Re: OT: Gore Hits the Waves with a Massive New Houseboat

On Aug 13, 4:50�pm, "bvall...@xxxxxxx" <bvall...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

I'm not talking about a handful of chowderheads who have been educated
beyond their intelligence that The New York Times cherry picks when
they want a gaggle of Parrots to bash President Bush - I'm talking
history. History will get it right.
.
Well, it's not remotely just the NEW YORK TIMES and you know it.>

.
I often use that worst offender,"The New York Times" as a stand-in for
the Establishment media.

It's not just establishment media -- whatever that means today -- it's
a very wide range of historians. The TIMES didn't originate the
message of the historians' opinions, it delivered it. The same
message delivered in media large and small. He is a widely-loathed
president from various political and ideoligical perspective. A
disaster and embarrassment.


Why would I assume such a foolish thing? �Huge corporations L-O-V-E
the socialist agenda of the Democrat Party - and why shouldn't they?
Who is more pro-huge business and anti-little guy than the Democrats
and yourself?

When have I claimed to be pro-huge business? Or anti-little guy? You
don't seem to know how to read.


Let's not forget that it was it was the five liberal judges on the
Supreme Court (Stevens, Kennedy, Souter, Ginsburg and Breyer) who
sided with heartless big business over the little guy in the eminent
domain �case Kelo v. City of New London. �You probably didn't hear
about that objective fact - it was ignored by the Establishment
Media. �One had to go to FOX News and Rush Limbaugh to learn the
truth.

I disagreed with that decision, partially from my familiarity with New
London and its interests.

.
Eh. � You should read what was written about Lincoln, Truman and
Churchill after they won THEIR wars. �(If you like, I have political
cartoons of lincoln from that era, I'll be glad to scan and e-mail you
a few.) �I'm not sure why, but President's who win wars tend to be
hated afterwards.

Bush hasn't won a war. No comparison applies. Bush picked an
unnecessary fight and got thousands of this country's citizens and
hundreds of thousands of another country's citizens killed to
overthrow a tinpot dictator who had already pretty much played out his
string.


This does not remotely reflect my sentiments and you know it.>

.
Actually, that's a pretty accurate representation of what I think of
you. �I also envision you wearing "Hello Kitty" t-shirts.

Then you are a very foolish fellow indeed. I most frequently wear a
Second City T-shirt dating from its 40th anniversary. A prized
possession.

.> �I don't
want business to get so big that it has greater power than the
representatives I elect to represent my interests. �I don't want
businesses to be more powerful than government. �As much as I have
problems with some aspects of the government, at least it is more
responsive to the will of the people than the multi-national
corporations are.

.
And yet, you support crushing taxation. �You support insane
environmental regulations that almost certainly will do almost nothing
to solve the problem ("but what if they're right?"), and racial quotes
of who can and can not be hired. �You support companies supplying
complete healthcare packages, paid vacations... the list is endless.

I find that the giant corporations often look to avoid any sense of
responsibility to anyone except their officers and largest
stockholders. So, yes, I do favor laws and regulations that hold them
accountable for their influence on the economic ecosystem. I wouldn't
characterize these in the churlish and childish and reductivist ways
you do, because I'm not a churl, a child or a reductivist.

�I hold people who are corrupt and seek personal gain at the expense of the
common good in contempt

.
Really? �Because when I pointed out that algore lives in three
mansions and jumps from limo to private jet, you made excuses for that
five hundred pound blob of human resentment. �When I discussed the
conflict of interest his ownership of a �carbon offset company
presented, I was rewarded with the usenet equivent of a blank stare.
Gore's cowardly refusal to debate a subject (which he demands be made
into the law of the land) were cheered on by you.

You think you are painting a complete portrait of Gore, and I thinking
it is a caricature manufactured by your antipathy for his politics. I
wouldn't claim that he or anybody is perfect, but I admire the guy in
the main.


BTW, did you know that it's just be revealed that Nancy Pelosi has a
quarter million invested in wind power? �Another conflict of interest
for you to ignore.

I have deep questions about the way wind power is administered.

Why is it a conflict of interest for Pelosi to invest in alternative
energy, in which she openly believes, and it's not conflict of
interest for Cheney to pursue governmental policies that enrich
companies he has run? Hypocrisy on toast.


Deal with it - you've become everything that you used to hate. �You're
not even Iago - you're Roderigo. �Perhaps you're correct to suppress
any backbone growth - just what happened to Roderigo when he figured
out the truth?

You're going ad hominem here and it doesn't become you or enhance your
feeble arguments.

.> > I stopped shopping at small, independent bookstores when they lied to
me and claimed that the book "The Myth of Heterosexual AIDS" didn't
exist, and then refused to order me a copy.
.
So you generalize from a bad experience with one independent bookstore
to an evaluation of all independent bookstores? >

.
Nope, it was more The Last Straw That Broke The Camel's Back."

There are independent book stores of every stripe. You just didn't
find the one that caters to your niche.

.> How about 7/11, which refuses to stock magazines they don't approve of?

.
By "magazines they don't approve of", you mean pornography, and by
"refuse to stock", you mean "they stock the magazines and then place
them behind the counter out of view of children"? �And you think that
this is worth getting worked up over?

7/11 refused to stock PLAYBOY at all (not even bheind the counter),
but it stocks gun nut magazines. They're responsive to complaints
about sex but not about violence.

.> How about Blockbuster video, which refuse to buy copies of NC-17 films, thus
making it almost impossible to make and market films of that rating?

.
Here is the major difference - I'm talking about are serious political
books being harassed - you're talking about tittie flixs and stroke
mags.

You don't seem to know much about what serious independent film
producers are trying to do. Tittie flix are R and do just fine at
Blockbuster. Since I work in the arts, I am not too thrilled about
large chain stores deciding what Americans should be allowed to see
and read. Just as I thought Clear Channel was over-reaching when they
refused to run the Dixie Chicks because of their politics. As I
loathed blacklisting in the Fifties. You're all for freedom of
expresson, but only when the expression is what you believe in.

That's because the Bush administration has made it its business to do
government badly. �It's not that government has to be bad, it's that a
bunch of people who don't like government have taken it over and
purposely wrecked large chunks of it.

.
So, that's what you're reduced down to - imagining that President Bush
is a traitor who deliberately wants to destroy the US?

It's one aspect of what I believe. Yes, I do believe he's a traitor.
He has betrayed his oath of office and he's purposely try to dismantle
government offices and functions with which he and his cronies don't
agree. He's a kind of terrorist himself.


Even today, there is no "universal, Federal Library Card" - with the
exception of scholarly collections, libraries are pretty much always
local affairs.
.
But almost all of them are computerized, and records can be retrieved
and forwarded in minutes.

.
But they can't be read on the same system. �Some libraries use MAC,
other's PC, Lenix, and orphan systems. , some use MSWord, others excel
spreedsheets, some use obscure software,, some use proprietor
software, �And there are different versions of such systems that don't
work together.

So? The information is still vastly more available and at hand than
in the days of Wilson, which was your comparison point.


When I did some freelance work for the RAND Institute, I was
horrorfied to learn that they had a bizarre, Frankenstein system that
only people who've been there for years could understand. �This is the
RAND institute - if they can't get it right, what makes you think tens
of thousands of libraries, working independently, will have a
streamlined interface?

Why do you imagine I believe the Rand institute would be the standard
for technological sophistication. Doesn't make any sense.


Whenever I send a screenplay to a producer, I AWAYS save the document
in four different file formats - and they STILL are known to bounce
back.

So what?

.> > This is true today, it was far more true in Wilson's day. To check a
man's library record back then would have required a phone call - or
several, if he lived in a large town.
.
That's a single library record, in which case you might follow a
suspicion about one person. �The new technology makes fishing
expeditions and profiling possible.

.
Actually, no - I said "several (phone calls) if he lived in a large
town.

And it's still dealing with just one person as opposed to reviewing
the pattern of withdrawals, say, in New York where a lot of enemies of
Bushco live. That stuff, yes, is all on a central computer system and
covers several million people. To be able to see, in a keystroke or
two, a list of everyone who has taken out books by Noam Chomsky ...

No, we were talking about the misuse of libraries. �Do who wish to
condede that point, and move onto something else?

No, because you haven't remotely proved your point.

.