"Libby Loo" wrote in message
...


"Curly Surmudgeon" wrote in message
...


The sight of a grown man, Rhodes Scholar, Governor, married man, prancing
was just disturbing in some subconscious way.



I thought you stood in solidarity with your prancing male brothers. Why
the
backlash this time?

One of the most interesting facts in the piece, titled "Bobby Jindal's
Secret Past," was that Jindal said he witnessed, and then haltingly
participated in, the exorcism of his very close friend (a woman named Susan)
when he was in college.

(It should be noted that other bloggers have been making hay of this fact
for a while.)

In 1994 Jindal penned a piece for the New Oxford Review, under the title
"Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare," in which he
recounted what happened.



http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...st-pro-or-con/



JC

The sight of a grown man, Rhodes Scholar, Governor, married man,
prancing
was just disturbing in some subconscious way.



I thought you stood in solidarity with your prancing male brothers. Why
the
backlash this time?

One of the most interesting facts in the piece, titled "Bobby Jindal's
Secret Past," was that Jindal said he witnessed, and then haltingly
participated in, the exorcism of his very close friend (a woman named
Susan)
when he was in college.

(It should be noted that other bloggers have been making hay of this fact
for a while.)

In 1994 Jindal penned a piece for the New Oxford Review, under the title
"Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare," in which he
recounted what happened.




http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...st-pro-or-con/



After seeing the performance of Jindal following Obama's speech to congress
even republicans are saying "next". Apparently, after seeing Jindal's speech
they will continue to look for someone to lead the party. Right now they
have no one with any kind of leadership except for Limbaugh, and he's
stepping up and taking it. His speech at CPAC was supposed to be 20 minutes
but went on for an hour and a half. It's clear that he's about the only
republican that any of them wants to follow. Sara Palin is a distant second.
So there you have it. The republicans have fallen so far that all that is
left is a hard core of die hards that worship Limbaugh. What a party. No
wonder they are so small now. Only the kooks and nuts are left. So much for
Karl Rove's permanent majority.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


The sight of a grown man, Rhodes Scholar, Governor, married man,
prancing
was just disturbing in some subconscious way.



I thought you stood in solidarity with your prancing male brothers. Why
the
backlash this time?

One of the most interesting facts in the piece, titled "Bobby Jindal's
Secret Past," was that Jindal said he witnessed, and then haltingly
participated in, the exorcism of his very close friend (a woman named
Susan)
when he was in college.

(It should be noted that other bloggers have been making hay of this fact
for a while.)

In 1994 Jindal penned a piece for the New Oxford Review, under the title
"Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare," in which he
recounted what happened.




http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...st-pro-or-con/



After seeing the performance of Jindal following Obama's speech to
congress
even republicans are saying "next". Apparently, after seeing Jindal's
speech
they will continue to look for someone to lead the party. Right now they
have no one with any kind of leadership except for Limbaugh, and he's
stepping up and taking it. His speech at CPAC was supposed to be 20
minutes
but went on for an hour and a half. It's clear that he's about the only
republican that any of them wants to follow. Sara Palin is a distant
second.
So there you have it. The republicans have fallen so far that all that is
left is a hard core of die hards that worship Limbaugh. What a party. No
wonder they are so small now. Only the kooks and nuts are left. So much
for
Karl Rove's permanent majority.


There is always Jeb.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


The sight of a grown man, Rhodes Scholar, Governor, married man,
prancing
was just disturbing in some subconscious way.



I thought you stood in solidarity with your prancing male brothers.
Why
the
backlash this time?

One of the most interesting facts in the piece, titled "Bobby Jindal's
Secret Past," was that Jindal said he witnessed, and then haltingly
participated in, the exorcism of his very close friend (a woman named
Susan)
when he was in college.

(It should be noted that other bloggers have been making hay of this
fact
for a while.)

In 1994 Jindal penned a piece for the New Oxford Review, under the title
"Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare," in which he
recounted what happened.




http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...st-pro-or-con/



After seeing the performance of Jindal following Obama's speech to
congress
even republicans are saying "next". Apparently, after seeing Jindal's
speech
they will continue to look for someone to lead the party. Right now they
have no one with any kind of leadership except for Limbaugh, and he's
stepping up and taking it. His speech at CPAC was supposed to be 20
minutes
but went on for an hour and a half. It's clear that he's about the only
republican that any of them wants to follow. Sara Palin is a distant
second.
So there you have it. The republicans have fallen so far that all that is
left is a hard core of die hards that worship Limbaugh. What a party. No
wonder they are so small now. Only the kooks and nuts are left. So much
for
Karl Rove's permanent majority.


There is always Jeb.

JC

Here's another tidbit about Jindal that I didn't realize. It's in Frank
Rich's column today:

"Listening to Jindal talk Tuesday night about his immigrant father's
inability to pay for an obstetrician, you'd never guess that at the time his
father was an engineer and his mother an L.S.U. doctoral candidate in
nuclear physics."

From the way Jindal described it, I thought maybe they were pedicab drivers.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


The sight of a grown man, Rhodes Scholar, Governor, married man,
prancing
was just disturbing in some subconscious way.



I thought you stood in solidarity with your prancing male brothers.
Why
the
backlash this time?

One of the most interesting facts in the piece, titled "Bobby Jindal's
Secret Past," was that Jindal said he witnessed, and then haltingly
participated in, the exorcism of his very close friend (a woman named
Susan)
when he was in college.

(It should be noted that other bloggers have been making hay of this
fact
for a while.)

In 1994 Jindal penned a piece for the New Oxford Review, under the
title
"Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare," in which
he
recounted what happened.




http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...st-pro-or-con/



After seeing the performance of Jindal following Obama's speech to
congress
even republicans are saying "next". Apparently, after seeing Jindal's
speech
they will continue to look for someone to lead the party. Right now they
have no one with any kind of leadership except for Limbaugh, and he's
stepping up and taking it. His speech at CPAC was supposed to be 20
minutes
but went on for an hour and a half. It's clear that he's about the only
republican that any of them wants to follow. Sara Palin is a distant
second.
So there you have it. The republicans have fallen so far that all that
is
left is a hard core of die hards that worship Limbaugh. What a party. No
wonder they are so small now. Only the kooks and nuts are left. So much
for
Karl Rove's permanent majority.


There is always Jeb.

JC

Here's another tidbit about Jindal that I didn't realize. It's in Frank
Rich's column today:

"Listening to Jindal talk Tuesday night about his immigrant father's
inability to pay for an obstetrician, you'd never guess that at the time
his father was an engineer and his mother an L.S.U. doctoral candidate in
nuclear physics."

From the way Jindal described it, I thought maybe they were pedicab
drivers.

I almost sent you a link to that but you mentioned that you follow Rich
regularly.
Pretty tough piece.

Jindal looked a lot like Bill Clinton in '88 to me until I started digging a
little, and I do mean just a little.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Jeb Bush emerge after the mid terms.

LOL
Have a look at Dowd's bit if you haven't.
She's amusing as hell.

JC

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...



I wanted to mention that Tom Delay introduced Ann Coulter at CPAC.
Can you believe it!

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


The sight of a grown man, Rhodes Scholar, Governor, married man,
prancing
was just disturbing in some subconscious way.



I thought you stood in solidarity with your prancing male brothers.
Why
the
backlash this time?

One of the most interesting facts in the piece, titled "Bobby Jindal's
Secret Past," was that Jindal said he witnessed, and then haltingly
participated in, the exorcism of his very close friend (a woman named
Susan)
when he was in college.

(It should be noted that other bloggers have been making hay of this
fact
for a while.)

In 1994 Jindal penned a piece for the New Oxford Review, under the
title
"Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare," in which
he
recounted what happened.




http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...st-pro-or-con/



After seeing the performance of Jindal following Obama's speech to
congress
even republicans are saying "next". Apparently, after seeing Jindal's
speech
they will continue to look for someone to lead the party. Right now
they
have no one with any kind of leadership except for Limbaugh, and he's
stepping up and taking it. His speech at CPAC was supposed to be 20
minutes
but went on for an hour and a half. It's clear that he's about the only
republican that any of them wants to follow. Sara Palin is a distant
second.
So there you have it. The republicans have fallen so far that all that
is
left is a hard core of die hards that worship Limbaugh. What a party.
No
wonder they are so small now. Only the kooks and nuts are left. So much
for
Karl Rove's permanent majority.


There is always Jeb.

JC

Here's another tidbit about Jindal that I didn't realize. It's in Frank
Rich's column today:

"Listening to Jindal talk Tuesday night about his immigrant father's
inability to pay for an obstetrician, you'd never guess that at the time
his father was an engineer and his mother an L.S.U. doctoral candidate in
nuclear physics."

From the way Jindal described it, I thought maybe they were pedicab
drivers.

I almost sent you a link to that but you mentioned that you follow Rich
regularly.
Pretty tough piece.

Jindal looked a lot like Bill Clinton in '88 to me until I started digging
a little, and I do mean just a little.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Jeb Bush emerge after the mid terms.

No way, IMO. The Bush name is screwed for a generation. Unless the whole
country collapses in the meantime, I don't think Jeb would make it through
the Iowa caucuses.

Too bad; he probably would have been the best White House lawn ornament in
the family.


LOL
Have a look at Dowd's bit if you haven't.
She's amusing as hell.

JC

Always. Sometimes silly, but always amusing. She's really got it in for
those bankers lately, too.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...



I wanted to mention that Tom Delay introduced Ann Coulter at CPAC.
Can you believe it!

JC

Yeah, from what I read about it, they're really lost in fantasyland.

The best thing they could do is disinter Reagan and have him animated.

sigh I don't hold out much hope for my party. I said I'd give them six
months after the election to see if the moderates swept back into power, or
if they were going to self-destruct in an orgy of reactionary revanchism.
It's looking more like the latter every day, and that I'm going to have to
change my party registration to "independent" after 25 years or so of being
a Republican.

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...



Jindal looked a lot like Bill Clinton in '88 to me until I started
digging a little, and I do mean just a little.
I wouldn't be at all surprised to see Jeb Bush emerge after the mid
terms.

No way, IMO. The Bush name is screwed for a generation. Unless the whole
country collapses in the meantime, I don't think Jeb would make it through
the Iowa caucuses.

Nixon.......
Don't forget Dick Nixon.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

I wanted to mention that Tom Delay introduced Ann Coulter at CPAC.
Can you believe it!


Damn, I missed that. Rush, Cogburn, Newt, and Ron put on a good show.

Btw, when is Delay coming to trial? No end act to a polical take down? Ronnie must have
retired.

Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It's looking more like the latter every day, and that I'm going to have to
change my party registration to "independent" after 25 years or so of being
a Republican.

Go all the way, register for the dark side. Maybe torricelli will run again

Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

On Mar 1, 1:19*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"John R. Carroll" wrote in . com...







"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
. ..

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

I wanted to mention that Tom Delay introduced Ann Coulter at CPAC.
Can you believe it!

JC

Yeah, from what I read about it, they're really lost in fantasyland.

The best thing they could do is disinter Reagan and have him animated.

sigh I don't hold out much hope for my party. I said I'd give them six
months after the election to see if the moderates swept back into power, or
if they were going to self-destruct in an orgy of reactionary revanchism.
It's looking more like the latter every day, and that I'm going to have to
change my party registration to "independent" after 25 years or so of being
a Republican.

--
Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Damn Ed..you're funny.

TMT

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

It's looking more like the latter every day, and that I'm going to have to
change my party registration to "independent" after 25 years or so of
being
a Republican.

Go all the way, register for the dark side. Maybe torricelli will run
again

Wes

I'm not registering Dem in NJ. I know too many of them.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

I wanted to mention that Tom Delay introduced Ann Coulter at CPAC.
Can you believe it!


Damn, I missed that. Rush, Cogburn, Newt, and Ron put on a good show.

Btw, when is Delay coming to trial?

Pretty soon. He's been running round the appelate courts for the last couple
of years it seems.


No end act to a polical take down? Ronnie must have
retired.

I think he did as a matter of fact. So did Delay.
LOL

JC

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...



I wanted to mention that Tom Delay introduced Ann Coulter at CPAC.
Can you believe it!

JC

Yeah, from what I read about it, they're really lost in fantasyland.

Here's a report that seems to sum up the conference.


"At CPAC, I asked Gavin Valle, a 42-year-old strategic healthcare consultant
from New Jersey, what he thought about those who have worried aloud that
having Rush Limbaugh taking a too prominent or public role might hurt the
Republican Party. "Rush is the heart and soul of the conservative movement.
He's always a conservative first and a Republican second, and he lets people
know that," said Valle, whose jacket was adorned with "Nixon's the One" and
"Reagan for Governor" commemorative buttons. I asked Valle what he thought
of moderate Republicans and other party leaders in Washington who think
Limbaugh wields too much influence. "As far as people on the Hill
criticizing him? Frankly, there's a lot of people on the Hill who are
Republicans first and conservative second or not at all.""
"And not everybody who loves Rush is part of the aging angry white male
cohort that is no longer sufficient to win an election. CPAC attendee
Chelsea Barnett, a 21-year-old student at the University of Central Oklahoma
who says she's been listening to Limbaugh since she started driving, was
inspired by Limbaugh's address. "Omigosh, I think he energized the base so
much," said Barnett, who at one point ecstatically shouted, "Are you
single?!" toward the stage. "I think everybody's asking themselves, 'Where
in the world has this guy been and why have we not heard from him
face-to-face?' He's so effective in person in energizing people. It was so
amazing. I think we're going to see a lot more from him in person.""



The best thing they could do is disinter Reagan and have him animated.

sigh I don't hold out much hope for my party. I said I'd give them six
months after the election to see if the moderates swept back into power,
or if they were going to self-destruct in an orgy of reactionary
revanchism. It's looking more like the latter every day, and that I'm
going to have to change my party registration to "independent" after 25
years or so of being a Republican.



Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012? He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".

LOL


JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012? He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".


John, I know you don't listen to him often but I do. Rush has stated time after time he
doesn't want to run for President, he can't afford the pay cut.

Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Go all the way, register for the dark side. Maybe torricelli will run
again

Wes

I'm not registering Dem in NJ. I know too many of them.


A man without a party. So sad. Join the Libertarians then. Larry will be happy.

So what do you think the Republican Party you miss stood for?

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Go all the way, register for the dark side. Maybe torricelli will run
again

Wes

I'm not registering Dem in NJ. I know too many of them.


A man without a party. So sad. Join the Libertarians then. Larry will
be happy.

I couldn't stand the cocktail parties.


So what do you think the Republican Party you miss stood for?

Wes

Prudence.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...



I wanted to mention that Tom Delay introduced Ann Coulter at CPAC.
Can you believe it!

JC

Yeah, from what I read about it, they're really lost in fantasyland.

Here's a report that seems to sum up the conference.


"At CPAC, I asked Gavin Valle, a 42-year-old strategic healthcare
consultant from New Jersey, what he thought about those who have worried
aloud that having Rush Limbaugh taking a too prominent or public role
might hurt the Republican Party. "Rush is the heart and soul of the
conservative movement. He's always a conservative first and a Republican
second, and he lets people know that," said Valle, whose jacket was
adorned with "Nixon's the One" and "Reagan for Governor" commemorative
buttons. I asked Valle what he thought of moderate Republicans and other
party leaders in Washington who think Limbaugh wields too much influence.
"As far as people on the Hill criticizing him? Frankly, there's a lot of
people on the Hill who are Republicans first and conservative second or
not at all.""
"And not everybody who loves Rush is part of the aging angry white male
cohort that is no longer sufficient to win an election. CPAC attendee
Chelsea Barnett, a 21-year-old student at the University of Central
Oklahoma who says she's been listening to Limbaugh since she started
driving, was inspired by Limbaugh's address. "Omigosh, I think he
energized the base so much," said Barnett, who at one point ecstatically
shouted, "Are you single?!" toward the stage. "I think everybody's asking
themselves, 'Where in the world has this guy been and why have we not
heard from him face-to-face?' He's so effective in person in energizing
people. It was so amazing. I think we're going to see a lot more from him
in person.""



The best thing they could do is disinter Reagan and have him animated.

sigh I don't hold out much hope for my party. I said I'd give them six
months after the election to see if the moderates swept back into power,
or if they were going to self-destruct in an orgy of reactionary
revanchism. It's looking more like the latter every day, and that I'm
going to have to change my party registration to "independent" after 25
years or so of being a Republican.



Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012? He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".

LOL

The only thing he'd be good for is the White House's lawn jockey.

--
Ed Huntress

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012? He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".


John, I know you don't listen to him often but I do. Rush has stated time
after time he
doesn't want to run for President, he can't afford the pay cut.

When Rush went national I listened to him every day Wes. His show was a lot
better in it's early days.
I listened to Howard Stern every morning for an hour when his show came to
LA as well.
Six months of either and I was bored by the repetetive attempt to shock
their respective audiences.
To me, there isn't a bit of difference between the two of them and I quit
listening to them both after a few months.

JC

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


The sight of a grown man, Rhodes Scholar, Governor, married man,
prancing
was just disturbing in some subconscious way.



I thought you stood in solidarity with your prancing male brothers.
Why
the
backlash this time?

One of the most interesting facts in the piece, titled "Bobby Jindal's
Secret Past," was that Jindal said he witnessed, and then haltingly
participated in, the exorcism of his very close friend (a woman named
Susan)
when he was in college.

(It should be noted that other bloggers have been making hay of this
fact
for a while.)

In 1994 Jindal penned a piece for the New Oxford Review, under the
title
"Beating a Demon: Physical Dimensions of Spiritual Warfare," in which
he
recounted what happened.





http://blow.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/0...st-pro-or-con/



After seeing the performance of Jindal following Obama's speech to
congress
even republicans are saying "next". Apparently, after seeing Jindal's
speech
they will continue to look for someone to lead the party. Right now they
have no one with any kind of leadership except for Limbaugh, and he's
stepping up and taking it. His speech at CPAC was supposed to be 20
minutes
but went on for an hour and a half. It's clear that he's about the only
republican that any of them wants to follow. Sara Palin is a distant
second.
So there you have it. The republicans have fallen so far that all that
is
left is a hard core of die hards that worship Limbaugh. What a party. No
wonder they are so small now. Only the kooks and nuts are left. So much
for
Karl Rove's permanent majority.


There is always Jeb.

Yeah, I hadn't thought about him. That's just what the country needs,
another Bush in the White House. The other two didn't completely bring down
the country, almost, so I guess a third would be the charm.

Hawke

I wanted to mention that Tom Delay introduced Ann Coulter at CPAC.
Can you believe it!


But of course. Every right winger nutter worth their salt was there. The
same names that we heard from for the last eight years all showed up to
commiserate and plan new strategies for how they can get back power and go
back to destroying the country again. They are in real trouble though. Obama
has taken office at the absolute best time. The country is so far down right
now that in the next few years it has nowhere else to go but up. After a
while things are bound to improve and he'll be perfectly positioned to take
credit for it even if he didn't do anything. So the next time the
republicans would have any chance is at least eight years away. By then all
the old guard republicans will be gone. They will have to come up with all
new people and if the country is in good shape eight years hence they won't
win anything. Looks like our national streak of bad luck may be ending.
Seeing the demise of the republican party is the best thing that has
happened in decades.

Hawke

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Go all the way, register for the dark side. Maybe torricelli will run
again

Wes

I'm not registering Dem in NJ. I know too many of them.


A man without a party. So sad. Join the Libertarians then. Larry will
be happy.

I couldn't stand the cocktail parties.


So what do you think the Republican Party you miss stood for?

Wes

Prudence.


Please explain when that was. From what I have seen the republicans have
been nothing but a representative of wealth since the day Lincoln was shot.
They have always supported unregulated free markets and we have the panics
and crashes galore to show how imprudent that policy is. The brutal facts
never seem to change their idolization of free markets. Today's mess is just
another example of the same thing. 1920, 2009, their philosophy never varies
so if they were ever prudent it had to have been done covertly. Otherwise I
would have noticed it.

Hawke

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012? He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".


John, I know you don't listen to him often but I do.

You know, we all knew that without you even mentioning it. Take a guess how.

Rush has stated time after time he
doesn't want to run for President, he can't afford the pay cut.

Of course he can't. He has to live like a pig. Everything about him is
piggish. That is why he's such a good example for republicans. An overly
excessive person who overdoes everything and has no sense of moderation,
Limbaugh is the epitome of a "conservative". Can you see the irony in
someone who does everything too much like smoking, eating, talking,
marrying, drinking, taking drugs, calling himself a conservative? The Amish,
now they are conservative. But not Limbaugh and not that group at CPAC.

Hawke

"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012?
He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".


John, I know you don't listen to him often but I do. Rush has stated
time
after time he
doesn't want to run for President, he can't afford the pay cut.

When Rush went national I listened to him every day Wes. His show was a
lot
better in it's early days.
I listened to Howard Stern every morning for an hour when his show came to
LA as well.
Six months of either and I was bored by the repetetive attempt to shock
their respective audiences.
To me, there isn't a bit of difference between the two of them and I quit
listening to them both after a few months.

JC


When I was in school in one of my classes we were given the assignment of
listening to political propaganda to learn to recognize it and to analyze
it. The professor told us we had to listen to Limbaugh for a week.

Hawke

"Hawke" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:


Go all the way, register for the dark side. Maybe torricelli will
run
again

Wes

I'm not registering Dem in NJ. I know too many of them.


A man without a party. So sad. Join the Libertarians then. Larry
will
be happy.

I couldn't stand the cocktail parties.


So what do you think the Republican Party you miss stood for?

Wes

Prudence.


Please explain when that was. From what I have seen the republicans have
been nothing but a representative of wealth since the day Lincoln was
shot.

Wealth and prudence are hardly contradictory. And the period of greatest
circumspection for the Republican Party probably was from around 1954 to
1980. If Nixon wasn't such a weird nut, we'd remember him more for moderate
good sense than for being a weirdo and a criminal. Goldwater was an
important directive force for the party but he hardly was prudent or
circumspect -- but then, he didn't win, either. He lost a lot of the
moderate and liberal Republicans.

Before Nixon's Southern Strategy, both parties had substantial liberal,
conservative, and moderate wings. George Romney was a moderate, as was Ev
Dirksen. Rockefeller and the New England Republicans were fairly liberal.
And as you know, Southern Democrats until that time were mostly very
conservative -- authoritarian/reactionary, actually. In areas of the country
dominated by one party or the other, there generally was a mixture of
conservatives and liberals within that party, within a given area.

Reagan went off the deep end with his deficit spending. It made sense while
we were recovering from the recession in the early '80s but it made no sense
at all after recovery was underway. But he completed the conservative
takeover of the Republican Party that was begun by Goldwater and maneuvered
by Nixon to win the South. As it happened, he re-defined conservatism in the
process, partly by ignoring deficit spending for the sake of tax cuts, and
prudence went off the table when he did.

They have always supported unregulated free markets and we have the panics
and crashes galore to show how imprudent that policy is.

It's not true that they always supported unregulated free markets.
Individual responsibility, economic liberty, yes. But there were plenty of
Republicans who favored regulation and saw no conflict between prudent
regulation and economic liberty, because it was still accepted then that
markets are a great force but one that also had the potential for
self-destruction. People still remembered the Depression.

You're conflating conservatives with Republicans. Most conservatives have
been Republicans but until the populist sweep completed by Reagan, there was
a substantial percentage of Republicans who were not very conservative.

The brutal facts
never seem to change their idolization of free markets. Today's mess is
just
another example of the same thing. 1920, 2009, their philosophy never
varies
so if they were ever prudent it had to have been done covertly. Otherwise
I
would have noticed it.

Hawke

You would have noticed it if you'd paid better attention to American
political history, too. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012? He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".

LOL

The only thing he'd be good for is the White House's lawn jockey.


He is the wrong color. Lawn jockeys tend to be black. Sure hope that wasn't a veiled
reference to the President.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012? He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".

LOL

The only thing he'd be good for is the White House's lawn jockey.


He is the wrong color. Lawn jockeys tend to be black.

Not any more. They've been re-painted white in most places. Of course, you
may be someplace where they haven't caught up with that change.

I think a good, healthy tan looks good on them. d8-)

Sure hope that wasn't a veiled
reference to the President.

I think it would be cool if Obama installed a white lawn jockey at the White
House. Maybe a plaster replica of Rush Limbaugh, complete with cigar and
three or four chins.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mar 2, 9:17*am, "Ed Huntress" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012? He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".

LOL

The only thing he'd be good for is the White House's lawn jockey.

He is the wrong color. *Lawn jockeys tend to be black.

Not any more. They've been re-painted white in most places. Of course, you
may be someplace where they haven't caught up with that change.

I think a good, healthy tan looks good on them. d8-)

Sure hope that wasn't a veiled
reference to the President. *

I think it would be cool if Obama installed a white lawn jockey at the White
House. Maybe a plaster replica of Rush Limbaugh, complete with cigar and
three or four chins.

--
Ed Huntress

Here is a business opportunity.

I would buy one for my lawn.

My dog needs something new to pee on. ;)

TMT

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

He is the wrong color. Lawn jockeys tend to be black.

Not any more. They've been re-painted white in most places. Of course, you
may be someplace where they haven't caught up with that change.

Well, I haven't seen any where I live though I do remember seeing quite a few in Indiana.
Most not painted.

I think a good, healthy tan looks good on them. d8-)

Maybe like Bele from Cheron, of course some may like their white on the other side

Sure hope that wasn't a veiled
reference to the President.

I think it would be cool if Obama installed a white lawn jockey at the White
House. Maybe a plaster replica of Rush Limbaugh, complete with cigar and
three or four chins.

That would be cool. Rush would have a field day with it.

Wes

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

He is the wrong color. Lawn jockeys tend to be black.

Not any more. They've been re-painted white in most places. Of course, you
may be someplace where they haven't caught up with that change.

Well, I haven't seen any where I live though I do remember seeing quite a
few in Indiana.
Most not painted.

I think a good, healthy tan looks good on them. d8-)

Maybe like Bele from Cheron, of course some may like their white on the
other side

Sure hope that wasn't a veiled
reference to the President.

I think it would be cool if Obama installed a white lawn jockey at the
White
House. Maybe a plaster replica of Rush Limbaugh, complete with cigar and
three or four chins.

That would be cool. Rush would have a field day with it.

Wes

Since Obama still smokes, it would be convenient to have Limbaugh's jockey
hat come off and to have a deep ashtray in his skull.

--
Ed Huntress

"John R. Carroll" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012? He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".


John, I know you don't listen to him often but I do. Rush has stated time
after time he
doesn't want to run for President, he can't afford the pay cut.

When Rush went national I listened to him every day Wes. His show was a lot
better in it's early days.

He has his up's and downs. I listen to him on a mp3 player which makes his shows go 36
minutes to a hour air time. Sadly I don't get the Paul Shanklin parodies but I don't get
the commercials either.

Sometimes he makes it all the way to work and other times I'll play some other podcast. I
kind a miss Air American's podcasts but when they started charging, I stopped listening.
Randy Rhoads was way out there when I was listening. Made Al Franken seem like a
moderate.

It was nice getting each sides take on events. As you know, each side tends to see things
though a prism.

I listened to Howard Stern every morning for an hour when his show came to
LA as well.
Six months of either and I was bored by the repetetive attempt to shock
their respective audiences.
To me, there isn't a bit of difference between the two of them and I quit
listening to them both after a few months.

I'm glad you gave up on Stern, I heard him a few times and I'm sure I lost IQ doing it.

C-Span has a number of podcasts that are good to listen to if traveling. That and Steve
Gibsons Security Now, Off the Hook, and some gun rights podcasts make the drive into work
enjoyable.

Wes

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

Since Obama still smokes, it would be convenient to have Limbaugh's jockey
hat come off and to have a deep ashtray in his skull.


You mean Obama hasn't outlawed smoking on Federal property yet?

Wes

On Mon, 02 Mar 2009 13:53:29 -0500, the infamous Wes
scrawled the following:

"John R. Carroll" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012? He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".


John, I know you don't listen to him often but I do. Rush has stated time
after time he
doesn't want to run for President, he can't afford the pay cut.

When Rush went national I listened to him every day Wes. His show was a lot
better in it's early days.

He has his up's and downs. I listen to him on a mp3 player which makes his shows go 36
minutes to a hour air time. Sadly I don't get the Paul Shanklin parodies but I don't get
the commercials either.

Where can I find these shorter MP3s, Wes?

The same trick can make a full 3 hour football game take only an hour.


Sometimes he makes it all the way to work and other times I'll play some other podcast. I
kind a miss Air American's podcasts but when they started charging, I stopped listening.
Randy Rhoads was way out there when I was listening. Made Al Franken seem like a
moderate.

It was nice getting each sides take on events. As you know, each side tends to see things
though a prism.

I listened to Howard Stern every morning for an hour when his show came to
LA as well.
Six months of either and I was bored by the repetetive attempt to shock
their respective audiences.
To me, there isn't a bit of difference between the two of them and I quit
listening to them both after a few months.

I'm glad you gave up on Stern, I heard him a few times and I'm sure I lost IQ doing it.

C-Span has a number of podcasts that are good to listen to if traveling. That and Steve
Gibsons Security Now, Off the Hook, and some gun rights podcasts make the drive into work
enjoyable.

Got links?

--
"Not always right, but never uncertain." --Heinlein
-=-=-

Larry Jaques wrote:

He has his up's and downs. I listen to him on a mp3 player which makes his shows go 36
minutes to a hour air time. Sadly I don't get the Paul Shanklin parodies but I don't get
the commercials either.

Where can I find these shorter MP3s, Wes?

Join Rush 24x7 (costs money)

The same trick can make a full 3 hour football game take only an hour.

Yes.

C-Span has a number of podcasts that are good to listen to if traveling. That and Steve
Gibsons Security Now, Off the Hook, and some gun rights podcasts make the drive into work
enjoyable.

Got links?

For which?
http://www.c-span.org/podcasts.aspx

http://www.c-span.org/podcasts.aspx

http://www.c-span.org/podcasts.aspx

http://gunrights.us/


Wes
--
"Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect
government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home
in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller

So what do you think the Republican Party you miss stood for?

Wes

Prudence.


Please explain when that was. From what I have seen the republicans have
been nothing but a representative of wealth since the day Lincoln was
shot.

Wealth and prudence are hardly contradictory. And the period of greatest
circumspection for the Republican Party probably was from around 1954 to
1980. If Nixon wasn't such a weird nut, we'd remember him more for
moderate
good sense than for being a weirdo and a criminal. Goldwater was an
important directive force for the party but he hardly was prudent or
circumspect -- but then, he didn't win, either. He lost a lot of the
moderate and liberal Republicans.

You'd like to think wealth and prudence go together but I think in reality
there is no connection between the two. Mike Tyson was very wealthy but
hardly prudent and the same thing can be said for many with wealth. And I
still think that representing wealth really has nothing to do with prudence.
The monied class is an interest group and the republicans are the political
arm of that group. As for Nixon, you can call him prudent but anyone that
starts covert wars, bugs political enemies, commits felonies while
president, and is clinically paranoid is hardly my idea of a prudent man. I
do thank him to this day for putting in the draft lottery though. 8-)


Before Nixon's Southern Strategy, both parties had substantial liberal,
conservative, and moderate wings. George Romney was a moderate, as was Ev
Dirksen. Rockefeller and the New England Republicans were fairly liberal.
And as you know, Southern Democrats until that time were mostly very
conservative -- authoritarian/reactionary, actually. In areas of the
country
dominated by one party or the other, there generally was a mixture of
conservatives and liberals within that party, within a given area.

I'll go along with that. There did used to be more variety of thought in
both parties. Now it's ideologues or nothing.


Reagan went off the deep end with his deficit spending. It made sense
while
we were recovering from the recession in the early '80s but it made no
sense
at all after recovery was underway. But he completed the conservative
takeover of the Republican Party that was begun by Goldwater and
maneuvered
by Nixon to win the South. As it happened, he re-defined conservatism in
the
process, partly by ignoring deficit spending for the sake of tax cuts, and
prudence went off the table when he did.

It made sense to the republican Kool-Aid drinkers. Starve the beast of funds
was the plan for the government but as always, running along side with
everything else they did was the bond between wealth/business and the
republican party. It was interest not prudence that they were all about.


They have always supported unregulated free markets and we have the
panics
and crashes galore to show how imprudent that policy is.

It's not true that they always supported unregulated free markets.

Come on, do I have to get out the Chamber of Commerce manifesto from 1929 to
show you that the overarching desire of the republicans was free market
capitalism along with low or better still, no taxes? Nothing has changed to
this day. I've heard the mantra of deregulating free markets for half a
century. They finally did it in 2001 to our dismay.



Individual responsibility, economic liberty, yes. But there were plenty of
Republicans who favored regulation and saw no conflict between prudent
regulation and economic liberty, because it was still accepted then that
markets are a great force but one that also had the potential for
self-destruction. People still remembered the Depression.

As always there are a few lone wolves who buck the party. But the direction
has always been the same. Get rid of regulation. It's what kills business.
That and taxes. They never give up. Just listen to everyone on MSNBC for a
day. All Larry Kudlow talks about is lowering taxes on business. This is
what they live for. Funny thing is they got what they asked for when they
elected Bush. Even funnier is how they can't put two and two together and
figure out getting what they wanted is what got us in this financial mess.
There's a few who get it though but they get short shrift and are labeled
"socialist".


You're conflating conservatives with Republicans. Most conservatives have
been Republicans but until the populist sweep completed by Reagan, there
was
a substantial percentage of Republicans who were not very conservative.

Non conservative republicans don't exist anymore. It's like the chicken or
the egg. Which came first republicans or conservatives. In the past being a
republican meant you were conservative. The only difference was how
conservative. It's only now that some people like to say they are
conservatives but aren't republicans. Except all those people vote for
nothing but republicans. They are like Sean Hannity. They say they are
conservative but all they hang around with are republicans. They try to get
republicans elected. All their friends are republicans. They contribute to
the republican party. But they are conservatives. Yeah, right.


The brutal facts
never seem to change their idolization of free markets. Today's mess is
just
another example of the same thing. 1920, 2009, their philosophy never
varies
so if they were ever prudent it had to have been done covertly.
Otherwise
I
would have noticed it.

Hawke

You would have noticed it if you'd paid better attention to American
political history, too. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


You still never showed me when republicans did anything but promote the
interests of wealth, and I can't see where that was ever truly prudent.
You're just wishing it was true because you were one of them for so long you
didn't want to see the way the group really was. It's like being an honest
man in a group of liars. You don't want to think they are completely
different from you. But if you are really prudent you wouldn't be a
republican. Ready to quit them once and for all? I'll support you in your
weakened state.

Hawke

On Mar 1, 11:54*pm, "Hawke" wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message

...

"John R. Carroll" wrote:

Aw come on Ed. Can't see yourself wearing a Rush/Palin button in 2012? He
is, after all "he heart and soul of the conservative movement".

John, I know you don't listen to him often but I do.

You know, we all knew that without you even mentioning it. Take a guess how.

*Rush has stated time after time he

doesn't want to run for President, he can't afford the pay cut.

Of course he can't. He has to live like a pig. Everything about him is
piggish. That is why he's such a good example for republicans. An overly
excessive person who overdoes everything and has no sense of moderation,
Limbaugh is the epitome of a "conservative". Can you see the irony in
someone who does everything too much like smoking, eating, talking,
marrying, drinking, taking drugs, calling himself a conservative? The Amish,
now they are conservative. But not Limbaugh and not that group at CPAC.

Hawke

I suspect a drug user wouldn't want the Secret Service following him
around.

TMT

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:


It was nice getting each sides take on events. As you know, each side
tends to see things
though a prism.

You won't learn anything real listening to any of them Wes.
As an example, if I want to know what the worlds top business leaders think
I listen to what they have to say for themselves.
This group, in particular, is among the smartest on the planet and if you
want to learn about, oh say ethics, you listen to what they have to say.

Herb Kelleher once fired a very senior execuive in an airport. I saw it
happen and the cause was a simple lie and it wasn't anything huge.
SWA is run like that and so are many other of the worlds tiffany
corporations. Something like this happened at the last IMTS. Mo just fired a
top guy on the spot because the guy was lying. MAG is a better company
because while they expect screw ups they recognize that a lie isn't a screw
up.

Jeffrey Immelt from GE characterized great leaders by four traits and the
most important one was that great leaders aren't great because of what they
know but by how fast they can learn what they don't.

You won't hear anything like that from entertainers like Howard, Rush or any
of the others.
They will be wanting to chew it for you and frankly, I prefer to do my own
chewing and tasting.

C-Span has a number of podcasts that are good to listen to if traveling.
That and Steve
Gibsons Security Now, Off the Hook, and some gun rights podcasts make the
drive into work
enjoyable.

Broaden you listening horizons a little bit and you will be better informed
Wes. Your head might hurt more often but you won't be relying on people
who's sole purpose in life is a $400 million dollar entertainment contract.
Thise guys don't really care about anything beyond that. They certainly
don't care about you or I.

JC

John R. Carroll wrote:
"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

"Wes" wrote in message
...
"John R. Carroll" wrote:

It was nice getting each sides take on events. As you know, each side
tends to see things
though a prism.

You won't learn anything real listening to any of them Wes.
As an example, if I want to know what the worlds top business leaders think
I listen to what they have to say for themselves.
This group, in particular, is among the smartest on the planet and if you
want to learn about, oh say ethics, you listen to what they have to say.

Herb Kelleher once fired a very senior execuive in an airport. I saw it
happen and the cause was a simple lie and it wasn't anything huge.
SWA is run like that and so are many other of the worlds tiffany
corporations. Something like this happened at the last IMTS. Mo just fired a
top guy on the spot because the guy was lying. MAG is a better company
because while they expect screw ups they recognize that a lie isn't a screw
up.

Jeffrey Immelt from GE characterized great leaders by four traits and the
most important one was that great leaders aren't great because of what they
know but by how fast they can learn what they don't.

You won't hear anything like that from entertainers like Howard, Rush or any
of the others.
They will be wanting to chew it for you and frankly, I prefer to do my own
chewing and tasting.
C-Span has a number of podcasts that are good to listen to if traveling.
That and Steve
Gibsons Security Now, Off the Hook, and some gun rights podcasts make the
drive into work
enjoyable.

Broaden you listening horizons a little bit and you will be better informed
Wes. Your head might hurt more often but you won't be relying on people
who's sole purpose in life is a $400 million dollar entertainment contract.
Thise guys don't really care about anything beyond that. They certainly
don't care about you or I.

JC



Excellent, JC, smack in the center of the bullseye.

"Ed Huntress" wrote:

As a famous man once said, I'm not leaving the party. It's left me. d8-)


With TMT and Hawke filterd out, the threading looks a bit bizzare like you are talking to
youself.

I'm a bit miffed that the Republicans of 94 lost their way. They had it together back
then.

Wes