On 4/6/2012 5:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:54 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:56 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 5:58 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 12:28 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 4/4/2012 6:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 4/4/2012 2:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
News for Ptooey: people who are experts in politics don't watch
CNN and
C-SPAN and the weekend news talk programs - they're *ON* them.



To all dildo head pimps, you ought to know that there are plenty of
experts on politics that are not on or employed by cable news
shows or
C-Span. Many political hacks get on those shows while real experts
sit
on the sidelines because they don't know the right people.

Hawke
But you should have no problem getting on them, you are close to the
media mecca in LA, and since you told us that "everyone likes you"
{except those that don't} you should have NO problem getting on
those
shows.

In fact you should have no problem facing off with O' Riley, or even
get on with Limbaugh. [why heck then you could even ask him what his
demographics are, rather than making stuff up]
jk


You would surely be surprised to find out that I have on more than
one
occasion written emails to O'Reilly and had him read them on the air.


Yeah sure, and I am "sure" you can provide the dates.

Nope. Never took no mind over it as it was no big deal to me. But it
was
two or three years ago because it was about then that I stopped
watching
him. Nothing to be gained from a conservative propagandist like he is.

That kind of snide bull**** illustrates perfectly why you would never be
invited onto Meet the Press or Face the Nation or any other show where
pundits and political consultants are interviewed. You simply don't have
any analysis to offer; nothing but immature political bias.


You really must be stupid if you think I would go on a national TV show
and talk like I do with a bunch of dudes on the corner

You'd never be invited, because all you have to offer is your stupid
"dude talk".


You think anyone is going to ask you on TV any time soon? No? So why are
you saying **** about me when you're in the same boat? Just because you
want everyone to know what a hypocrite you are? They already know that.

Hawke

On 4/6/2012 6:58 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 4/5/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Great answer. You can't even say what an expert is.

Obviously we all know you're not one.


You might think that. But you don't know it to be true because you
have no way of knowing how much I actually know.

Based solely on what you post here, you know very little, and most of
what you think you know is wrong.

For you to know if I was qualified as a political expert you would
need to know how much I know about the subject. We both know you
don't have any idea as to the depth of my knowledge.

Depth? All you've shown us is quite shallow, at best.

All you know is what you can guess from what I've written in a
recreation newsgroup, and that's virtually nothing. So as usual, you
want us to believe you know things when you have no way of knowing
them at all.

Hawwke-ptooey

If you are other than what you have shown here, why have you gone to
such lengths to portray yourself as ignorant and foolish?

The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.

You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

David

On 4/6/2012 5:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:58 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 5:59 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 2:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 12:11 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/4/2012 6:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/4/2012 5:34 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/4/2012 2:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
News for Ptooey: people who are experts in politics don't watch
CNN
and
C-SPAN and the weekend news talk programs - they're *ON* them.



To all dildo head pimps, you ought to know that there are plenty of
experts on politics that are not on or employed by cable news
shows or
C-Span.

The point stands. You are not an expert in politics - not even
close.
You're a fan, but like every fan who sits in the stands at an NBA or
NFL
or MLB game, you can't actually *do* it yourself.


What exactly do you think it takes to qualify as an expert in
politics?

I just know it will be someone very different from you. I can't say
definitively what it is, but I can tell from looking at you that
you're
not.


Great answer. You can't even say what an expert is.

Obviously we all know you're not one.


You might think that.

We all know it. You are not an expert in politics - not even close. As
previously established, you're just a fan. But like any fan in the
stands at an NBA or NFL game, you can't actually do it.


Just because what you said describes you don't try to apply it to me.
Clearly, you are just a "fan" of politics and are not and never were
serious about it. You never even went to school to learn about it. So
you are not anything but a dabbler. But don't project on me what you
are. I actually spent years learning about it. Dabbling is what you did.
Getting a college degree isn't "dabbling" in politics unless getting a
degree in economics is merely dabbling in that too. So we're not the
same. I pursued knowledge in politics and worked at it. You didn't. So
we aren't the same. You dabbled. I worked at it, and that's why I know
so much more than you do about it.

Hawke

On Apr 6, 8:00*pm, Hawke wrote:

Who says I'm a liberal?

Hawke

I say you are a liberal. Your views on taxes is a liberal view
point. Your views on minimum wages is a liberal view point. And your
views on how some people get breaks to get ahead is a liberal view
point. If you hold liberal ideals, then you are a liberal.

I would think that anyone with an advanced degree in Poly Sci would
know if they are a liberal or not.

Dan

On 4/6/2012 5:22 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:55 PM, jk wrote:

Fair enough if your mendacious self promotion were to be true. I guess
your re not really that smart, that knowledgeable , OR that well liked
after all. What a surprise.



Look who's talking. Who do you think you are saying **** like that about
me when you couldn't get on radio, TV, or the corner bar with what you
know.


We didn't make the jackass claim to be "smart, knowledgeable, and well
liked", you did.

You boys claim to be not only as good as me but better.

We're better because we don't claim expertise we don't have.


You guys are a joke. You ask me why I'm not one of the couple
dozen people who get the best jobs in the world.

You called it something significantly different a few months ago.

What was that?

Looks as if your memory is ****ed up even worse than previously thought.


What's your excuse? How
come you're not a TV personality? Pretty stupid question isn't it?
That's what you're asking me. How come I'm not on TV? Duh! How come you
don't play pro basketball?

A truly irrelevant question, but one I will answer.

That question is certainly no less relevant than

It's irrelevant.


But yes I do not play "pro" basketball, but then neither do you, but
as well neither of us has claimed to have that skill set.
Among other reasons I don't play, is that I never had any interest in
obtaining that skill set.

The point is you aren't successful on that level and you ask me why I'm
not as successful as Carville or Rove.

But he never claimed any expertise at playing basketball. You have
claimed to be every bit as knowledgeable about politics as Carville and
Rove. Clearly you're not.


You, however, in your usual braggart fashion, claimed to have the
skill set of a "talking head".



Your problem is that you have misinterpreted a simple recitation of
facts as bragging.

It was nothing but bragging; no facts.

On 4/6/2012 5:24 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:23 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:



Who says I'm a liberal?

Coming out of the closet BOTH ways today I see
jk


Who says I'm a liberal?

You're an illiberal "liberal".

Hawke wrote:

We didn't make the jackass claim to be "smart, knowledgeable, and well
liked", you did.

You boys claim to be not only as good as me but better.
George might have, I haven't made that as a general claim.
Don't try to say
you don't. Pimpton tries to say he's my superior in every single
category and you do the same thing but in a sneakier way.
Either I claim it or I don't. Make up your mind, and then prove it.

You like to
intimate that you're really pretty damn good too, smart, successful,
hardworking, etc.

You act like you're my equal if not better all the
time.
I know I am in several specific areas, or I would already know you, or
know of you.

So if you ask me it's you two that are acting like you're hot
****, not me.
So by poking fun at your rather grandiose claims of being "smarter,
more knowledgeable, and well liked than darn near everyone", your
(also alleged) superior ability to "evaluate evidence" sees a claim
of the same ability?

To break it down for you in simple terms.
If I am talking to a moron who thinks he is "Superman", and I say
"you are not superman", I am NOT saying "I can leap tall buildings".

What's your excuse? How
come you're not a TV personality? Pretty stupid question isn't it?
That's what you're asking me. How come I'm not on TV? Duh! How come you
don't play pro basketball?

A truly irrelevant question, but one I will answer.

That question is certainly no less relevant than what you ask me. You
ask why I'm not terrifically successful. So I ask you the same and when
I do it there is no relevance? It's the same thing.
I see you slept through all classes where they were discussing how to
set up an analogy.
A better analogy would be to use a profession where I claimed to be
better than most people in the world.

That is, after noting that You don't "know" that I don't.

I got a pretty good idea.

You have no idea what I do. You suspect I don't play pro basketball
[With good reason given my feelings on the game.], but you know
nothing.

Yeah, I'm assuming you're not one of the 1500 best basketball players in
the world. Since the season is on you wouldn't be able to be here now if
you were. The point is why aren't you as successful as a professional
athlete? That's basically what you asked me?
No as discussed above it isn't


But yes I do not play "pro" basketball, but then neither do you, but
as well neither of us has claimed to have that skill set.
Among other reasons I don't play, is that I never had any interest in
obtaining that skill set.

Can't you see how stupid your questions
are?
Can't you see how stupid your "boasts" are. Call them fact all you
like...you can not come close to proving any one of them to any
observer.

You, however, in your usual braggart fashion, claimed to have the
skill set of a "talking head".


Your problem is that you have misinterpreted a simple recitation of
facts as bragging. Just like me saying I have a degree in political
science. Telling you that isn't bragging no matter how many times you
say it is.
It isn't mutually exclusive. Apparently you need another english
lesson.


If I tell you I'm six one and a half I'm not bragging. If I
tell you that at 61 years old I can bench press 300 lbs. is that
bragging? It's not. You have to misconstrue it to make it into bragging.
brag
1.
to use boastful language; boast: He bragged endlessly about his high
score.
verb (used with object)
2.
to boast of: He bragged that he had won.
noun
3.
a boast or vaunt.
4.
a thing to boast of.
5.
a boaster.
6.
an old English card game similar to poker.
adjective
7.
Archaic . unusually fine; first-rate.
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English brag (noun) ostentation, arrogance, braggen
(v.); of obscure origin

Bragging is more in the way you use it, rather than the actual
description.

Got it? It's you and your buddy that
have made problems because you both misconstrue and misunderstand just
about every thing I've written.
Then learn to write more clearly, and think before you boast.
I have to chalk that up to you both
being extremely biased. Which happens to be a fact.


Another English word that you seem to be vague on.
At least you constantly misuse it.
jk

"David R. Birch" wrote:



You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.
(Blinding flash of insight)

My god, he IS funny after all.
You mean that all along he has been VERY subtly saying, "Anyone who
points out his errors is RIGHT?" If that is what he has been doing he
might be as smart as he claims as well

Wow, thanks.
David



jk

On 4/6/2012 5:34 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/6/2012 6:58 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 4/5/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Great answer. You can't even say what an expert is.

Obviously we all know you're not one.


You might think that. But you don't know it to be true because you
have no way of knowing how much I actually know.

Based solely on what you post here, you know very little, and most of
what you think you know is wrong.

What kind of an idiot would believe that what they learned on a rec.
newsgroup about someone is accurate? You would have to be a nutcase to
think you could know very much about someone from their postings. You
can't even know what sex someone is without them telling you. So you
morons are using what I have written here and you think you really know
anything about me. If that's what you think then you guys are stupider
than even I thought, and that's pretty stupid.


For you to know if I was qualified as a political expert you would
need to know how much I know about the subject. We both know you
don't have any idea as to the depth of my knowledge.

Depth? All you've shown us is quite shallow, at best.

Why would I want to show you anything? You're a first class jerk. A
condescending clown who thinks he's Einstein. Believe you me. I don't
want to show you anything. You count for nothing. You're worth
absolutely nothing so who gives a poop what you think about anything? I
don't.


All you know is what you can guess from what I've written in a
recreation newsgroup, and that's virtually nothing. So as usual, you
want us to believe you know things when you have no way of knowing
them at all.

Hawwke-ptooey

If you are other than what you have shown here, why have you gone to
such lengths to portray yourself as ignorant and foolish?

Why have you gone to such lengths to try to portray yourself as
Einstein? Everything you do seems to be an attempt to try to show
yourself as brilliant. With you and Pimpton here I can't decide which of
you is the bigger show off. He's got a BA from UCLA. To him that makes
him a genius. You have no credentials and think you have the highest IQ
in the group. Both of you seem to think you're brighter than anyone here.

Funny but no one else thinks you guys are better than average. I cannot
recall once that anyone asked for your expertise in anything. You both
need a big mirror to look in so you can see how ordinary you are. Maybe
that will bring you back to earth one of these days. Maybe.




The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.

You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

Shut up, David


Hawke

On 4/6/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:04 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:34 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:46 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


If you knew anything about the subject you would know that it's a
problem getting on the air anywhere.

James Carville doesn't seem to have much trouble; neither does Karl
Rove. Oh, but then they actually know politics, unlike you.


Give me a break. You cherry pick the two most well known political
experts in the country and ask why I can't get the jobs they do? Are
you
kidding.

Fair enough if your mendacious self promotion were to be true. I
guess
your re not really that smart, that knowledgeable , OR that well
liked
after all. What a surprise.



Look who's talking.

He is: one of the guys who hasn't blabbered that he's a national-level
political know-it-all.


I guess he's not like you either, huh? A guy who has to make **** up
about people to make them look bad because you can't actually prove a
damn thing you say?

I've proved that you don't know politics.


Yeah, you proved that to yourself but

It's proved, period. You're a fan, not a player.

On 4/6/2012 5:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


That's 4, I think.

Four what?

I expect he means four instances of your ****witted simpleminded
partisanship in some limited amount of time.

You "expect" meaning you don't know what he means

I don't. That's why I said "expect", you ****wit.


But it's true. On at least two instances he read my emails on his
show.
The only one I remember was one where I told him that his actions
looked
just like the ones he calls hate when someone else does it. Of course,
he didn't agree with me but he did read it on the show.

Ahhh one of the ones he likes to make fun of then. Not because he
found you smart or educated, or intelligent, or even witty, just
stupid.

Of course that is what someone like you would assume, but

He's undoubtedly right.

So you assume

He's undoubtedly right.


I don't have to
make things like that up though because I really have done it.

What? No substantive response as to why you are not on the air with
them.

I like to think the only reason is that I have no one to open any
doors
for me. I think if I got an opportunity I could do the job.


I will admit you probably could hang for most of it. Most of those
talking heads are opinionated and think they know everything too.

You don't have to be a genius to be on TV.

You have to know something and have something interesting to say. Both
requirements let you out.

But that's only the opinion

Nope. It's a fact. You don't have a minute fraction of what it takes
to be on one of those shows.


I'll never
know, because like most people, I'll never get the opportunity.
Lots of
times without a break in life no one gets ahead.

SO it's the universe's fault you never did any thing with your life
then?

Should I assume you've done nothing with your life like you just did
about me?

You go ahead and assume what you like. However, there's a difference:
there is solid evidence that *you* never did anything with your life.

If you believe that conjecture and solid evidence are the same thing

There is solid evidence you never did anything worthwhile with your life.

On 4/6/2012 5:33 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:54 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:56 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 5:58 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 12:28 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 4/4/2012 6:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 4/4/2012 2:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
News for Ptooey: people who are experts in politics don't watch
CNN and
C-SPAN and the weekend news talk programs - they're *ON* them.



To all dildo head pimps, you ought to know that there are
plenty of
experts on politics that are not on or employed by cable news
shows or
C-Span. Many political hacks get on those shows while real experts
sit
on the sidelines because they don't know the right people.

Hawke
But you should have no problem getting on them, you are close to
the
media mecca in LA, and since you told us that "everyone likes you"
{except those that don't} you should have NO problem getting on
those
shows.

In fact you should have no problem facing off with O' Riley, or
even
get on with Limbaugh. [why heck then you could even ask him what
his
demographics are, rather than making stuff up]
jk


You would surely be surprised to find out that I have on more than
one
occasion written emails to O'Reilly and had him read them on the
air.


Yeah sure, and I am "sure" you can provide the dates.

Nope. Never took no mind over it as it was no big deal to me. But it
was
two or three years ago because it was about then that I stopped
watching
him. Nothing to be gained from a conservative propagandist like he is.

That kind of snide bull**** illustrates perfectly why you would
never be
invited onto Meet the Press or Face the Nation or any other show where
pundits and political consultants are interviewed. You simply don't
have
any analysis to offer; nothing but immature political bias.


You really must be stupid if you think I would go on a national TV show
and talk like I do with a bunch of dudes on the corner

You'd never be invited, because all you have to offer is your stupid
"dude talk".


You think anyone is going to ask you on TV any time soon?

I never said I would be invited. You have explicitly said that you have
what it takes to be on one of those shows, and clearly you don't.

On 4/6/2012 5:34 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/6/2012 6:58 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 4/5/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Great answer. You can't even say what an expert is.

Obviously we all know you're not one.


You might think that. But you don't know it to be true because you
have no way of knowing how much I actually know.

Based solely on what you post here, you know very little, and most of
what you think you know is wrong.

Exactly. He really has almost no knowledge - just beliefs founded on
bad values.


For you to know if I was qualified as a political expert you would
need to know how much I know about the subject. We both know you
don't have any idea as to the depth of my knowledge.

Depth? All you've shown us is quite shallow, at best.

All you know is what you can guess from what I've written in a
recreation newsgroup, and that's virtually nothing. So as usual, you
want us to believe you know things when you have no way of knowing
them at all.

Hawwke-ptooey

If you are other than what you have shown here, why have you gone to
such lengths to portray yourself as ignorant and foolish?

The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.

You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

David

On 4/6/2012 5:41 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:58 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 5:59 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 2:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 12:11 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/4/2012 6:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/4/2012 5:34 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/4/2012 2:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
News for Ptooey: people who are experts in politics don't watch
CNN
and
C-SPAN and the weekend news talk programs - they're *ON* them.



To all dildo head pimps, you ought to know that there are
plenty of
experts on politics that are not on or employed by cable news
shows or
C-Span.

The point stands. You are not an expert in politics - not even
close.
You're a fan, but like every fan who sits in the stands at an
NBA or
NFL
or MLB game, you can't actually *do* it yourself.


What exactly do you think it takes to qualify as an expert in
politics?

I just know it will be someone very different from you. I can't say
definitively what it is, but I can tell from looking at you that
you're
not.


Great answer. You can't even say what an expert is.

Obviously we all know you're not one.


You might think that.

We all know it. You are not an expert in politics - not even close. As
previously established, you're just a fan. But like any fan in the
stands at an NBA or NFL game, you can't actually do it.


Just because what you said describes you don't try to apply it to me.

It's true. You don't know politics, and for certain you have never
*done* politics.

On 4/6/2012 5:54 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:34 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/6/2012 6:58 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 4/5/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Great answer. You can't even say what an expert is.

Obviously we all know you're not one.


You might think that. But you don't know it to be true because you
have no way of knowing how much I actually know.

Based solely on what you post here, you know very little, and most of
what you think you know is wrong.

What kind of an idiot would believe that what they learned on a rec.
newsgroup about someone is accurate?

The incredibly shallow awareness of just about everything that you
regularly exhibit here paints an accurate picture of you.

On Apr 6, 8:54*pm, Hawke wrote:

What kind of an idiot would believe that what they learned on a rec.
newsgroup about someone is accurate? You would have to be a nutcase to
think you could know very much about someone from their postings. You
can't even know what sex someone is without them telling you. So you
morons are using what I have written here and you think you really know
anything about me. If that's what you think then you guys are stupider
than even I thought, and that's pretty stupid.


Hawke

Well some of us know how to check on what you say. For example you
said you moved back to Chico, Ca. From that I can get your phone
number which ends in 9366 and your street address 15132 something
road. And then public records has information on your taxes, etc.
Since the public records has your name as David, one can reasonably
assume you are a male. The value of your property is easily found
too.

The other thing is that I have a lot of experience with evaluating
what people have actually done as compared to what they say they have
done. So I do think I have a pretty fair idea of what you are and
what you have done. From what I have written you should be able to
have a fair idea of the tools that I have and some of the work
experiences I have had.

And I know that you are somewhat lazy as you do not seem to make any
effort to review what you write before posting. Your laziness also
shows up when you say things like Smart is a synonym for
intelligence. If I hit you up along side of your head with a 2 by 4,
you will smart, but you will not intelligence. Or if you had ever
been in the military, you would know how to salute smartly, but not
how to salute intelligently. So now you can come back with a smart
ass answer to this, but not a intelligent ass answer.

Dan

Hawke wrote:



Based solely on what you post here, you know very little, and most of
what you think you know is wrong.

What kind of an idiot would believe that what they learned on a rec.
newsgroup about someone is accurate?
Why, that idiot would be you. You have any number of time made
pronouncements about me (and George , and David, and Don, and I have
no doubt countless others) based solely on what you have seen in a few
posts.

You would have to be a nutcase to
think you could know very much about someone from their postings.


And yet, from your very postings, you ARE such a nutcase as that.

You
can't even know what sex someone is without them telling you.
Why the don't even know if you are a dog.


So you
morons are using what I have written here and you think you really know
anything about me.
So you say "everything you say here" is nothing but a pack of lies?



If that's what you think then you guys are stupider
than even I thought, and that's pretty stupid.
Yes, that IS pretty stupid of you.


Why would I want to show you anything?
Because you crave validation, like a puppy craves milk.
You're a first class jerk. A
condescending clown who thinks he's Einstein. Believe you me. I don't
want to show you anything. You count for nothing. You're worth
absolutely nothing so who gives a poop what you think about anything? I
don't.

You clearly do. Or you wouldn't keep this up.


If you are other than what you have shown here, why have you gone to
such lengths to portray yourself as ignorant and foolish?

Why have you gone to such lengths to try to portray yourself as
Einstein? Everything you do seems to be an attempt to try to show
yourself as brilliant. With you and Pimpton here I can't decide which of
you is the bigger show off.
Well that is because it is hard to measure 1 candle, against the
megawatt strobe light of your shameless self promotion.
He's got a BA from UCLA. To him that makes
him a genius.

To you that makes him JUST as educated as you are.

You have no credentials
Wrong, wrong and four times wrong. But you go on thinking that if it
makes you happy.
and think you have the highest IQ
in the group.
Never made that claim. You are mixing up my posts with your's again.
It's that whole "reading" thing tripping you up again, I guess.
Both of you seem to think you're brighter than anyone here.

Funny but no one else thinks you guys are better than average.
We (or at least I, not sure about the others) never claimed to be.
You foolishly did that, all by your self.

The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.

You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

Shut up, David
Wow what a stinging rebuke, could think of anything better? or
appropriate? or even "smarter".

jk

On 4/6/2012 5:23 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:59 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:40 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

There are dozens of people who regularly show up on those shows.
You're
not one of them, and you *couldn't* be one of them. You don't know
your
ass from your face.


But unlike you I'm not a homosexual.

Actually, you *are* a queer. I'm married and have a child. You've never
been married, and couldn't have a child because you couldn't get it up
for a woman.


I'm not married and I don't have a penis. I squat to ****.

Naturally.



I really do not have a penis, and I squat to ****.

Yes, Ptooey, we already knew that about you. You really ought not
belabor your deficiencies here - it's unseemly.

On 4/6/2012 5:44 PM, wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:00 pm, wrote:

Who says I'm a liberal?

Hawke

I say you are a liberal. Your views on taxes is a liberal view
point. Your views on minimum wages is a liberal view point. And your
views on how some people get breaks to get ahead is a liberal view
point. If you hold liberal ideals, then you are a liberal.

I would think that anyone with an advanced degree in Poly Sci would
know if they are a liberal or not.

Dan




I do know what I am politically, Dan. I'm a left of center moderate that
is socially liberal and financially conservative. So I have some views
that fit in opposite camps. Normally, what I find is that when I'm
around rightwingers they think I'm a liberal but when I'm around
liberals they think I'm a conservative. But since both of those groups
are out at the edges of the political spectrum they misinterpret anyone
who is near the center as being a member of the other party. That's just
what you do.

Hawke

On 4/6/2012 6:02 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:04 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:34 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:46 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


If you knew anything about the subject you would know that it's a
problem getting on the air anywhere.

James Carville doesn't seem to have much trouble; neither does
Karl
Rove. Oh, but then they actually know politics, unlike you.


Give me a break. You cherry pick the two most well known political
experts in the country and ask why I can't get the jobs they do?
Are
you
kidding.

Fair enough if your mendacious self promotion were to be true. I
guess
your re not really that smart, that knowledgeable , OR that well
liked
after all. What a surprise.



Look who's talking.

He is: one of the guys who hasn't blabbered that he's a national-level
political know-it-all.


I guess he's not like you either, huh? A guy who has to make **** up
about people to make them look bad because you can't actually prove a
damn thing you say?

I've proved that you don't know politics.


Yeah, you proved that to yourself but

It's proved, period. You're a fan, not a player.


So what? Are you working as a professional economist? No! So I'd say
that makes you exactly the same as me. So why point out that I'm not
working in the field I'm trained in when the same thing is true of you?
If it's a criticism of me then you're equally guilty. That makes you a
fan of economics, and a hypocrite too.

Hawke

On 4/6/2012 5:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Look who's talking. Who do you think you are saying **** like that
about
me when you couldn't get on radio, TV, or the corner bar with what you
know.


We didn't make the jackass claim to be "smart, knowledgeable, and well
liked", you did.


In my case it wasn't a claim it was a simply statement of fact.


You boys claim to be not only as good as me but better.

We're better because we don't claim expertise we don't have.

Why lie? You claim to be better in many ways. Not just that you don't
make claims to expertise you don't have. You claim to have a better
education. You claim to be more intelligent. So you lied when you said
you only said you were better for not claiming expertise you don't have.



You guys are a joke. You ask me why I'm not one of the couple
dozen people who get the best jobs in the world.

You called it something significantly different a few months ago.

What was that?

Looks as if your memory is ****ed up even worse than previously thought.

Yeah, right, like I'm supposed to know what post you're referring to
from months ago. You couldn't remember posts from months ago without
looking them up. But you expect me to. You're a boob.


What's your excuse? How
come you're not a TV personality? Pretty stupid question isn't it?
That's what you're asking me. How come I'm not on TV? Duh! How come you
don't play pro basketball?

A truly irrelevant question, but one I will answer.

That question is certainly no less relevant than

It's irrelevant.

It's relevant because you're asking me why I haven't achieved great
things. I asked the same of him and used basketball because the odds of
achieving that are very low. So it applies.



But yes I do not play "pro" basketball, but then neither do you, but
as well neither of us has claimed to have that skill set.



Among other reasons I don't play, is that I never had any interest in
obtaining that skill set.

The point is you aren't successful on that level and you ask me why I'm
not as successful as Carville or Rove.

But he never claimed any expertise at playing basketball. You have
claimed to be every bit as knowledgeable about politics as Carville and
Rove. Clearly you're not.

No, it's not clear. Have you ever seen me debate either of those guys on
any issue? We know the answer. How would I do against Rove? I'd say just
fine. But then if I don't get the chance how do you know? Since you
don't know why not be honest and say you think he would do better than
me? Sorry, I just answered my own question. You wouldn't do that because
you aren't honest.



You, however, in your usual braggart fashion, claimed to have the
skill set of a "talking head".

Of that skill set, yes, I do have that. I'm ready, willing, and able to
show it too, any time and any place. Can you arrange it so I can come on
your station, Foxnews, and go up against Rove? No? Too bad, I was
looking forward to showing you I can keep up with him in a debate.


Your problem is that you have misinterpreted a simple recitation of
facts as bragging.

It was nothing but bragging; no facts.

You can say whatever you want about it. All of it happens to be true.
Unlike you I do not make things up.

Hawke

On Apr 7, 9:59*pm, Hawke wrote:


I do know what I am politically, Dan. I'm a left of center moderate that
is socially liberal and financially conservative.

But since both of those groups
are out at the edges of the political spectrum they misinterpret anyone
who is near the center as being a member of the other party. That's just
what you do.

Hawke

You can claim to be financially conservative. But the test of what
you are is how you vote. So how many Republicans have you voted for
in the last twenty years? And how many Democrats? I rest my case.

Dan

On 4/6/2012 5:47 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

We didn't make the jackass claim to be "smart, knowledgeable, and well
liked", you did.

You boys claim to be not only as good as me but better.
George might have, I haven't made that as a general claim.

Like I said, you aren't as blatant as he is but you continue to act as
if you're superior to me. Are you saying you don't put on that air? Just
about anyone can notice it.



Don't try to say
you don't. Pimpton tries to say he's my superior in every single
category and you do the same thing but in a sneakier way.


Either I claim it or I don't. Make up your mind, and then prove it.

You don't say it outright but you imply it to where no one would not
know that is what you are doing. I'll show you how later on.

You like to
intimate that you're really pretty damn good too, smart, successful,
hardworking, etc.

You act like you're my equal if not better all the
time.


I know I am in several specific areas, or I would already know you, or
know of you.


Right here you say that you know you are superior in several specific
areas. How's that for proof you think you're better? You just came out
and said it.



So if you ask me it's you two that are acting like you're hot
****, not me.


So by poking fun at your rather grandiose claims of being "smarter,
more knowledgeable, and well liked than darn near everyone", your
(also alleged) superior ability to "evaluate evidence" sees a claim
of the same ability?

Not in that instance.

To break it down for you in simple terms.


If I am talking to a moron who thinks he is "Superman", and I say
"you are not superman", I am NOT saying "I can leap tall buildings".



What's your excuse? How
come you're not a TV personality? Pretty stupid question isn't it?
That's what you're asking me. How come I'm not on TV? Duh! How come you
don't play pro basketball?

A truly irrelevant question, but one I will answer.

That question is certainly no less relevant than what you ask me. You
ask why I'm not terrifically successful. So I ask you the same and when
I do it there is no relevance? It's the same thing.


I see you slept through all classes where they were discussing how to
set up an analogy.
A better analogy would be to use a profession where I claimed to be
better than most people in the world.


Here is a perfect example of how you act like you are superior to me
without saying it outright. First you criticize me for not being any
good at making an analogy. Then you give your own example of how to make
an analogy the right way. So you found fault with me and then made
yourself a professor who knows so much more that you are in a position
to teach me how it's done. Now if that isn't you telling me that you are
better than me, at least at making an analogy, then what is that? You
just made yourself the expert and me the inept student. But you wouldn't
say that anyone would see that as you acting superior to me? Because it is.



That is, after noting that You don't "know" that I don't.

I got a pretty good idea.

You have no idea what I do. You suspect I don't play pro basketball
[With good reason given my feelings on the game.], but you know
nothing.

Yeah, I'm assuming you're not one of the 1500 best basketball players in
the world. Since the season is on you wouldn't be able to be here now if
you were. The point is why aren't you as successful as a professional
athlete? That's basically what you asked me?

No as discussed above it isn't

Simple, you can't ask me why I am not spectacularly successful without
expecting the same to be asked of you. I don't think you are. So you are
in no position to look down on me for not having achieved anything
great. You haven't either.


But yes I do not play "pro" basketball, but then neither do you, but
as well neither of us has claimed to have that skill set.
Among other reasons I don't play, is that I never had any interest in
obtaining that skill set.

Can't you see how stupid your questions
are?


Can't you see how stupid your "boasts" are. Call them fact all you
like...you can not come close to proving any one of them to any
observer.

I can and have proved to many observers what I say is true. Have you
seen the proof? No, but does that mean no one has? No. Plenty of people
have seen what I can do. If I tell you the truth about my ability it's
not bragging.



You, however, in your usual braggart fashion, claimed to have the
skill set of a "talking head".

I'm not a braggrt.


Your problem is that you have misinterpreted a simple recitation of
facts as bragging. Just like me saying I have a degree in political
science. Telling you that isn't bragging no matter how many times you
say it is.
It isn't mutually exclusive. Apparently you need another english
lesson.

Thank you so much, professor. We all need your superior ability to help
out all us regular folk. Geez, Dude, you really don't even know it when
you're acting like you so damn superior.



If I tell you I'm six one and a half I'm not bragging. If I
tell you that at 61 years old I can bench press 300 lbs. is that
bragging? It's not. You have to misconstrue it to make it into bragging.

brag

1.
to use boastful language; boast: He bragged endlessly about his high
score.
verb (used with object)
2.
to boast of: He bragged that he had won.
noun
3.
a boast or vaunt.
4.
a thing to boast of.
5.
a boaster.
6.
an old English card game similar to poker.
adjective
7.
Archaic . unusually fine; first-rate.
Origin:
1350–1400; Middle English brag (noun) ostentation, arrogance, braggen
(v.); of obscure origin

Bragging is more in the way you use it, rather than the actual
description.

That's right. So it's in the eyes of the beholder. No surprise that you
two say what I say I can do is bragging. But then, you're constantly on
the lookout for things to criticize me for. In this case you can
unfairly label everything I tell you I've done as bragging about it even
when that's a total crock. You're looking for faults so it's not exactly
a surprise when you find something. You always will if you really want
to and you want to real bad.




Got it? It's you and your buddy that
have made problems because you both misconstrue and misunderstand just
about every thing I've written.


Then learn to write more clearly, and think before you boast.

You learn to keep that passive-aggressive, overly critical tone in
check. Your negativity, criticism, and pettiness is boring. My writing
is every bit as clear as your is, and I haven't "boasted" about anything
regardless of what you say.



I have to chalk that up to you both
being extremely biased. Which happens to be a fact.


Another English word that you seem to be vague on.
At least you constantly misuse it.

And you keep pretending to be the superior professor who can correct me
in so many areas. But the reality is you can't and you aren't any better
than me in any of the areas you pretend you are. I'm good at English and
writing. I don't need amateurs like you and Pimpton to tell me that.
I've had people who are far superior to you two tell me otherwise. You
boys are just play acting like you are so damn good and I'm nothing but
the reality is a lot different. You just don't want to admit it. But you
are righties, aren't you? That's what you do, you make up your own reality.

Hawke

On 4/7/2012 7:21 PM, wrote:
On Apr 7, 9:59 pm, wrote:


I do know what I am politically, Dan. I'm a left of center moderate that
is socially liberal and financially conservative.

But since both of those groups
are out at the edges of the political spectrum they misinterpret anyone
who is near the center as being a member of the other party. That's just
what you do.

Hawke

You can claim to be financially conservative. But the test of what
you are is how you vote. So how many Republicans have you voted for
in the last twenty years? And how many Democrats? I rest my case.

Dan





Voting is only one indicator of a person's politics. I would vote for
any party that has a good man like, say, Ralph Nader. The only one I
won't vote for is the republicans. I know them and they are corrupt and
incompetent so I won't vote for any of them. They're also liars. I will
vote for people in other parties.

As to being financially conservative, any measure of that you can think
of I fulfill.


Hawke

On Apr 7, 10:48*pm, Hawke wrote:

Voting is only one indicator of a person's politics. I would vote for
any party that has a good man like, say, Ralph Nader. The only one I
won't vote for is the republicans. I know them and they are corrupt and
incompetent so I won't vote for any of them. They're also liars. I will
vote for people in other parties.

As to being financially conservative, any measure of that you can think
of I fulfill.

Hawke

You did not answer my questions about how many Republicans and how
many Democrats you voted for. Voting is THE ONLY REAL INDICATOR.
Every thing else means naught. When you vote, you take into account
all the things about the candidates and vote for the person you think
represents your beliefs best. If you alway vote for the socially
liberal candidate over the financially conservative candidate, it
means that you really do not care that much about financially
conservative views.

Dan

On 4/6/2012 6:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


That's 4, I think.

Four what?

I expect he means four instances of your ****witted simpleminded
partisanship in some limited amount of time.

You "expect" meaning you don't know what he means

I don't. That's why I said "expect", you ****wit.

What I expect is that you have been and always will be a nitwit that has
to call other people names to take the spotlight off yourself. Because
one look at you and people start laughing at what a dufus you are.



But it's true. On at least two instances he read my emails on his
show.
The only one I remember was one where I told him that his actions
looked
just like the ones he calls hate when someone else does it. Of
course,
he didn't agree with me but he did read it on the show.

Ahhh one of the ones he likes to make fun of then. Not because he
found you smart or educated, or intelligent, or even witty, just
stupid.

Of course that is what someone like you would assume, but

He's undoubtedly right.

So you assume

He's undoubtedly right.

He's wrong! You don't know the first thing about it. Don't let that stop
you. Just jump right in and pretend to be an expert, like you always do.
You've done that so often that we all know you are an ignorant boob
masquerading as someone who knows what he's talking about. You embarrass
yourself and don't even know it. Now that is a sign of real idiocy.


I don't have to
make things like that up though because I really have done it.

What? No substantive response as to why you are not on the air with
them.

I like to think the only reason is that I have no one to open any
doors
for me. I think if I got an opportunity I could do the job.


I will admit you probably could hang for most of it. Most of those
talking heads are opinionated and think they know everything too.

You don't have to be a genius to be on TV.

You have to know something and have something interesting to say. Both
requirements let you out.

But that's only the opinion

Nope. It's a fact. You don't have a minute fraction of what it takes to
be on one of those shows.

You seem to be so stupid that you are unaware that your opinions are not
facts. Every statement you make is nothing but your opinion. Opinions
from ignorant idiots nobody listens to. You can say something is a fact
all day long. It doesn't' make it true. All you are doing is spewing
opinion. Opinions from an a-hole like you aren't worth ****. Now that's
a fact!


I'll never
know, because like most people, I'll never get the opportunity.
Lots of
times without a break in life no one gets ahead.

SO it's the universe's fault you never did any thing with your life
then?

Should I assume you've done nothing with your life like you just did
about me?

You go ahead and assume what you like. However, there's a difference:
there is solid evidence that *you* never did anything with your life.

If you believe that conjecture and solid evidence are the same thing

There is solid evidence you never did anything worthwhile with your life.

That same solid evidence is abundant that you have done nothing
worthwhile in your crappy life. Face it, you're nothing, a nobody. But
does it make you feel better when you say that to other people? I hope
it does because it sure does nothing to make you into anything worth
****. Like it or not you're stuck being a wretched failure. I just
wonder if you are used to it by now or not.

Hawke

On 4/6/2012 6:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:33 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:54 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:56 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 5:58 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 12:28 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 4/4/2012 6:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 4/4/2012 2:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
News for Ptooey: people who are experts in politics don't watch
CNN and
C-SPAN and the weekend news talk programs - they're *ON* them.



To all dildo head pimps, you ought to know that there are
plenty of
experts on politics that are not on or employed by cable news
shows or
C-Span. Many political hacks get on those shows while real
experts
sit
on the sidelines because they don't know the right people.

Hawke
But you should have no problem getting on them, you are close to
the
media mecca in LA, and since you told us that "everyone likes you"
{except those that don't} you should have NO problem getting on
those
shows.

In fact you should have no problem facing off with O' Riley, or
even
get on with Limbaugh. [why heck then you could even ask him what
his
demographics are, rather than making stuff up]
jk


You would surely be surprised to find out that I have on more than
one
occasion written emails to O'Reilly and had him read them on the
air.


Yeah sure, and I am "sure" you can provide the dates.

Nope. Never took no mind over it as it was no big deal to me. But it
was
two or three years ago because it was about then that I stopped
watching
him. Nothing to be gained from a conservative propagandist like he
is.

That kind of snide bull**** illustrates perfectly why you would
never be
invited onto Meet the Press or Face the Nation or any other show where
pundits and political consultants are interviewed. You simply don't
have
any analysis to offer; nothing but immature political bias.


You really must be stupid if you think I would go on a national TV show
and talk like I do with a bunch of dudes on the corner

You'd never be invited, because all you have to offer is your stupid
"dude talk".


You think anyone is going to ask you on TV any time soon?

I never said I would be invited. You have explicitly said that you have
what it takes to be on one of those shows, and clearly you don't.

Just how exactly do you know that? If you keep acting like a stupid
little boy and blabbing what you think when you can't prove it everyone
is going to know what a fool you are. You really want to be thought of
as Gummer's dumber brother? You're nearly there. You better learn the
difference from what you "believe" and what is a fact or you will become
a member of Gummer's gang.

Hawke

On 4/6/2012 6:06 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:41 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:58 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 5:59 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 2:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 12:11 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/4/2012 6:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/4/2012 5:34 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/4/2012 2:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
News for Ptooey: people who are experts in politics don't watch
CNN
and
C-SPAN and the weekend news talk programs - they're *ON* them.



To all dildo head pimps, you ought to know that there are
plenty of
experts on politics that are not on or employed by cable news
shows or
C-Span.

The point stands. You are not an expert in politics - not even
close.
You're a fan, but like every fan who sits in the stands at an
NBA or
NFL
or MLB game, you can't actually *do* it yourself.


What exactly do you think it takes to qualify as an expert in
politics?

I just know it will be someone very different from you. I can't say
definitively what it is, but I can tell from looking at you that
you're
not.


Great answer. You can't even say what an expert is.

Obviously we all know you're not one.


You might think that.

We all know it. You are not an expert in politics - not even close. As
previously established, you're just a fan. But like any fan in the
stands at an NBA or NFL game, you can't actually do it.


Just because what you said describes you don't try to apply it to me.

It's true. You don't know politics, and for certain you have never
*done* politics.


The one thing true coming about you is that you blab your opinions and
think people won't know they're just ignorant opinions. We know.

Hawke

On 4/6/2012 5:51 PM, jk wrote:
"David R. wrote:



You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.
(Blinding flash of insight)

My god, he IS funny after all.
You mean that all along he has been VERY subtly saying, "Anyone who
points out his errors is RIGHT?" If that is what he has been doing he
might be as smart as he claims as well

Wow, thanks.


The only thing one can count on is that it would be over your head.

Hawke

On Apr 7, 10:44*pm, Hawke wrote:

Right here you say that you know you are superior in several specific
areas. How's that for proof you think you're better? You just came out
and said it.

You can not read very well. He did not say he thought he was better
in all areas. He did not say he thought he was better in most
areas. He said he was better in some areas.

For example, I think you are better than me in playing tennis, almost
sure to be true because I have not played any tennis in close to
fifty years. I think you are better in pistol shooting. I have not
shot competitively in fifty years. I think you are better at weight
lifting as I have never done that. So there are three areas where I
think you are superior. Does that mean I think you are superior?
No. I think you are superior in several specific areas, but think I
am superior in other areas. I suspect I am better at vertical
caving. I might be better at skeet shooting. Maybe not, have not shot
any skeet for some time, but I used to be good. Pretty likely to be
better than you in electronics. And last but not least better in
logic.

Dan

On 4/6/2012 6:07 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:54 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:34 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/6/2012 6:58 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 4/5/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Great answer. You can't even say what an expert is.

Obviously we all know you're not one.


You might think that. But you don't know it to be true because you
have no way of knowing how much I actually know.

Based solely on what you post here, you know very little, and most of
what you think you know is wrong.

What kind of an idiot would believe that what they learned on a rec.
newsgroup about someone is accurate?

The incredibly shallow awareness of just about everything that you
regularly exhibit here paints an accurate picture of you.


The picture you paint of yourself here is of a pompous ass that is about
as obnoxious a jerk as anyone will ever encounter. That picture you
created of yourself is blindingly accurate.

Hawke

On 4/7/2012 6:59 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:44 PM, wrote:
On Apr 6, 8:00 pm, wrote:

Who says I'm a liberal?

Hawke

I say you are a liberal. Your views on taxes is a liberal view
point. Your views on minimum wages is a liberal view point. And your
views on how some people get breaks to get ahead is a liberal view
point. If you hold liberal ideals, then you are a liberal.

I would think that anyone with an advanced degree in Poly Sci would
know if they are a liberal or not.

Dan




I do know what I am politically, Dan. I'm a left of center moderate

You're a far-left illiberal "liberal" ****.

On 4/7/2012 7:02 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 6:02 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:26 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:13 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:04 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:41 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:34 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:46 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:


If you knew anything about the subject you would know that
it's a
problem getting on the air anywhere.

James Carville doesn't seem to have much trouble; neither does
Karl
Rove. Oh, but then they actually know politics, unlike you.


Give me a break. You cherry pick the two most well known political
experts in the country and ask why I can't get the jobs they do?
Are
you
kidding.

Fair enough if your mendacious self promotion were to be true. I
guess
your re not really that smart, that knowledgeable , OR that well
liked
after all. What a surprise.



Look who's talking.

He is: one of the guys who hasn't blabbered that he's a
national-level
political know-it-all.


I guess he's not like you either, huh? A guy who has to make **** up
about people to make them look bad because you can't actually prove a
damn thing you say?

I've proved that you don't know politics.


Yeah, you proved that to yourself but

It's proved, period. You're a fan, not a player.


So what?

So, your self-congratulation about what a knowledgeable political expert
you are is bull****.

On 4/7/2012 7:16 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Look who's talking. Who do you think you are saying **** like that
about
me when you couldn't get on radio, TV, or the corner bar with what you
know.


We didn't make the jackass claim to be "smart, knowledgeable, and well
liked", you did.


In my case it wasn't a claim it was a simply statement of fact.

It was a claim - a false claim.


You boys claim to be not only as good as me but better.

We're better because we don't claim expertise we don't have.

Why lie? You claim to be better in many ways.

I *am* better than you in all the ways I claim, but I still haven't
claimed expertise I don't have. You've done that.


You guys are a joke. You ask me why I'm not one of the couple
dozen people who get the best jobs in the world.

You called it something significantly different a few months ago.

What was that?

Looks as if your memory is ****ed up even worse than previously thought.

Yeah, right,

Right.


What's your excuse? How
come you're not a TV personality? Pretty stupid question isn't it?
That's what you're asking me. How come I'm not on TV? Duh! How come
you
don't play pro basketball?

A truly irrelevant question, but one I will answer.

That question is certainly no less relevant than

It's irrelevant.

It's relevant because

It's irrelevant.


But yes I do not play "pro" basketball, but then neither do you, but
as well neither of us has claimed to have that skill set.



Among other reasons I don't play, is that I never had any interest in
obtaining that skill set.

The point is you aren't successful on that level and you ask me why I'm
not as successful as Carville or Rove.

But he never claimed any expertise at playing basketball. You have
claimed to be every bit as knowledgeable about politics as Carville and
Rove. Clearly you're not.

No, it's not clear.

Yes, it's perfectly clear, and incontestable.


You, however, in your usual braggart fashion, claimed to have the
skill set of a "talking head".

Of that skill set, yes, I do have that.

You don't. Clearly, you don't.


Your problem is that you have misinterpreted a simple recitation of
facts as bragging.

It was nothing but bragging; no facts.

You can say whatever you want about it.

I say the truth about it: it was nothing but bragging - no facts.

On 4/7/2012 8:24 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 6:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:31 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:08 PM, George Plimpton wrote:


That's 4, I think.

Four what?

I expect he means four instances of your ****witted simpleminded
partisanship in some limited amount of time.

You "expect" meaning you don't know what he means

I don't. That's why I said "expect", you ****wit.

What I expect is that you have been and always will be a nitwit that

No.



But it's true. On at least two instances he read my emails on his
show.
The only one I remember was one where I told him that his actions
looked
just like the ones he calls hate when someone else does it. Of
course,
he didn't agree with me but he did read it on the show.

Ahhh one of the ones he likes to make fun of then. Not because he
found you smart or educated, or intelligent, or even witty, just
stupid.

Of course that is what someone like you would assume, but

He's undoubtedly right.

So you assume

He's undoubtedly right.

He's wrong!

He's undoubtedly right.


I don't have to
make things like that up though because I really have done it.

What? No substantive response as to why you are not on the air with
them.

I like to think the only reason is that I have no one to open any
doors
for me. I think if I got an opportunity I could do the job.


I will admit you probably could hang for most of it. Most of those
talking heads are opinionated and think they know everything too.

You don't have to be a genius to be on TV.

You have to know something and have something interesting to say. Both
requirements let you out.

But that's only the opinion

Nope. It's a fact. You don't have a minute fraction of what it takes to
be on one of those shows.

You seem to be so stupid that you are unaware that your opinions are not
facts.

It's not merely an /opinion/ that you don't have what it takes to be an
interview subject on those shows; it is absolutely a fact.


I'll never
know, because like most people, I'll never get the opportunity.
Lots of
times without a break in life no one gets ahead.

SO it's the universe's fault you never did any thing with your life
then?

Should I assume you've done nothing with your life like you just did
about me?

You go ahead and assume what you like. However, there's a difference:
there is solid evidence that *you* never did anything with your life.

If you believe that conjecture and solid evidence are the same thing

There is solid evidence you never did anything worthwhile with your life.

That same solid evidence is abundant that you have done nothing
worthwhile in your crappy life.

Nope. I'm a successful father - you were incapable of having a family,
for a variety of reasons - and I'm far more valuable to my enterprise
than you ever were to anything.

On 4/7/2012 8:28 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 6:04 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:33 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:11 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:54 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 8:56 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 5:58 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 12:28 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 4/4/2012 6:06 PM, jk wrote:
wrote:

On 4/4/2012 2:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
News for Ptooey: people who are experts in politics don't watch
CNN and
C-SPAN and the weekend news talk programs - they're *ON* them.



To all dildo head pimps, you ought to know that there are
plenty of
experts on politics that are not on or employed by cable news
shows or
C-Span. Many political hacks get on those shows while real
experts
sit
on the sidelines because they don't know the right people.

Hawke
But you should have no problem getting on them, you are close to
the
media mecca in LA, and since you told us that "everyone likes
you"
{except those that don't} you should have NO problem getting on
those
shows.

In fact you should have no problem facing off with O' Riley, or
even
get on with Limbaugh. [why heck then you could even ask him what
his
demographics are, rather than making stuff up]
jk


You would surely be surprised to find out that I have on more than
one
occasion written emails to O'Reilly and had him read them on the
air.


Yeah sure, and I am "sure" you can provide the dates.

Nope. Never took no mind over it as it was no big deal to me. But it
was
two or three years ago because it was about then that I stopped
watching
him. Nothing to be gained from a conservative propagandist like he
is.

That kind of snide bull**** illustrates perfectly why you would
never be
invited onto Meet the Press or Face the Nation or any other show
where
pundits and political consultants are interviewed. You simply don't
have
any analysis to offer; nothing but immature political bias.


You really must be stupid if you think I would go on a national TV
show
and talk like I do with a bunch of dudes on the corner

You'd never be invited, because all you have to offer is your stupid
"dude talk".


You think anyone is going to ask you on TV any time soon?

I never said I would be invited. You have explicitly said that you have
what it takes to be on one of those shows, and clearly you don't.

Just how exactly do you know that?

You show us, with every post.

On 4/7/2012 8:30 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 6:06 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:41 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:12 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 4:58 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 5:59 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/5/2012 2:23 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/5/2012 12:11 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/4/2012 6:37 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/4/2012 5:34 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/4/2012 2:26 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
News for Ptooey: people who are experts in politics don't watch
CNN
and
C-SPAN and the weekend news talk programs - they're *ON* them.



To all dildo head pimps, you ought to know that there are
plenty of
experts on politics that are not on or employed by cable news
shows or
C-Span.

The point stands. You are not an expert in politics - not even
close.
You're a fan, but like every fan who sits in the stands at an
NBA or
NFL
or MLB game, you can't actually *do* it yourself.


What exactly do you think it takes to qualify as an expert in
politics?

I just know it will be someone very different from you. I can't say
definitively what it is, but I can tell from looking at you that
you're
not.


Great answer. You can't even say what an expert is.

Obviously we all know you're not one.


You might think that.

We all know it. You are not an expert in politics - not even close. As
previously established, you're just a fan. But like any fan in the
stands at an NBA or NFL game, you can't actually do it.


Just because what you said describes you don't try to apply it to me.

It's true. You don't know politics, and for certain you have never
*done* politics.


The one thing true coming about you is that you blab your opinions and
think people won't know they're just ignorant opinions.

It is not opinion. It is a *fact* that you have never done - *could*
never have done - politics.

On 4/7/2012 8:35 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 6:07 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:54 PM, Hawke wrote:
On 4/6/2012 5:34 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 4/6/2012 6:58 PM, Hawwke-ptooey wrote:
On 4/5/2012 7:34 PM, George Plimpton wrote:

Great answer. You can't even say what an expert is.

Obviously we all know you're not one.


You might think that. But you don't know it to be true because you
have no way of knowing how much I actually know.

Based solely on what you post here, you know very little, and most of
what you think you know is wrong.

What kind of an idiot would believe that what they learned on a rec.
newsgroup about someone is accurate?

The incredibly shallow awareness of just about everything that you
regularly exhibit here paints an accurate picture of you.


The picture you paint of yourself here is of a pompous ass that is about
as obnoxious a jerk as anyone will ever encounter.

Most people don't find me obnoxious. You have a problem.

On 4/6/2012 6:51 PM, wrote:

Well some of us know how to check on what you say. For example you
said you moved back to Chico, Ca. From that I can get your phone
number which ends in 9366 and your street address 15132 something
road. And then public records has information on your taxes, etc.
Since the public records has your name as David, one can reasonably
assume you are a male. The value of your property is easily found
too.

Some of us know how to allow exactly the amount of information about
ourselves to be known as they choose to. I'm just like Gummer in that
I'm not hiding. My name and address are in the phone book. My phone
number is listed. It's public information that anyone can access and I
don't care about it one bit. But then, that's all you know unless you
want to hire a private investigator. You have to rely on what I have
told you is true and if you check you will find all of it is. But like I
say, I'm an open book and I'm not hiding anything. But you only know
what I have let you know, and that goes for anyone else who's looking.



The other thing is that I have a lot of experience with evaluating
what people have actually done as compared to what they say they have
done. So I do think I have a pretty fair idea of what you are and
what you have done.

Sorry, but that is just an opinion you have gotten into your head. The
truth is you know very little about me and what I have done. And have
you done these "evaluations" of yours based on newsgroup postings? You
think that's a good measure of someone? I hope not.


From what I have written you should be able to
have a fair idea of the tools that I have and some of the work
experiences I have had.

That's more guess work on your part. Unless I have searched you out to
find out about you the only things I know about you are what you have
written. You know what? You are tight lipped about yourself. You hold
back when it comes to you giving out information about yourself. Mainly
you like to keep your life secret while saying negative and critical
things about other people.



And I know that you are somewhat lazy as you do not seem to make any
effort to review what you write before posting.

You don't know that at all. You made that speculation based on the
thinnest possible evidence. Think that would hold up in court. Uh, yes,
judge, the guy isn't very precise in what he writes in a newsgroup so I
think that's proof he's lazy. Sure, Dan.

Here's one for you. Dan keeps his personal information secret so he must
be hiding something. He's probably a child molester. That's how you do it.




Your laziness also
shows up when you say things like Smart is a synonym for
intelligence.

To be more precise, what you perceive as laziness, is simply appropriate
language for the venue. In addition, it's laziness on your part that you
don't know intelligent and smart are synonyms.


If I hit you up along side of your head with a 2 by 4,
you will smart, but you will not intelligence. Or if you had ever
been in the military, you would know how to salute smartly, but not
how to salute intelligently. So now you can come back with a smart
ass answer to this, but not a intelligent ass answer.


Do you think I can tell if you were in the military or not? I can tell
you I can't. But if you don't know that the word smart has several
different meanings then you aren't very smart. Moreover, if you did not
take the step of checking several different dictionaries when you looked
up smart and intelligent that would indicate laziness or sloppiness on
your part. Because if you had looked at more than one dictionary you
would have learned that there are indeed dictionaries that say
intelligent and smart are synonymous. Maybe you better check now. Better
late than never.

Hawke

On 4/7/2012 9:49 AM, jk wrote:
wrote:



Based solely on what you post here, you know very little, and most of
what you think you know is wrong.

What kind of an idiot would believe that what they learned on a rec.
newsgroup about someone is accurate?


Why, that idiot would be you. You have any number of time made
pronouncements about me (and George , and David, and Don, and I have
no doubt countless others) based solely on what you have seen in a few
posts.

Yes I have but you have no idea of how accurate I believe those
assessments to be. I have to believe what you say is true for me to
judge you in any way. If they are false then all my ideas are wrong. You
don't think I know that? Where do you think you are? This is a
newsgroup. You have to trust what people are saying. You don't know for
sure so how accurate can anything be?





You would have to be a nutcase to
think you could know very much about someone from their postings.


And yet, from your very postings, you ARE such a nutcase as that.

So do you. You have made a huge number of judgements about me from
postings. So you're just as guilty as anyone.


You
can't even know what sex someone is without them telling you.

Why the don't even know if you are a dog.

That one you can reason out. I hope.


So you
morons are using what I have written here and you think you really know
anything about me.
So you say "everything you say here" is nothing but a pack of lies?

I've said none of it is a lie. But is that accurate? You know for sure?


If that's what you think then you guys are stupider
than even I thought, and that's pretty stupid.

Yes, that IS pretty stupid of you.

Not thinking you guys are stupid would be stupid of me.



Why would I want to show you anything?


Because you crave validation, like a puppy craves milk.

Really? From you? You sure think a lot of yourself, don't you? Who cares
what you think?


You're a first class jerk. A
condescending clown who thinks he's Einstein. Believe you me. I don't
want to show you anything. You count for nothing. You're worth
absolutely nothing so who gives a poop what you think about anything? I
don't.

You clearly do. Or you wouldn't keep this up.

Think anything you want. Doesn't make it true.


If you are other than what you have shown here, why have you gone to
such lengths to portray yourself as ignorant and foolish?

Why have you gone to such lengths to try to portray yourself as
Einstein? Everything you do seems to be an attempt to try to show
yourself as brilliant. With you and Pimpton here I can't decide which of
you is the bigger show off.


Well that is because it is hard to measure 1 candle, against the
megawatt strobe light of your shameless self promotion.

So once again you compare yourself to me and guess who comes out looking
good? Why, it's you. I'm shocked. Every chance you get you try to show
me how much better than me you are. Then you say I am a braggart. Can't
see anything wrong there can you?

He's got a BA from UCLA. To him that makes
him a genius.

To you that makes him JUST as educated as you are.

Pretty much.



You have no credentials
Wrong, wrong and four times wrong. But you go on thinking that if it
makes you happy.
and think you have the highest IQ
in the group.



Never made that claim.

You just imply it.


You are mixing up my posts with your's again.

You wish.

It's that whole "reading" thing tripping you up again, I guess.

Not any more than reading trips you up, professor.

Both of you seem to think you're brighter than anyone here.

Funny but no one else thinks you guys are better than average.



We (or at least I, not sure about the others) never claimed to be.
You foolishly did that, all by your self.

You have said that before but we both know Pimpton has said he's better
than me at everything and you do the same in a left handed way. Both of
you make it known you think you're better than me. That's the rub. I
don't think you are.


The problem is that you have displayed so little credibility, maturity
and accumulated wisdom in your typical posts that no one takes you
seriously. You come on like a little boy trying to join an adult
conversation, but you just don't have enough depth of insight to be able
to make a useful contribution, plus you're too petty and obnoxious to
even be amusing.

You make big noises about your alleged poli sci degree, but all that you
show us is that left = good, right(as in, anyone who points out your
errors)= bad. You can't even recognize that there are valid political
stances other than left/right or that there are people like me far to
the left of you who see you for the shallow poseur that you are.

Shut up, David
Wow what a stinging rebuke, could think of anything better? or
appropriate? or even "smarter".



You don't understand that little Davy reposts the same thing over and
over. I do the same. Tit for tat. Comprende?

Hawke