From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V16 #520 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Wednesday, February 27 2008 Volume 16 : Number 520 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. ["Jason Brown" ] Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. [Rex ] RE: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. ["Bachman, Michael" ] Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. [FSThomas ] Re: "Mr. Private Property." [Rex ] the conservative slurry [Jill Brand ] Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. ["Stacked Crooked" ] Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. [Benjamin Lukoff ] Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. [Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. Caroline Smith wrote: > Life is more fun with tangents. But surely we could do with out Dave Sim's Tangents, right? http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/tangents.html - -- "Never go with a hippie to a second location." - Jack Donaghy ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:35:01 -0500 (EST) From: Christopher Gross Subject: reap William F. Buckley, 82. - --Chris (who just got back from out of town and blithely deleted the entire poop-in-the-pool thread unread) ______________________________________________________________________ Christopher Gross On the Internet, nobody knows I'm a dog. chrisg@gwu.edu ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 08:42:18 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. On Tue, Feb 26, 2008 at 11:07 PM, lep wrote: > > actually, it reminded me of a much better theory that depressives > aren't screwed up so much as they are just more realistic than > non-depressives (like maybe the regular people should be the ones > listed in the DSM-IV.) > Oh, I definitely believe that one. But I'm a depressive, so I would. Actually, I basically find everyone to harbor some shade of mental illness, and am far more wont to trust those who acknowledge it. For real. To me, it also follows that finding liberals mentally ill tends to strongly imply that conservatives are mentally impaired, but that does a disservice to those with true intellectual impairments. Otherwise, what everone else said. Except to add that, while I'm not sure what kind of heft this comment has coming from *me*, but the initial post here must be the purest, most indisputable instance of *trolling* to hit the list in a long, long time. - -Rex, a fan of the tangents as well, to wit: np. Jerry Jeff Walker, but otherwise on a bit of a '50's country tear ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:47:59 +0000 From: craigie* Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. ah, those crazy Canadians, eh? c* On 27/02/2008, Jason Brown wrote: > > Caroline Smith wrote: > > Life is more fun with tangents. > > But surely we could do with out Dave Sim's Tangents, right? > http://www.theabsolute.net/misogyny/tangents.html > > -- > "Never go with a hippie to a second location." - Jack Donaghy > - -- first things first, but not necessarily in that order... I like my girls to be the same as my records - independent, attractively packaged and in black vinyl (if at all possible)... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 09:04:18 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Ubu-Tangent (or, "Meanwhile, in the poop-free pool") Thanks to the feggy ID on Pere Ubu's "Oh Catherine", I found this, which looks to have some nifty b-sides, if they're covers (possibly even if they're not)... http://earfulofnoize.blogspot.com/search?q=pere+ubu - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:22:01 -0800 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. > But what if at its core "the norm" is broken? What if "the norm" seeks > fundamental and (IMHO) self-destructive change? > Dude. I fail to see how your O is in any way H. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:26:59 -0800 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. > Otherwise, what everone else said. Except to add that, while I'm not sure > what kind of heft this comment has coming from *me*, but the initial post > here must be the purest, most indisputable instance of *trolling* to hit > the > list in a long, long time. > > Or the same kind of juvenile, schoolyard-bully sadism that motivates Limbaugh, Coulter, et al... ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:38:33 -0800 From: "Stacked Crooked" Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. that's bullshit, ferris. i *do*, of course, acknowledge that i frequently change the subject lines (as far as i know, i'm the only one who does so), but you always manage to follow along -- until it becomes too inconvenient for you to do so. and, uh, you explicitly stated the last time that you were breaking off the debate because you were offended by my verbiage. so, it sounds to me as though you didn't have any trouble following the plot, whatever the subject line may have been (though, this time, it had not been changed). that said, if you'd like me to re-post the offending passages, with the offensive words changed to better suit your sensibilities, and with your name in the subject line, so that we can pick up where we'd left off, just let me know. it can be after you return from vacation, if that works for you. <):>> so it does!. try , instead. so you're saying (and by "you", i mean "limbaugh") that twenty-five years after the CRA's enactment, a delayed clause kicked in, compelling the banks to lobby for fewer and fewer controls on its operations? and compelled the bush administration to strike down predatory lending laws against the protests of all 50 states attorneys general? and compelled the fed to slash interest rates? and compelled the financial press to, rather than bemoan their woeful fate, trumpet the glory of the market's bounty? and compelled brokers (not to mention bankers) to get filthy stinking rich (against their wills, of course; but sometimes one must suffer for freedom, you know?)? and that all that shiny, new suburban and exurban housing (and the shiny, new SUVs used to transport its inhabitants to and fro') is actually filled up with *negroes* (and other welfare queens)? does it also explain the bush deficits, i wonder? the NIRA was fairly explicitly touted as a means to save capitalism from itself. not only in the manner capuchin suggests (i.e., that if something hadn't been done to make some minimal provisions for the poor, there'd have been a revolution), but also that the "free market" was destroying profits, and so a taxpayer bailout was necessary to keep the whole thing afloat. didn't really work, alas, until world war ii (and then korea, after which eisenhower's military-industrial complex become permanent operating procedure) came along to kick the economy into gear. you mean, like, the monroe doctrine? and the indian wars? and the slave trade? and the colonisation of the philippines? and the spanish-american war? and the sending of the marines into...well, pretty much everywhere (an appendix in william blum's *Killing Hope* lists "instances of use of united states armed forces abroad, 1798-1945". i count 137 such instances prior to wwi)? what, pray tell, have you been reading, ferris? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:46:47 -0800 From: "kevin studyvin" Subject: Re: Ubu-Tangent (or, "Meanwhile, in the poop-free pool") I note he's missed the "Beach Boys see dee plus" http://www.last.fm/music/Pere+Ubu/Beach+Boys+See+Dee+Plus which also includes about 20 minutes of grainy live video from the OK Hotel. And no, that "Down By the River" isn't Neil's. On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 9:04 AM, Rex wrote: > Thanks to the feggy ID on Pere Ubu's "Oh Catherine", I found this, which > looks to have some nifty b-sides, if they're covers (possibly even if > they're not)... > > http://earfulofnoize.blogspot.com/search?q=pere+ubu > > -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:47:04 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: LOWE / HITCHCOCK / GRAND BALLROOM APRIL 9th On Feb 27, 2008, at 7:48 AM, Steve Talkowski wrote: > For all NY fegs (and those coming in for the show) tickets go on sale > this Friday! > > http://www.bowerypresents.com/calendar/show/1362/ Got my 4/12 Fillmore tix last Sunday. Fucking TicketBastard tacked on nearly $15 in "convenience charges"! What complete bastards! > > -Steve (hoping to have internet access for ordering, as i'll be > enjoying the warm weather and exploring the Mayan Riviera in Playa del > Carmen over the next 5 days...) And leave behind blustery NYC? For shame! - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:43:23 -0800 From: Tom Clark Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. On Feb 27, 2008, at 5:49 AM, FSThomas wrote: > Tom Clark wrote: > >> Sorry, I just have a hard time equating journalism with a guy >> humping a floor. > > Your logic is impeccable. I bow to your obviously superior > arguments on all points. Yes! I win!! Off to care about other things, - -tc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 10:55:05 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in teh Pool. Disgust. On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 10:38 AM, Stacked Crooked wrote: > another thread or the subject line has been changed.> > > that's bullshit, ferris. i *do*, of course, acknowledge that i frequently > change the subject lines (as far as i know, i'm the only one who does so), That's bullshit, Eddie. I *do*, of course, frequently change the subject lines (and as far as I know, so do a lot of other people). Some of the funniest shits I've ever seen on the list are subtly altered subject lines, actually. Can't think of any offhand, sadly. > > but you always manage to follow along -- until it becomes too inconvenient > for you to do so. and, uh, you explicitly stated the last time that you > were breaking off the debate because you were offended by my verbiage. Specifically, because you were being a fag, IIRC. Wait, no, that was the backing vocal on "Dark Green Energy". Never mind... as you were. - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:01:24 -0500 From: The Great Quail Subject: "Mr. Private Property." I am actually saddened by the death of William F. Buckley, Jr. He was one of my favorite conservatives, and always fun to watch -- for the right reasons. In fact, back in 1998, I wrote him seeking help with regards to a literary project, and he responded quite graciously. Ah well...at least George Will and Christopher Hitchens are still around and kicking. - --Quail ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:05:09 -0500 From: "Bachman, Michael" Subject: RE: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. Eddie came back with: >you mean, like, the monroe doctrine? and the indian wars? and the slave trade? and the colonisation of >the philippines? and the spanish-american war? and the sending of the marines into...well, pretty much >everywhere (an appendix in william blum's *Killing Hope* lists "instances of use of united states armed >forces abroad, 1798-1945". i count 137 such instances prior to wwi)? what, pray tell, have you been >reading, ferris? Good thing the Calvary was busy elsewhere, or McKinley would have had our troops in the Transvaal fighting the Boers! Michael B. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:39:58 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: "Mr. Private Property." On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, The Great Quail wrote: > I am actually saddened by the death of William F. Buckley, Jr. He was one of > my favorite conservatives, and always fun to watch -- for the right reasons. > In fact, back in 1998, I wrote him seeking help with regards to a literary > project, and he responded quite graciously. > > Ah well...at least George Will and Christopher Hitchens are still around and > kicking. Great video: http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2008/02/buckley-vs-chom.html And long live the Hitch! ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:45:40 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. 2fs wrote: > On 2/27/08, FSThomas wrote: >> >>> Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of >>>> inferiority in the population by: >>>> >>>> * creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization; >>> >>> You mean, like how white men can't catch a break these days? >> >> No, I mean like how the Democrat party > > > The adjectival form of "Democrat" (as in the party) is "Democratic." Always > has been, always will be - at least until "nucular" is equally correct. > Christ - you take even your pronunciation and spelling cues from W. now? If Republicans are members of the Republican Party it should logically follow that Democrats are members of ... wait for it ... The Democrat Party. As a side note: "The term /American/, like the term /democrat/, began as an epiphet, the former referring to an inferior, provincial create, the latter to one who panders to the crude and mindless whims of the masses." Footnoted and readable here: http://tinyurl.com/2rarhk from Joseph Ellis' quite good /Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation/. > You make the idiotic assumption that "liberal" equals and has always > equalled "the Democratic party." Of course it hasn't. No liberal these days > is going to defend Bull Connor* - so why the fuck adduce him as evidence > against liberalism? Connor is relevant in *where* the bulk of Liberals and minorities have chosen to set up shop. In the same party that fought against equal rights, voting rights, elected KKK members to their head and sported such characters as Connor. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:50:00 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: "Mr. Private Property." The Great Quail wrote: > I am actually saddened by the death of William F. Buckley, Jr. He was one of > my favorite conservatives, and always fun to watch -- for the right reasons. > In fact, back in 1998, I wrote him seeking help with regards to a literary > project, and he responded quite graciously. If nothing else he had a kick-ass vocabulary. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 11:56:26 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: "Mr. Private Property." On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 11:39 AM, Benjamin Lukoff wrote: > And long live the Hitch! > Yes! Robyn is awesome! Oh, wait... - -Rex ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 15:06:17 -0500 (EST) From: Jill Brand Subject: the conservative slurry I simply don't have time to read every comment of this political debate (I used up all my free time arguing about football), but really, Ferris, aren't you just a tad ashamed of writing this? "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet their needs from cradle to grave." and this * Jefferson Davis had a (D) after his name, whereas Lincoln had an (R). As to the first comment, most of the liberals I know (and my town is next to the People's Republic of Cambridge, so I know a ton) are hard-working, tax-paying individuals who see a benefit to society if all are taken care of. As a matter of fact, the hotbeds of Republicanism in this country (often referred to as "red states") are places that are demanding the most from the economy. If the blue states said goodbye to the nation, it would be interesting to see what would become of the fiscally conservative red states, which most often drain fiscal resources from those more liberally minded states. And all those fiscally responsible banks run by fiscally responsible conservatives are not going to be happy if our fiscally responsible president (who has thrown away a budget surplus and buried us in his war) doesn't make sure the banks are bailed out from the sub-prime mess, which is a product of sheer greed. The banks and mortgage companies are perfect examples of children who have abdicated all fiscal responsibility. As for Jefferson Davis, Abraham Lincoln, and the civil war, you don't honestly mean to say that the Democrats and Republicans still represent what they did in the 1860s. The politics of both parties has/have changed radically since then. Otherwise, the south would still be a Democratic stronghold. The civil rights movement spurred all those southern Dems to become Republicans, and you know that damned well. So the Democratics who were in oppostion to the 1965 Civil Rights Act are now comfortably Republican. I don't adore the Democratic candidates, but after the last 8 years, I am no longer a yellow dog Democrat. I am now a wad of sputum Democrat. I'd vote for my snotrag over seeing Republicans in any position of power for the coming years. Jill ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 12:53:27 -0800 From: "Stacked Crooked" Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. the more i think about this, the more hilariously ridiculous it appears to be. (not that it weren't hilariously ridiculous already; or not necessarily any more hilariously ridiculous than anything else you're propounding.) you'll notice that the banks themselves aren't arguing that it was "legislation" that did them in -- they're simply saying that they need a bailout, but that they should be careful to use language that makes it look like they're asking for something other than a bailout. you'll notice that the republicans controlled both houses for much of this period, and did away with plenty of legislation they didn't like -- why not the onerous CRA, "compelling" them to make risky loans. you'll notice that the legislation has been repealed...yet the banks have stopped (or at least curtailed) their risky lending practices. how'd that happen? why could they do it now, but not then? digest-proviso: i'm probably just repeating stuff jeffrey or some other stickler has already said. if so, sorry 'bout that. also, i do want to state that i'm of the opinion that the bankers, the brokers, the legislators (for *caving in to* the bankers' demands, not for "compelling" them to make the demands), and the buyers all hold culpability here. yeah, the buyers were no doubt duped high and wide. but, shit, if you're gonna sign your life away like that, shouldn't you at least take a moment to ponder whether money really does grow on trees? i know, i know: we were all promised high and wide that economic cycles had been abolished, or whatever. but are there perpetual-motion machines in nature? pretty basic question to ask oneself, i should think. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 16:33:56 -0500 From: FSThomas Subject: Re: the conservative slurry Jill Brand wrote: > I simply don't have time to read every comment of this political debate > (I used up all my free time arguing about football), but really, Ferris, > aren't you just a tad ashamed of writing this? > > "Like spoiled, angry children, they rebel against the normal > responsibilities of adulthood and demand that a parental government meet > their needs from cradle to grave." I didn't write it; Rossiter did. > and this > > * Jefferson Davis had a (D) after his name, whereas Lincoln had an (R). That I did write, but it's simply historical fact. > As to the first comment, most of the liberals I know (and my town is > next to the People's Republic of Cambridge, so I know a ton) are > hard-working, tax-paying individuals who see a benefit to society if all > are taken care of. And most I know are the same. It's when they (the far leaning Liberals) take control of national politics that I really start to worry. Far-leaning is Clinton and (far more so) Obama. McCain is in the middle of the road but has seriously flawed views on immigration and the 1st Amendment. > If the blue states said goodbye to > the nation, it would be interesting to see what would become of the > fiscally conservative red states, which most often drain fiscal > resources from those more liberally minded states. I would welcome the secession of California just to see how long they would last without the Federal Treasury. They're throttling themselves under the weight of their taxation which is caused by the weight of their entitlement programs. > our fiscally responsible president (who has > thrown away a budget surplus and buried us in his war) The economy was going to adjust after the tech bubble burst; a bubble which the Clinton administration had the benefit of. That gone, the economy was going to adjust and adjust downwards. Then enter 9/11. While I will concede that Iraq is an aberration in that it was relatively voluntary, Afghanistan was called for. An attack on the scale of 9/11 isn't something we solicited and required a response. It could very easily be argued that Bush Sr. dropped the ball by stopping the first war when he did and it could even more easily be argued that Clinton should have done more to dissuade Hussein. > The banks and mortgage companies are perfect examples of > children who have abdicated all fiscal responsibility. Fiscal responsibility is something that Americans in general haven't been able to exercise in quite a while due to a market flush with easy credit. It could be argued, though, that they learned the behavior from their government, which routinely spends more than it earns. The solution to *both* problems (central and civilian) come from learning to spend what you earn and not a penny more. In fact you should spend 10% less to pay back your debts. How do you do that? By spending less. You restrict/cut/remove expenses or services. > As for Jefferson Davis, Abraham Lincoln, and the civil war, you don't > honestly mean to say that the Democrats and Republicans still represent > what they did in the 1860s. The politics of both parties has/have > changed radically since then. Otherwise, the south would still be a > Democratic stronghold. The civil rights movement spurred all those > southern Dems to become Republicans, and you know that damned well. So > the Democratics who were in oppostion to the 1965 Civil Rights Act are > now comfortably Republican. The most racist, repressive group you could find here in the South is the Democrats. How can I say that? Georgia's a Republican state, after all, right? I can say it in that I've seen and heard white-on-black racism and a HELL of a lot of black-on-white racism and the majority of blacks vote with the Democrats down here. It's rampant though often not mentioned. (Though it did make the Huffington Post not long ago from an article in The Toronto Star: http://www.thestar.com/article/297666) > I don't adore the Democratic candidates, but after the last 8 years, I > am no longer a yellow dog Democrat. I am now a wad of sputum Democrat. > I'd vote for my snotrag over seeing Republicans in any position of power > for the coming years. I'm not happy with the past eight years, either. There's been a Hell of a lot of things done that I'm not thrilled with to be certain. I firmly believe, though, that the last thing we want to do to right wrongs, ease woes (real or perceived), or "fix" the country involve a move toward socialism. If you think the budget is out of hand now wait until social programs start getting expanded as promised by both the candidates the Democrats offer. What's the P. J. ObRourke quote? "If you think health care is expensive now, wait until you see what it costs when itbs free." ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:54:13 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, 2fs wrote: > On 2/27/08, FSThomas wrote: > > > > > > > Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of > > >> inferiority in the population by: > > >> > > >> * creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization; > > > > > > > > > You mean, like how white men can't catch a break these days? > > > > > > No, I mean like how the Democrat party > > The adjectival form of "Democrat" (as in the party) is "Democratic." Always > has been, always will be - at least until "nucular" is equally correct. > Christ - you take even your pronunciation and spelling cues from W. now? I was going to stay out of this, but I'd like to say two things: 1) Democrats, please stop getting so uptight over this minor issue. 2) Non-Democrats, the Democrats are obviously sensitive over this minor issue, and if you press their buttons, they'll respond to this usage and not your other points. Actually, 3) There's actually a Wikipedia article on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democrat_Party_(phrase) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 13:56:04 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. So are all the other centrist types on this list just keeping quiet? ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:00:52 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, Rex wrote: > Actually, I basically find everyone to harbor some shade of mental illness, > and am far more wont to trust those who acknowledge it. For real. Right on. > To me, it also follows that finding liberals mentally ill tends to strongly > imply that conservatives are mentally impaired, but that does a disservice > to those with true intellectual impairments. http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2003/aug/13/usa.redbox 'A study funded by the US government has concluded that conservatism can be explained psychologically as a set of neuroses rooted in "fear and aggression, dogmatism and the intolerance of ambiguity".' It comes from both sides. Let's leave it alone. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 17:02:01 -0500 From: Brian Cully Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. On 27-Feb-2008, at 15:53, Stacked Crooked wrote: > you'll notice that the republicans controlled both houses for much > of this > period, and did away with plenty of legislation they didn't like -- > why not > the onerous CRA, "compelling" them to make risky loans. If you think the dems are any different, you need to wake the fuck up. - -bjc ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:01:14 -0800 From: Rex Subject: Re: the conservative slurry On Wed, Feb 27, 2008 at 1:33 PM, FSThomas wrote: > It's when they (the far leaning Liberals) > take control of national politics that I really start to worry. > Far-leaning is Clinton and (far more so) Obama. What ARE you smoking? Half the people I know (including around here, and myself) would identify themselves as *to the left* of the mainstream Democratic candidates. And yet we don't eat babies*. Actually, the thing that bugs about Obama right now, and I'll get over it, is the sort of disingenuously revolutionary face he's putting on what reads to me like (Bill) Clintonesque middle-of-the-roadism. Then again, I'm with Jill, and compared to the last eight years, any kind of rational policy does seem kinda revolutionary. As to California secession, well I hope Neil Young will remember southern man don't need him around anyhow, or words to that effect. - -Rex *Unless they're in season. ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 27 Feb 2008 14:09:03 -0800 (PST) From: Benjamin Lukoff Subject: Re: I'm About to Take a Dump in the Pool. Discuss. On Wed, 27 Feb 2008, FSThomas wrote: > 2fs wrote: > > On 2/27/08, FSThomas wrote: > >> > >>> Dr. Rossiter says the liberal agenda preys on weakness and feelings of > >>>> inferiority in the population by: > >>>> > >>>> * creating and reinforcing perceptions of victimization; > >>> > >>> You mean, like how white men can't catch a break these days? > >> > >> No, I mean like how the Democrat party > > > > > > The adjectival form of "Democrat" (as in the party) is "Democratic." Always > > has been, always will be - at least until "nucular" is equally correct. > > Christ - you take even your pronunciation and spelling cues from W. now? > > If Republicans are members of the Republican Party it should logically > follow that Democrats are members of ... wait for it ... The Democrat Party. Language ain't logical. ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V16 #520 ********************************