
election (and prior to same they were imploring people to vote for gore not
nader)
you may share the quality of not voting for bush. however, you do not share
the quality of voting FOR gore. and dems are far more aware of that, and
many of them are frankly very bitter about it. i am laudatory in a
pragmatic sense towards nader voters. i could say that, in a sense, the
system DID work, in that the best man won! :)
That's how democracy
works, sometimes. You'll learn about losing in the next election.
i won't lose, because i'm not running. and contrary to what you have said
before about how you view me, i don't view dems as "the enemy" or wish them
ill will. i would PREFER bush over dean or kerry, but i really don't think
it would be a terrible thing if either won. i think it would just be
sub-optimal compared to bush. (who is suboptimal as well, to me, just the
best choice)
not that i am comparing the bush presidency to an auto-ped collision.
Except that you *are.* Maybe there's hope for you yet.
it's called self-deprecating (well, not really SELF, since i'm not bush)
humor. i can laugh about it. i'm not humorless about it. that's why i
also enjoy (as i have said) humorists like franken et al. the nice thing
about not being a partisan slave is that one can enjoy both sides of the
debate and not take political jousting personally. same reason why i like
carville, or stewart's "coverage" of the war etc.
whit
--
"As long as their soda cans are red, white, and blue ones..."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
