French Get A Dose Of The New Lance Armstrong

Donald Munro wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:

Yes, but it isn't possible to be Jeremy Clarkson without being a complete
twit. For those of you furth of these islands who have fortunately been
spared his moronic egotistical posturing, Clarkson is a television
presenter who created an on-screen persona which was a slight
exaggeration of his real personality traits, and then got locked into a
feedback loop. He parodies himself parodying himself, and thus becomes
progressively more loud mouthed, peurile and egotistical with each year
that passes. Frankly, he should be arrested merely for being Jeremy
Clarkson; no punishment is sufficiently cruel or unusual for that
offence.


I suppose you could sentence him to driving a honda civic for the rest of
his natural life. Or make him ride a bicycle instead of a car.

I have no idea who this guy is, so I called up his wikipedia page. Very
depressing. He's only a year and a half older than I am and he looks
like THIS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson

Damn. I'm getting old.

RonSonic wrote:
On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:55:52 GMT, "Bill Sornson" wrote:
{snip some Shallow Chalo goodness}

See Bill Clinton campaigning for Lieberman today? Can you say "back
room DEAL"? LOL

This hurts to say it or even to think it. Of the present national
level Democrats out there now, Bill and Hill are among the most sane.
Both appear to understand the necessity of Iraq, and of course they
both believe it would be better if they were in charge, but they do
understand the need. And both can be pushed, encouraged, boxed into
a corner where they are forced to do the right thing.

They both run their mouths and talk big, but don't usually slip off
into bizarre fantasy like Dean and Kerry and the like.

I agree with that...but it's still fun when they're on totally opposite
sides of an issue like, say, Dubai Ports Deal. Hill's out there acting like
it's flat out treason that the admin could allow such a thing; meanwhile,
Bill's on Dubai's payroll (to the tune of millions) and he and his former
officials are lobbying and "consulting" big-time for it. You just can't
make up stuff like that!

Go burn a flag or something.

Jeez, I wasn't even going to reply since he didn't get /too/
personally abusive this time! I /do/ admire his restraint

A category I'm a little weak on sometimes.

"Don't ever change" -- something Hill /never/ said to Bill! ;-)

RonSonic wrote:

The man is an inferior mind wrapped in a superior attitude and
education.

Shhh. D'oh Boy will hear you and come in!

In article
.com,
" wrote:

R Brickston wrote:

Well, goody. This non-factual bs will help, along with the likes of
the left wing queen, Ms. Dowd (and her cohorts) to win the next
election for the Republicans.

Yo. Political insults aside, can one of you true-blue (excuse me,
true-red) patriot gentlemen explain to me the "Maureen Dowd,
empress of the radical left" meme?

Now that we are here, what is it with meme? It's a weakly
derived concept that does not physically express the way
gene does. Yet the proponents try to imbue it with the
same characteristics as gene and derive the same
consequences. It is a metaphor with all the weaknesses of
a metaphor. The proponents are a bunch of advertising
executives selling the concept, literally, for grant money
and tenure. Meme is a meme. It is a fad and will end up
with pet rocks. That it will die off shows exactly how it
differs from gene.

Furthermore it is unnecessary to talk about culture; it is
enough to live creatively in it. Zeitgeist is a perfect
stand in for meme, but it lacks the cachet; it is not
au*courant.

--
Michael Press

In article
,
Tim Lines wrote:

Donald Munro wrote:
Simon Brooke wrote:

Yes, but it isn't possible to be Jeremy Clarkson without being a complete
twit. For those of you furth of these islands who have fortunately been
spared his moronic egotistical posturing, Clarkson is a television
presenter who created an on-screen persona which was a slight
exaggeration of his real personality traits, and then got locked into a
feedback loop. He parodies himself parodying himself, and thus becomes
progressively more loud mouthed, peurile and egotistical with each year
that passes. Frankly, he should be arrested merely for being Jeremy
Clarkson; no punishment is sufficiently cruel or unusual for that
offence.

I suppose you could sentence him to driving a honda civic for the rest of
his natural life. Or make him ride a bicycle instead of a car.

I have no idea who this guy is, so I called up his wikipedia page. Very
depressing. He's only a year and a half older than I am and he looks
like THIS:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeremy_Clarkson

I read it and said OK, he his quick witted, entertaining,
abrasive, and not appealing to me. Whatever. Then I read

"He has a long-running public feud with Piers Morgan,
former editor of the Daily Mirror. In October of 2003, on
the last Concorde flight, he threw a glass of water over
Morgan while the two were exchanging insults. In March
2004, at the British Press Awards, he cursed at Morgan and
punched him, apparently angry that the newspaper had
published photographs of Clarkson with a woman who was not
his wife."

Clarkson offers violence. Time now he does something to
cure himself.

--
Michael Press

On Tue, 25 Jul 2006 05:16:43 GMT, R Brickston
rb20170REMOVE.yahoo.com@ wrote:

"Elected". With the help of some massive election fraud

Absolutely no proof whatsoever and that left wing moron RFK, Jr's
bleatings in court filings are meaningless.


The Democrats remind me of English soccer fans. They go into every
World Cup expecting to win and when they don't, they blame their loss
on everything other than themselves.

The Democrats are in a state of denial regarding the fact that they
are the minority party.

RonSonic wrote:

Chalo wrote:

_I'm_ a leftist. Zoot is a leftist. Those public figures you
mentioned may be left of _your_ position, but just because they are in
opposition to Fascism does not make them leftists. That's like calling
someone a health fanatic because they don't want to get cancer.

If you are using the word "Fascism" to describe anything happening in modern
American mainstream politics then you are either far ****ing out there beyond
the radical left fringe or just an ignorant piece of **** who will say anything
in insult of those he disagrees with.

Pol Pot was a radical leftist; I'm not. I'm representative of the
mainstream Left as it exists in the First World (which is to say the
EU, Commonwealth, etc.) However, if the Right in the USA insists on
shutting out and marginalizing moderate leftist discourse from the
media and public political discussion (and succeeds in its efforts to
promote squalor among a majority of the population), then in due course
a Pol-Pot-style hard leftist will arise and give them what they have
been richly asking for.

When the American Right finally reap what they have sown so far, they
can count themselves *extremely* lucky if it comes in the form of a
benevolent populist reformer like Hugo Chavez. That's what I'm rooting
for, because for the Right to get what they _actually deserve_ would
brutalize us as a nation. I'm just sayin'.

In either case you really are the kind of treasonous **** we were complaining
about having hijacked the Democrat party.

You need a refresher course on what sorts of things constitute treason,
my lad. To wit:

Lying to the country to go to war on false pretexts - treason

Stealing Federal elections by fraud and collusion - treason

Undermining national security and international trust by violating
longstanding international treaties - treason

Operating illegal secret prisons and torture centers in the public name
- treason

Revoking Constitutionally guaranteed basic rights for political gain -
treason

Speaking out against the above - not treason

You also seem to have missed my earlier assessment of the Democratic
Party as a pack of scoundrels, toadies, and collaborators. I wouldn't
vote for a Democrat in a typical election even if they gave me three
more votes to spend on a Green. So I am clearly not what's wrong with
the Democrats. What's wrong with the Democrats is that they are the
"good cop" in a colossal con game to end what meager few opportunities
for democracy still exist in this corrupt system.

Go burn a flag or something.

Go burn some books or something. FOAD while you're at it.

Chalo

"chalo colina" wrote in message
oups.com...
RonSonic wrote:

Chalo wrote:

_I'm_ a leftist. Zoot is a leftist. Those public figures you
mentioned may be left of _your_ position, but just because they are in
opposition to Fascism does not make them leftists. That's like calling
someone a health fanatic because they don't want to get cancer.

If you are using the word "Fascism" to describe anything happening in
modern
American mainstream politics then you are either far ****ing out there
beyond
the radical left fringe or just an ignorant piece of **** who will say
anything
in insult of those he disagrees with.

Pol Pot was a radical leftist; I'm not. I'm representative of the
mainstream Left as it exists in the First World (which is to say the
EU, Commonwealth, etc.) However, if the Right in the USA insists on
shutting out and marginalizing moderate leftist discourse from the
media and public political discussion (and succeeds in its efforts to
promote squalor among a majority of the population), then in due course
a Pol-Pot-style hard leftist will arise and give them what they have
been richly asking for.

When the American Right finally reap what they have sown so far, they
can count themselves *extremely* lucky if it comes in the form of a
benevolent populist reformer like Hugo Chavez. That's what I'm rooting
for, because for the Right to get what they _actually deserve_ would
brutalize us as a nation. I'm just sayin'.

In either case you really are the kind of treasonous **** we were
complaining
about having hijacked the Democrat party.

You need a refresher course on what sorts of things constitute treason,
my lad. To wit:

Lying to the country to go to war on false pretexts - treason

Stealing Federal elections by fraud and collusion - treason

Undermining national security and international trust by violating
longstanding international treaties - treason

Operating illegal secret prisons and torture centers in the public name
- treason

Revoking Constitutionally guaranteed basic rights for political gain -
treason

Article III (Section 3) of the US Constitution reads:

Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against
them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No
Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two
Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.

The Congress shall have Power to declare the Punishment of Treason, but no
Attainder of Treason shall work Corruption of Blood, or Forfeiture except
during the Life of the Person attainted.



Speaking out against the above - not treason

Quite right.

You also seem to have missed my earlier assessment of the Democratic
Party as a pack of scoundrels, toadies, and collaborators. I wouldn't
vote for a Democrat in a typical election even if they gave me three
more votes to spend on a Green. So I am clearly not what's wrong with
the Democrats. What's wrong with the Democrats is that they are the
"good cop" in a colossal con game to end what meager few opportunities
for democracy still exist in this corrupt system.

Go burn a flag or something.

Go burn some books or something. FOAD while you're at it.

Chalo

chalo colina wrote:

When the American Right finally reap what they have sown so far, they
can count themselves *extremely* lucky if it comes in the form of a
benevolent populist reformer like Hugo Chavez.

You and Cindy... Want to see how /benevolent/ Chavez is? Have one of his
citizens say something 1/1000th as bad about him as Sheehan has about Bush.
Said citizen would be praying for death within two hours.

http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1056139974401

http://hrw.org/english/docs/2004/04/12/venezu8423.htm

http://www.freemarketproject.org/spe.../hugo/hugo.asp

Want more? Google "Hugo Chavez torture". Only 574,000 hits...

"chalo colina" wrote in message
oups.com...
RonSonic wrote:

Chalo wrote:

_I'm_ a leftist. Zoot is a leftist. Those public figures you
mentioned may be left of _your_ position, but just because they are in
opposition to Fascism does not make them leftists. That's like calling
someone a health fanatic because they don't want to get cancer.

If you are using the word "Fascism" to describe anything happening in
modern
American mainstream politics then you are either far ****ing out there
beyond
the radical left fringe or just an ignorant piece of **** who will say
anything
in insult of those he disagrees with.

Pol Pot was a radical leftist; I'm not. I'm representative of the
mainstream Left as it exists in the First World (which is to say the
EU, Commonwealth, etc.) However, if the Right in the USA insists on
shutting out and marginalizing moderate leftist discourse from the
media and public political discussion (and succeeds in its efforts to
promote squalor among a majority of the population), then in due course
a Pol-Pot-style hard leftist will arise and give them what they have
been richly asking for.

When the American Right finally reap what they have sown so far, they
can count themselves *extremely* lucky if it comes in the form of a
benevolent populist reformer like Hugo Chavez. That's what I'm rooting
for, because for the Right to get what they _actually deserve_ would
brutalize us as a nation. I'm just sayin'.

In either case you really are the kind of treasonous **** we were
complaining
about having hijacked the Democrat party.

You need a refresher course on what sorts of things constitute treason,
my lad. To wit:

Lying to the country to go to war on false pretexts - treason

Stealing Federal elections by fraud and collusion - treason

Undermining national security and international trust by violating
longstanding international treaties - treason

Operating illegal secret prisons and torture centers in the public name
- treason

Revoking Constitutionally guaranteed basic rights for political gain -
treason

Speaking out against the above - not treason

You also seem to have missed my earlier assessment of the Democratic
Party as a pack of scoundrels, toadies, and collaborators. I wouldn't
vote for a Democrat in a typical election even if they gave me three
more votes to spend on a Green. So I am clearly not what's wrong with
the Democrats. What's wrong with the Democrats is that they are the
"good cop" in a colossal con game to end what meager few opportunities
for democracy still exist in this corrupt system.

Go burn a flag or something.

Go burn some books or something. FOAD while you're at it.

Chalo


Hasn't anyone told you the Communist Party is dead, you've run your course,
it didn't work. Your rhetoric has been used for the last 60 or so years,
it's all been heard many times.