From: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org (loud-fans-digest) To: loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Subject: loud-fans-digest V1 #90 Reply-To: loud-fans@smoe.org Sender: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-loud-fans-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk loud-fans-digest Wednesday, May 23 2001 Volume 01 : Number 090 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: [loud-fans] foot in mouth disease and knee-jerk dickheads........ [exaggerated ellipsis] [Roger Winst] [loud-fans] Re: Dream side ONE [jenny grover ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 22 May 2001 23:11:26 -0600 From: Roger Winston Subject: Re: [loud-fans] foot in mouth disease and knee-jerk dickheads........ [exaggerated ellipsis] Huh?? I seem to have misplaced my "LoudFans List Posts For Dummies" book, so could someone please translate this for me? Thanks. Later. --Rog At Tuesday 5/22/2001 09:44 PM -0400, Cardinal007@aol.com wrote: >What a delight to find my response to SS's "buffoon" comment has elicited the >predictable thoughtless, reflexive horseshit that so fuels me to plumb for it. > >A buffoon is, by some sources, defined as "1 : a ludicrous figure : CLOWN." >I found that laughable, as he has been anything but ludicrous. Find a >goddamned way to express your opposition to his ideas in real terms, not >dismissals that feel good but are false. A lack of gravitas is not >buffoonery. Call him a cock-sucking devil sent by the profiteers or >something ............ [elongated ellipsis]. > >Now, to turn to your reflexive thinking: > > >>Cardinal, I expected better of you. But it is nice to see your party so >vigorously grasping the levers of power, yes? Even though your boy came >in second in the popular vote. But I guess the Bushies figure the >Christian deity is on their side.<< This from Steverino........... >[elongated ellipsis] > > >(1) "My party"? I am not a Republican, andI would infer from your comment >that you believe I am; moreover, if you are not implying that [inferences >being *dangerous* things in serious discourse], I can assure you that my >party is not in power. > >(2) "vigorously grasping the levers of power"? Were I a republican, I would >laugh and say that the President is duty-bound to wield the power of his >office [those pesky "Article" things in the Constitution cause so much work, >don't they?]. I add that over two hundred years of practice, and prediction >in the Federalist Papers and elsewhere, confirm that grasping those levers of >power is the intent of having a president. > >(3) "Even though your boy came >in second in the popular vote." I have no boy, just two lovely girls. And >Bushie could have come in third in the popular vote and still become Whooop >de doo; it's even happened before. president; if you don't like the >Constitution, get off your fat or slim ass and work to amend it. > >(4) "But I guess the Bushies figure the >Christian deity is on their side." I have no idea why you say this. But, >as a Christian-basher and devoted anti-Christian extremist, I hope that his >devotion is demonstrated to be meaningless. What they have on their side is >a bully pulpit and the control of executing and administering all laws; if >they need God, it's like a masturbator needing ladies footwear (now where did >*that* come from....?). > >and let us not forget ol' Dennis, who also responds to things never >said........ > me, then him: > >>[Cardinal 007] >He clearly ended up the middle-manager of a tiny backwater >corporation......... > >To be more serious, though, you are right. He ended up riding in on a giant >wave of popular support and an overwhelming mandate, tripped over himself >daily, and now has the country talking about the other party's agenda. He >CEOd himself right into the ground. But he remains telegenic, of course. > ><><><><><><><> >[Dennis]: >As to the line that ends with the exaggerated ellipsis (unless that's a >dashless >SOS), you'd be right if the issue were the man's personal success, but >unfortunately for that sort of thinking, his personal interests are virtually >inconsequential when weighed against those of the nation, which has a >constitution on which, as Steve's .sig notes, he has a habit of pissing. > >As far as the ex post facto smear on Clinton, which is the only comprehensible >read I can pull from the last paragraph, j*s*s fucking chr*st, he's no longer >in >office, I know his existence must have caused undue pain, especially since he >was blatantly crooked on all sorts of consequential matters and all anyone >could >get to stick to him was infidelity, which need I remind ya ain't illegal (at >least until some short sighted crew of chumps finally replaces the >constitution >with exodus, leviticus, or whatever the weak-ass agenda to pander to the rubes >is this week), but good lord do get over it already, it's so last century. > >what Sonny Boy Williamson said, >--Dennis >> > > >Dennis, definitely an ....um ......... well, .......... an exaggerated >ellipsis. > >I may have missed Steve's sig. line, but I'd like for you to list Bush's >trampling of the Constitution the last 5 months. Please. And make sure that >he really has pissed on it; if you and others merely disagree, your >superiority is so, well ....... last century [exaggerated eye-rolling]. > >My comments were to demonstrate that calling a president -- from either party >-- a buffoon when he has been inaugurated with no mandate, significant >resentment, vehement partisan and ideological opposition, and no appreciable >public speaking >skills at all -- while still controlling the public agenda of discussion -- >struck me as rather "unbuffoonish." My comments were, to me, sarcastic and >rather pointed -- none of the elements I listed was actually present. > >As for Clinton, who never entered my mind (I hope I'm not alone in another >intelligible reading of my comments without thought of Clinton), his >existence did cause me pain -- I view him as the greatest threat to the Bill >of Rights since Abraham Lincoln. If you'd like to discuss or deny his >PISSING on the 1st and 4th Amendments, I'll *gladly* engage you. > >I am over Clinton; someday you'll be over Bush [Steve, and Dennis if you >don't like him -- you didn't say, and I *abhor* dimwitted inferences]. As a >lawyer, I hate to let you know that infidelity in a marital union *is* crimina >l in most states, although thankfully not enforced. I hope he fucked fifty >women a day; I wish none had been near my daughter's (and his daughter's) >age, nor in his "employ," nor a secret he lacked the integrity to reveal when >ordered to by a United States District Court. But I no longer care about >Clinton more than Ford. I care about shmucks who don't think but just spew, >and assume, and grab easy lines because they're easy (rather than thoughtful). > >Kinda like Bush. And you guys. > > >PS And JRT and I end up in the same camp sometimes, just like I end up >in the same camp with some environmentalists and Nat Hentoff (a hero). But I >don't have to *like* him (although we share the joy or pornography) ........ >[exaggerated ellipsis] ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 23 May 2001 02:57:38 -0400 From: jenny grover Subject: [loud-fans] Re: Dream side ONE Larry Tucker wrote: > > Jenny Grover sent me a wonderfully constructed tape of songs about > dreaming/sleeping called TO SLEEP, PERCHANCE TO DREAM. Hey, all! I'm back from being out of town for 2 weeks, lest anyone think I was ignoring them. Larry, I'll have info where you've asked for it soon. Right now it's 3 am. I'm slowly slogging through Loud-fans posts, and not necessarily in order. Jen ------------------------------ End of loud-fans-digest V1 #90 ******************************