John Lennon and John Kerry

I think this is an amazing website, John Lennon would be pleased:

http://www.geocities.com/jfkawards/lennon.htm

Mister Charlie

2004-01-31 16:45:15 UTC

Post by Mike Walton
http://www.geocities.com/jfkawards/lennon.htm

A brief photo op. I don't see any particular conection one way or the
other.

And no one knows what John Lennon would think.

Arthur Harris

2004-01-31 17:04:58 UTC

Post by Mike Walton
http://www.geocities.com/jfkawards/lennon.htm

I've seen the photo before. I don't buy into the conspiracy theories
highlighted on that website, but Kerry is the real deal, and our last best
hope.

Art H.

Arthur Harris

2004-01-31 17:45:59 UTC

The suggestion (on the website) that the news media is ignoring this is
false.

The New York Times carried a story over a year ago (Dec 9, 2002) that said
in part:

"Mr.Kerry, who turns 59 on Wednesday, is surely the only senator
whose office displays a photograph of him posing with John Lennon at
an antiwar demonstration at the New York Public Library and another of
him standing in military fatigues in the Mekong Delta. He served 10
months in Vietnam where he was wounded three times, receiving three
Purple Hearts and a Silver Star. In the Senate, he has served 18 years
on the Foreign Relations Committee and 6 years on the Intelligence
Committee."

Art H.

nobody

2004-02-01 03:34:29 UTC

Post by Arthur Harris
The suggestion (on the website) that the news media is ignoring this is
false.
The New York Times carried a story over a year ago (Dec 9, 2002) that said
"Mr.Kerry, who turns 59 on Wednesday, is surely the only senator
whose office displays a photograph of him posing with John Lennon at
an antiwar demonstration at the New York Public Library and another of
him standing in military fatigues in the Mekong Delta. He served 10
months in Vietnam where he was wounded three times, receiving three
Purple Hearts and a Silver Star. In the Senate, he has served 18 years
on the Foreign Relations Committee and 6 years on the Intelligence
Committee."
Art H.

Yeah. And Nixon was photographed with Elvis Presley, too!

What crapola! And completely OT, too. I suppose we must endure these
little campaign messages (and this guy is such a fanatic he posted the
link twice!) on TV and in the direct mail, but what makes anyone think
we need our Beatles mixed with politics is beyond me...)

btw, the "false liberal" label is the big fat red herring this guy is
slapping your face with...

Using John Lennon to attack Howard Dean? I don't think so, fellas.
John would have loved Howard's shitfit when he lost the Iowa caucuses.
But beyond that, it is impossible to say.

And don't forget, the website is NOT official in any way. Go to
Kerry's site if you want to be wooed.

Francie

Teddy

2004-02-01 08:30:08 UTC

What would John have said about your affair with Fordon Liddy? What
does Yoko think about it?

Yeah. And Nixon was photographed with Elvis Presley, too!
What crapola! And completely OT, too. I suppose we must endure these
little campaign messages (and this guy is such a fanatic he posted the
link twice!) on TV and in the direct mail, but what makes anyone think
we need our Beatles mixed with politics is beyond me...)
btw, the "false liberal" label is the big fat red herring this guy is
slapping your face with...
Using John Lennon to attack Howard Dean? I don't think so, fellas.
John would have loved Howard's shitfit when he lost the Iowa caucuses.
But beyond that, it is impossible to say.
And don't forget, the website is NOT official in any way. Go to
Kerry's site if you want to be wooed.
Francie

Mike Walton

2004-02-01 14:29:09 UTC

Has anybody heard anybody say anything nice about Howard Dean, other
than he shares the Mafia's capacity to raise money?

http://www.geocities.com/jfkawards/lennon.htm

R.A.G. Seely

2004-02-01 17:55:19 UTC

Post by Mike Walton
Has anybody heard anybody say anything nice about Howard Dean, other
than he shares the Mafia's capacity to raise money?
http://www.geocities.com/jfkawards/lennon.htm

Has anyone any idea why the Democrats (or at least many of their fans) seem
more intent on attacking each other, rather than focusing on their main
opponent on the dark side?

-= rags =-
("you have to hand it to Paul Martin - he waited till *after* he was
elected leader/PM before he started killing off his fellow Liberal
opponents ...")

--
To reply by email, use "@" not "***@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

The 1st Evel

2004-02-01 22:42:17 UTC

Post by Mike Walton
Has anybody heard anybody say anything nice about Howard Dean, other
than he shares the Mafia's capacity to raise money?
http://www.geocities.com/jfkawards/lennon.htm

Has anyone any idea why the Democrats (or at least many of their fans) seem
more intent on attacking each other, rather than focusing on their main
opponent on the dark side?

They have to beat the other Dems before they go at Bush. One goal at a
time. First get the nomination. As a Dem myself (and an unrepentant
Bush despiser), I hate to see them tear eachother down like this, it
only gives Bush ammunition in the general election: "Even your Democrat
opponents said blah blah blah" type of things.

Always a dangerous game, but it IS a game, remember that.

Strabbo

2004-02-02 18:32:18 UTC

Post by R.A.G. Seely
Has anyone any idea why the Democrats (or at least many of their fans)
seem more intent on attacking each other, rather than focusing on
their main opponent on the dark side?

Let's face it, the Democratic nomination is actually 'win-able' for
these guys. Getting the votes in November is going to be an almost
unrealistically tall order.

Not that I'm happy about it, but from what I've heard, Bush has the odds
on his side.

Post by R.A.G. Seely
-= rags =-
("you have to hand it to Paul Martin - he waited till *after* he was
elected leader/PM before he started killing off his fellow Liberal
opponents ...")

He was elected?

Oh, wait... I'm not a card-carrying member of the party, so I *didn't*
actually get to have a say in who's running my country.

Oh well, up with democracy!

(wherever it may be...)

Marty
(bitter and bitterly cold)

R.A.G. Seely

2004-02-02 19:08:30 UTC

Post by R.A.G. Seely
("you have to hand it to Paul Martin - he waited till *after* he was
elected leader/PM before he started killing off his fellow Liberal
opponents ...")

He was elected?
Oh, wait... I'm not a card-carrying member of the party, so I *didn't*
actually get to have a say in who's running my country.

Oh yes we do: wait till next spring. (Martin and his gang seem to have
it all wrapped up, but maybe there'll be some surprises!)

-= rags =-

Strabbo

2004-02-03 16:23:25 UTC

Post by Strabbo
Oh, wait... I'm not a card-carrying member of the party, so I

*didn't*

Post by Strabbo
actually get to have a say in who's running my country.

Oh yes we do: wait till next spring. (Martin and his gang seem to have
it all wrapped up, but maybe there'll be some surprises!)

Doesn't change the fact that there's a guy in power right now, running
my country, and I didn't even have a say as to whether or not he's
there. What percentage of legal-age Canadians had a vote in getting him
in?

It's not right. Chretien wants to retire, I have no problem with that
(believe me!), but there should be an election immediately.

And I have no doubt Martin will get in. Big GST rebate announced - just
the kind of 'generous' offering we can expect to grease us up for the
election. Then, within six months, whatever incredibly unpopular bills
they want to bring forward will suddenly appear.

Sorry, I'm a little cynical on our system.

Marty

Mister Charlie

2004-02-03 16:31:12 UTC

Post by Strabbo
Oh, wait... I'm not a card-carrying member of the party, so I

*didn't*

Post by Strabbo
actually get to have a say in who's running my country.

Oh yes we do: wait till next spring. (Martin and his gang seem to

have

Post by R.A.G. Seely
it all wrapped up, but maybe there'll be some surprises!)

Doesn't change the fact that there's a guy in power right now, running
my country, and I didn't even have a say as to whether or not he's
there. What percentage of legal-age Canadians had a vote in getting him
in?
It's not right. Chretien wants to retire, I have no problem with that
(believe me!), but there should be an election immediately.
And I have no doubt Martin will get in. Big GST rebate announced - just
the kind of 'generous' offering we can expect to grease us up for the
election. Then, within six months, whatever incredibly unpopular bills
they want to bring forward will suddenly appear.
Sorry, I'm a little cynical on our system.

Damn you Canadians, it's always about you isn't it? The rest of us get
so sick having to read about Canadian politics, fashion, economics and
such. The world does NOT revolve around Canada! Why, I bet that *I*
know your politicians (from your posts) better than any US politicians.
Something ain't right!

;-))
;-)
;-
;

R.A.G. Seely

2004-02-03 18:37:17 UTC

Post by Mister Charlie
Damn you Canadians, it's always about you isn't it?

Naturally! How else could it go?

You know the Beatles were really Canadian, eh? They regrouped as Klaatu
after their front men (Lennon, McCartney, et al) resigned.

-= rags =-
("Blame it on Canada!")

--
To reply by email, use "@" not "***@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Mister Charlie

2004-02-03 18:42:18 UTC

Post by Mister Charlie
Damn you Canadians, it's always about you isn't it?

Naturally! How else could it go?
You know the Beatles were really Canadian, eh? They regrouped as Klaatu
after their front men (Lennon, McCartney, et al) resigned.
-= rags =-
("Blame it on Canada!")

It's not so bad here in California but I imagine there are sorts of
Yanks wanting to blame Canada for the cold weather down their way!

R.A.G. Seely

2004-02-03 18:52:02 UTC

Post by R.A.G. Seely
-= rags =-
("Blame it on Canada!")

It's not so bad here in California but I imagine there are sorts of
Yanks wanting to blame Canada for the cold weather down their way!

Hell, *I* blame Canada for the cold weather! If you ever want some, be my
guest and take all you can carry ...

-= rags =-

--
To reply by email, use "@" not "***@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Strabbo

2004-02-03 19:37:40 UTC

Post by Mister Charlie
It's not so bad here in California but I imagine there are sorts of
Yanks wanting to blame Canada for the cold weather down their way!

Hell, *I* blame Canada for the cold weather! If you ever want some,
be my guest and take all you can carry ...

Yep. Chances are, if Californians are bitching about Canadian-influenced
weather, Canadians are suffering through worse!

Marty

R.A.G. Seely

2004-02-03 18:37:18 UTC

Post by Strabbo
Doesn't change the fact that there's a guy in power right now, running
my country, and I didn't even have a say as to whether or not he's
there. What percentage of legal-age Canadians had a vote in getting him
in?

Anyone who chose to join the Liberal party could have voted for or against
his becoming leader of that party. (OK: I agree, a fat lot of use that
would have been!)

Post by Strabbo
It's not right. Chretien wants to retire, I have no problem with that
(believe me!), but there should be an election immediately.

Well, as you know, that's not how the parliamentary system works. We don't
vote for a prime minister, we vote for a local member of parliament, and he
gets to choose the PM (in a way - his party gets to choose its leader,
which is almost the same). If your local MP retires, you *do* (in
principle) get to choose a successor in a by-election. Problem is, we've
an image (which in politics is a reality) of a political system based on US
politics, which really doesn't translate to the Canadian system in toto.
Each system has its strengths and its failings, though in the end I believe
the systemic problems (and strengths) are out-weighed by the quality (or
otherwise) of the individuals - including the electorate - who make it
work.

As for an immediate election: well, if there had been one the day after
Martin was "elected" leader, no one would have screamed louder than the
Conservative party! Those guys wanted time to put their house in order
too! And I don't really think the NDP would have been all that happy - I
get the impression they want to pick over the spoils from all the
"upheavals" in the main two parties. In fact, an immediate election would
have been seen as a power grab by Martin, and would have been denounced by
every political pundit in the country (save only you perhaps!). :-)

My own take on this: the system works as well as any. To be sure, those
who want power use it to their advantage - but can you point out any other
system where this isn't also done? I don't particularly have the
government I would have chosen, but not really because of the Liberal
party, but mainly because there's no significant opposition to scare the
bejesus out of them into watching their step a bit better! I rather liked
the string of minority governments we had in the 60's and again for a while
in the 70's. I rather want my leaders to be keeping an eye on their backs
and to be willing to compromise a bit with other parties. It's good for
their souls!

(Re "the system": my father always used to say that a leader with the power
of the US behind him and having the political power given the PM of a
parliamentary democracy like Canada or the UK would wield almost
dictatorial powers, and that it was just as well that the US had the system
- with its divisions of powers particularly - it had, and that Canada had
the lack of world power it had!)

-= rags =-

--
To reply by email, use "@" not "***@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Strabbo

2004-02-03 22:18:40 UTC

Post by Strabbo
Doesn't change the fact that there's a guy in power right now,
running my country, and I didn't even have a say as to whether or not
he's there. What percentage of legal-age Canadians had a vote in
getting him in?

Anyone who chose to join the Liberal party could have voted for or
against his becoming leader of that party. (OK: I agree, a fat lot of
use that would have been!)

Still. To have to belong to a certain organization in order to have any
say - that's just not right.

Again, we're talking about a feeble percentage of the adult population.

Post by Strabbo
It's not right. Chretien wants to retire, I have no problem with that
(believe me!), but there should be an election immediately.

Which isn't right. It's perfectly realistic to like the guy in your
riding but loathe the PM. Or vice versa. And I know that the guy I vote
in won't represent me whatsoever, because his duty is to stand behind
the party first, the constituent second. Disagree with the party, and
you're in danger of being bumped out.

Post by R.A.G. Seely
If your local MP
retires, you *do* (in principle) get to choose a successor in a
by-election. Problem is, we've an image (which in politics is a
reality) of a political system based on US politics, which really
doesn't translate to the Canadian system in toto. Each system has its
strengths and its failings, though in the end I believe the systemic
problems (and strengths) are out-weighed by the quality (or otherwise)
of the individuals - including the electorate - who make it work.

That's optimistic of you, rags. Bear in mind that you're coming from the
perspective of someone who lives in a place that is actually
represented, from a province that actually carries some weight,
federally-speaking. In the west, be it in the Commons or the Senate, we
are consistently shafted.

(don't even get me started on the useless Senate structure we have...)

Well, when Jean was fixing to retire, an election should have been
called for when that happened. I'm not saying they should have sprung
one, but one should have happened. That's how power should shift.

Post by R.A.G. Seely
And I don't really think the NDP would have been
all that happy - I get the impression they want to pick over the
spoils from all the "upheavals" in the main two parties. In fact, an
immediate election would have been seen as a power grab by Martin, and
would have been denounced by every political pundit in the country
(save only you perhaps!). :-)

The NDP are never happy! ;-)

I would have prefered an election for a fresh shift in power. I still
doubt I'd find anyone in the major parties worth voting for, though.
It's been a sad lot the last few times.

I completely agree with you. The right has shot itself in the right
foot, time and time again. And do I think the American system is an
ideal? No, not at all. No one's perfect - elements from both systems are
good and bad.

Post by R.A.G. Seely
I rather liked the string of minority governments we had in the 60's
and again for a while in the 70's. I rather want my leaders to be
keeping an eye on their backs and to be willing to compromise a bit
with other parties. It's good for their souls!

Not to mention ours!

Post by R.A.G. Seely
(Re "the system": my father always used to say that a leader with the
power of the US behind him and having the political power given the PM
of a parliamentary democracy like Canada or the UK would wield almost
dictatorial powers, and that it was just as well that the US had the
system - with its divisions of powers particularly - it had, and that
Canada had the lack of world power it had!)

;-)

Marty

R.A.G. Seely

2004-02-04 05:09:25 UTC

Post by Strabbo
That's optimistic of you, rags. Bear in mind that you're coming from the
perspective of someone who lives in a place that is actually
represented, from a province that actually carries some weight,
federally-speaking. In the west, be it in the Commons or the Senate, we
are consistently shafted.

Well, as I always tell my western friends, keep having babies and you'll
soon pick up political clout! It's all in the numbers ...

-= rags =-

--
To reply by email, use "@" not "***@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Strabbo

2004-02-04 15:41:29 UTC

Post by Strabbo
That's optimistic of you, rags. Bear in mind that you're coming from
the perspective of someone who lives in a place that is actually
represented, from a province that actually carries some weight,
federally-speaking. In the west, be it in the Commons or the Senate,
we are consistently shafted.

Well, as I always tell my western friends, keep having babies and
you'll soon pick up political clout! It's all in the numbers ...

I'm doing my best - I just couldn't stand any more kids!

I think this is one area where looking southward might point our system
in a better direction - representation by population in one house, equal
representation in the other. Makes sense.

Marty

Phred

2004-02-05 14:46:53 UTC

Post by Strabbo
That's optimistic of you, rags. Bear in mind that you're coming from
the perspective of someone who lives in a place that is actually
represented, from a province that actually carries some weight,
federally-speaking. In the west, be it in the Commons or the Senate,
we are consistently shafted.

Well, as I always tell my western friends, keep having babies and
you'll soon pick up political clout! It's all in the numbers ...

I'm doing my best - I just couldn't stand any more kids!
I think this is one area where looking southward might point our system
in a better direction - representation by population in one house, equal
representation in the other. Makes sense.

====I'm stayin' outta this one.....

The 1st Evel

2004-02-04 01:12:58 UTC

Anyone who chose to join the Liberal party could have voted for or against
his becoming leader of that party. (OK: I agree, a fat lot of use that
would have been!)

A little cynical, are we?

Post by Strabbo
It's not right. Chretien wants to retire, I have no problem with that
(believe me!), but there should be an election immediately.

No, but the principle is the same. In both nations, the people elect
those who elect the leader. We THINK, here in the USA, that we are
voting for our President, but we aren't.

Post by R.A.G. Seely
Each system has its strengths and its failings, though in the end I believe
the systemic problems (and strengths) are out-weighed by the quality (or
otherwise) of the individuals - including the electorate - who make it
work.

The basics are similar enough that I agree with that.

However, I would take your system over ours. For one thing, it would
avoid the nonsense of 2000 (and don't get me wrong, I accept that Bush's
victory was legitimate, but certainly not "fair". Nothing fair about
claiming to be a democracy and then installing as your leader the guy
who got less votes). It also would take the whole cult of personality
crap out of the race. I liked Clinton for his politics, but let's face
it, he was just damn likable as a person! That I would enjoy sitting
and having a beer with the guy should not be a reason to vote for him.

Post by R.A.G. Seely
As for an immediate election: well, if there had been one the day after
Martin was "elected" leader, no one would have screamed louder than the
Conservative party! Those guys wanted time to put their house in order
too! And I don't really think the NDP would have been all that happy - I
get the impression they want to pick over the spoils from all the
"upheavals" in the main two parties. In fact, an immediate election would
have been seen as a power grab by Martin, and would have been

denounced by

Post by R.A.G. Seely
every political pundit in the country (save only you perhaps!). :-)

Interesting point, and undoubtably true. Damned if you do, damned if
you don't. We'll see something similar in Britain pretty soon, though
obviously Blair is about done.

Post by R.A.G. Seely
My own take on this: the system works as well as any. To be sure, those
who want power use it to their advantage - but can you point out any other
system where this isn't also done? I don't particularly have the
government I would have chosen, but not really because of the Liberal
party, but mainly because there's no significant opposition to scare the
bejesus out of them into watching their step a bit better! I rather liked
the string of minority governments we had in the 60's and again for a while
in the 70's. I rather want my leaders to be keeping an eye on their backs
and to be willing to compromise a bit with other parties. It's good for
their souls!

I totally agree. I'm a lifelong Dem, but I would vote Republican in
local NYC races, just to try to give the Dems in power the feeling that
their seats were not an absolute "given", that they had to be sure they
were actually accomplishing something. (In case you don't know, NYC is
overwhelmingly Democratic, I believe 45 of 51 Council seats are held by
Democrats. That is not good for democracy)

Post by R.A.G. Seely
(Re "the system": my father always used to say that a leader with the power
of the US behind him and having the political power given the PM of a
parliamentary democracy like Canada or the UK would wield almost
dictatorial powers, and that it was just as well that the US had the system
- with its divisions of powers particularly - it had, and that Canada had
the lack of world power it had!)

Heh, perhaps, but I would still like to see us with a parliamentary
system. Still, it isn't an utterly broken system (2000 was a rare
occurance and not likely to be repeated any time soon), so no point in
messing around with it much.

R.A.G. Seely

2004-02-04 05:09:28 UTC

Post by The 1st Evel
However, I would take your system over ours. For one thing, it would
avoid the nonsense of 2000 (and don't get me wrong, I accept that Bush's
victory was legitimate, but certainly not "fair". Nothing fair about
claiming to be a democracy and then installing as your leader the guy
who got less votes). It also would take the whole cult of personality
crap out of the race.

Well, as far as the comparison with 2000 goes, the one thing that does seem
to be certain is that our results come in faster than yours :-) ... (We had
an election round the same time, with a final decision hours after the
polls closed. Ballots counted by hand too! In the meantime we were all
waiting for the drama to the south to come to some sort of conclusion. And
yes! I do know that one was pretty exceptional, but it was good for taking
cheap shots, and I'd beg you not to forbid us such small pleasures!)

As for cults of personality - we are prone to those here just as much as
you guys are. You might not believe it, given who ends up in office, but
it's there nonetheless ... (Of course, in the late 60's we had
Trudeaumania - named after another cult phenomenon with which folks here
are very familiar - which took politician worship to heights never quite
matched since. That was something. Just what were they putting in the
water in those days?!)

-= rags =-

--
To reply by email, use "@" not "***@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

Strabbo

2004-02-04 15:48:24 UTC

Post by R.A.G. Seely
Well, as far as the comparison with 2000 goes, the one thing that does
seem to be certain is that our results come in faster than yours :-)
... (We had an election round the same time, with a final decision
hours after the polls closed. Ballots counted by hand too!

Well, there were fewer total ballots, I'm sure. What was our turnout
level in the last election? I know we're not hitting Australia numbers
for sure...

Post by R.A.G. Seely
In the
meantime we were all waiting for the drama to the south to come to
some sort of conclusion. And yes! I do know that one was pretty
exceptional, but it was good for taking cheap shots, and I'd beg you
not to forbid us such small pleasures!)

Canadians making jokes about Americans? Nah, it'd never happen....

Post by R.A.G. Seely
As for cults of personality - we are prone to those here just as much
as you guys are. You might not believe it, given who ends up in
office, but it's there nonetheless ...

;-)

Look no further than 'King Ralph', the premier of Alberta, whose
charisma has helped him overcome a complete screwing of the health care
and educational (especially educational) systems, and an embarrassing
incident in which he threw money at homeless people, whilst drunkenly
spouting that they should "get a job".

The guy doesn't even have a high school education, but hey, he's the
king!

Post by R.A.G. Seely
(Of course, in the late 60's
we had Trudeaumania - named after another cult phenomenon with which
folks here are very familiar - which took politician worship to
heights never quite matched since. That was something. Just what
were they putting in the water in those days?!)

Around here, Trudeau gets a lot of people grumbling about the National
Energy Program. It's all before my time - I've got enough to grumble
about. Now, in addition to the GST, I've come to loathe Mulroney for
unleashing upon the world his son, the host of the ultra-trashy E-Talk
Daily.

I want my Wheel of Fortune, dammit!

(rant over)

Marty

The 1st Evel

2004-02-05 01:05:06 UTC

Well, as far as the comparison with 2000 goes, the one thing that does seem
to be certain is that our results come in faster than yours :-) ...

Yep, and that makes no sense, does it?

(We had

Post by R.A.G. Seely
an election round the same time, with a final decision hours after the
polls closed. Ballots counted by hand too! In the meantime we were all
waiting for the drama to the south to come to some sort of conclusion.

And

Post by R.A.G. Seely
yes! I do know that one was pretty exceptional, but it was good for taking
cheap shots, and I'd beg you not to forbid us such small pleasures!)

Hey, if I can do it, why shouldn't you? It WAS a little embarrassing.

Post by R.A.G. Seely
As for cults of personality - we are prone to those here just as much as
you guys are.

Well, of course, it's always going to exist on some level. I imagine
that it played a role in choosing Emperors in Rome.

You might not believe it, given who ends up in office, but

Post by R.A.G. Seely
it's there nonetheless ... (Of course, in the late 60's we had
Trudeaumania - named after another cult phenomenon with which folks here
are very familiar - which took politician worship to heights never quite
matched since. That was something. Just what were they putting in the
water in those days?!)

I just wish Clinton had more of a cult following. Oddly, we're seeing
that with Dean a bit, though he's going nowhere fast.

R.A.G. Seely

2004-02-05 01:45:06 UTC

Post by The 1st Evel
I just wish Clinton had more of a cult following. Oddly, we're seeing
that with Dean a bit, though he's going nowhere fast.

I'm developing s soft spot for Kerry these days - I'm waiting for his
musical interlude, of course. I see him doing a cover of "Monster Mash"
(or Adams Family outtakes) ...

-= rags =-

--
To reply by email, use "@" not "***@T__"
<rags AT math . mcgill . ca>
<http://www.math.mcgill.ca/rags>

Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem.

The 1st Evel

2004-02-05 21:08:15 UTC

Post by The 1st Evel
I just wish Clinton had more of a cult following. Oddly, we're seeing
that with Dean a bit, though he's going nowhere fast.

I'm developing s soft spot for Kerry these days - I'm waiting for his
musical interlude, of course. I see him doing a cover of "Monster Mash"
(or Adams Family outtakes) ...

I liked Kerry from the start, I was just itching to see him in the
debate with Bush talking about how he actually served in Nam while tough
guy Bush was AWOL from his "dangerous" position with the Texas National
Guard.

I thought Dean had it down, but it looks like his supporters, the so
called "disaffected voters", just didn't become affected enough to
actually go out and vote.

I'm guessing this runs out with Kerry and Edwards. Edwards is setting
himself up for the VP slot, or another run in four years. Looks good.

R.A.G. Seely

2004-02-06 17:07:20 UTC

About as many as voted Gerald Ford President (or even vice prez for that
matter)...

-= rags =-

mcnewsxp

2004-02-02 22:25:37 UTC

Post by R.A.G. Seely
Has anyone any idea why the Democrats (or at least many of their fans)
seem more intent on attacking each other, rather than focusing on
their main opponent on the dark side?

Let's face it, the Democratic nomination is actually 'win-able' for
these guys. Getting the votes in November is going to be an almost
unrealistically tall order.
Not that I'm happy about it, but from what I've heard, Bush has the odds
on his side.

too many people believing in the fear, lies, and the gay bashing.

Art Harris

2004-02-03 12:49:32 UTC

Post by Strabbo
Let's face it, the Democratic nomination is actually 'win-able' for
these guys. Getting the votes in November is going to be an almost
unrealistically tall order.
Not that I'm happy about it, but from what I've heard, Bush has the odds
on his side.

Perhaps. Bush certainly has more money in his war chest. But several
recent polls show him trailing in a head-to-head match-up with Kerry.
The non existent WMD is going to be a big issue. Even Colin Powell has
said recently that he might not have recommended going to war if he'd
known there was no WMD. It will take the US years (if not decades) to
regain credibility after this.

The massive budget deficits are another issue that even hard-core
conservatives have a problem with.

I see a very close race in November. Right now, I'd give Kerry a
slight edge.

Art H.

goFab.com

2004-02-03 15:17:35 UTC

On 3 Feb 2004 04:49:32 -0800, in article

Post by Art Harris

Perhaps. Bush certainly has more money in his war chest. But several
recent polls show him trailing in a head-to-head match-up with Kerry.
The non existent WMD is going to be a big issue. Even Colin Powell has
said recently that he might not have recommended going to war if he'd
known there was no WMD. It will take the US years (if not decades) to
regain credibility after this.
The massive budget deficits are another issue that even hard-core
conservatives have a problem with.
I see a very close race in November. Right now, I'd give Kerry a
slight edge.
Art H.

Bush would crush Dean, but either Kerry or Edwards has a very strong chance of
winning.

A Kerry/Edwards ticket, which is what I'm suspecting we'll end up with, would
pose real problems for Dubya.

Mister Charlie

2004-02-03 16:05:54 UTC

Not according to polls released yesterday (2/3/04). Kerry over Bush 53
to 46 %.

Teddy

2004-02-01 20:02:56 UTC

Post by Mike Walton
Has anybody heard anybody say anything nice about Howard Dean, other
than he shares the Mafia's capacity to raise money?

Plenty. He's gotten the other Dem. candidates to talk about the war,
for ex. He's played an important role in the campaign. Personally, I
don't strongly dislike him, I just like Kerry a whole lot better.

Strabbo

2004-02-02 18:34:31 UTC

Post by Mike Walton
Has anybody heard anybody say anything nice about Howard Dean, other
than he shares the Mafia's capacity to raise money?

All issues aside.... Kerry's so freakin' funny looking! I know, my
country's leaders have been pretty hideous for the most part since
Trudeau, but John Kerry looks to me like he's going to morph into that
mascot with the moon for a head that used to be in McDonald's
commercials - Mac Tonight.

Marty

Frannie

2004-02-02 22:11:57 UTC

Post by Mike Walton
Has anybody heard anybody say anything nice about Howard Dean, other
than he shares the Mafia's capacity to raise money?

LOL!

Jeff Mills

2004-02-05 03:08:08 UTC

Post by Mike Walton
Has anybody heard anybody say anything nice about Howard Dean, other
than he shares the Mafia's capacity to raise money?

Either that or Lurch.

Jack Nichols

2004-02-06 16:37:21 UTC

Vivian Mitchell spotted Laci long after Scott supposedly killed his
wife. He is being treated just like Richard Albert Ricci was, only
this time, Vivian Mitchell paid the ultimate price. Is he next?

http://www.geocities.com/botenth/murder.htm

and she loved the Beatles !

Frannie

2004-02-01 20:29:02 UTC

Post by Mike Walton
Has anybody heard anybody say anything nice about Howard Dean, other
than he shares the Mafia's capacity to raise money?

This is a Beatles board. Your subject should say OT, and shame on you
for trying to use John Lennon that way.

You ought to hear how dumb you sound when you toss out such stupid
questions as has anybody heard anybody say anything nice about Howard
Dean?

OK, Turnabout's fair play:

Yes, I heard that George Harrison, just before he died, asked Dr
Lederman to vote for Howard Dean.

I also heard that Linda McCartney left Howard Dean a sizable bequest;
she and Paul were invited to lots of Democratic Mafia fundraisers
(Republican Mafiosi don't *have* parties!) and they got high with Dr.
Dean whenever she and Paul were in Vermont, passing through the lovely
Northeastern region on their way to visit John Gotti's daughter in
Long Island...

Now HERE is the reallt great thing I heard via the Internet:

Mike Walton doesn't exist!

;-)

frannie

Frannie

2004-02-02 01:06:06 UTC

***@yahoo.com (Teddy) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
Tiddles, I'm putting a lengthy excerpt from THE WAR ON SEX DRUGS &
ROCK & ROLL: LIFE AFTER PAUL McCARTNEY up on my site later on
today.... just for you!!!!!!!!

http://www.petcondolences.com
ALL NEW TONITE! MY WORD
featuring G Gordon Liddy

Teddy

2004-02-02 08:49:10 UTC

Post by Frannie
Tiddles, I'm putting a lengthy excerpt from THE WAR ON SEX DRUGS &
ROCK & ROLL: LIFE AFTER PAUL McCARTNEY up on my site later on
today.... just for you!!!!!!!!
http://www.petcondolences.com
ALL NEW TONITE! MY WORD
featuring G Gordon Liddy

You've never said what your dear friend Yoko thinks about your affair
with Gordon Liddy. She must have had so much to say when you first
shared this with her. After all, he was so important to the government
that was so very kind to her late husband.

Frannie

2004-02-02 14:09:32 UTC

ROTFLMFAO!

Truth be told, in the three hours we spent together in 1999, we hardly
had time to talk about a boyfriend of mine from twenty years earlier.
We were much more concerned with catching up on the spiritual, sexual,
and psychological evolution of Paul McCartney, a man whose envy and
rage she has been dealing with for nearly 35 years...

Teddy

2004-02-02 20:33:38 UTC

Post by Frannie

ROTFLMFAO!
Truth be told, in the three hours we spent together in 1999, we hardly
had time to talk about a boyfriend of mine from twenty years earlier.
We were much more concerned with catching up on the spiritual, sexual,
and psychological evolution of Paul McCartney, a man whose envy and
rage she has been dealing with for nearly 35 years...

OK, so you never came clean.

Gojira1971

2004-01-31 20:09:15 UTC

but Kerry is the real deal, and our last best

hope.

Best hope for what? He has no stand on any issues, doesnt know his ass from a
hole in the ground. Just dont cry to o hard when Bush is re-elected and our
country safe for another 4 years

Arthur Harris

2004-01-31 22:40:22 UTC

Post by Gojira1971
Best hope for what? He has no stand on any issues, doesnt know his ass from a
hole in the ground. Just dont cry to o hard when Bush is re-elected and our
country safe for another 4 years

Safe for ANOTHER four years? The big hit came less than 2-1/2 years ago,
nine months into Bush's term. And how many times have we been on Code Orange
since?

Kerry has no stand on any issue? What planet have you been living on?

Art H.

Teddy

2004-02-01 02:46:50 UTC

Post by Gojira1971

Post by Gojira1971
Best hope for what? He has no stand on any issues, doesnt know his ass

from a

Post by Gojira1971
hole in the ground. Just dont cry to o hard when Bush is re-elected and

our

Post by Gojira1971
country safe for another 4 years

Safe for ANOTHER four years? The big hit came less than 2-1/2 years ago,
nine months into Bush's term. And how many times have we been on Code Orange
since?
Kerry has no stand on any issue? What planet have you been living on?
Art H.

Exactly. Check out his website and read up on his platform. It's the
best anti-NRA, pro-choice, pro-civil-rights, generally liberal stance
you're going to see. And he's got a good history in Congress. He's
what Democrats are supposed to be.

The 1st Evel

2004-02-01 22:40:34 UTC

Post by Teddy
What would John have said about your affair with Fordon Liddy? What
does Yoko think about it?

A better question is, why on earth would you care?

I know it's NOT because you are obsessed with her....<rolls eyes>

Post by Arthur Harris
The suggestion (on the website) that the news media is ignoring

this is

Post by Arthur Harris
false.
The New York Times carried a story over a year ago (Dec 9, 2002)

that said

Post by Arthur Harris
"Mr.Kerry, who turns 59 on Wednesday, is surely the only senator
whose office displays a photograph of him posing with John Lennon at
an antiwar demonstration at the New York Public Library and another of
him standing in military fatigues in the Mekong Delta. He served 10
months in Vietnam where he was wounded three times, receiving three
Purple Hearts and a Silver Star. In the Senate, he has served 18 years
on the Foreign Relations Committee and 6 years on the Intelligence
Committee."
Art H.

Yeah. And Nixon was photographed with Elvis Presley, too!
What crapola! And completely OT, too. I suppose we must endure these
little campaign messages (and this guy is such a fanatic he posted the
link twice!) on TV and in the direct mail, but what makes anyone think
we need our Beatles mixed with politics is beyond me...)
btw, the "false liberal" label is the big fat red herring this guy is
slapping your face with...
Using John Lennon to attack Howard Dean? I don't think so, fellas.
John would have loved Howard's shitfit when he lost the Iowa caucuses.
But beyond that, it is impossible to say.
And don't forget, the website is NOT official in any way. Go to
Kerry's site if you want to be wooed.
Francie

The Gunslinger

2004-02-01 03:28:01 UTC

Post by Arthur Harris

Post by Gojira1971
Best hope for what? He has no stand on any issues, doesnt know his
ass from a hole in the ground. Just dont cry to o hard when Bush is
re-elected and our country safe for another 4 years

Safe for ANOTHER four years? The big hit came less than 2-1/2 years
ago, nine months into Bush's term. And how many times have we been on
Code Orange since?
Kerry has no stand on any issue? What planet have you been living on?
Art H.

9/11 happens under Bush's watch, ergo, Bush created Islamic terrorism, LLL
logic!

Arthur Harris

2004-02-01 13:14:39 UTC

Post by The Gunslinger

Post by Arthur Harris
Safe for ANOTHER four years? The big hit came less than 2-1/2 years
ago, nine months into Bush's term. And how many times have we been on
Code Orange since?

9/11 happens under Bush's watch, ergo, Bush created Islamic terrorism, LLL
logic!

No one said he created Islamic terrorism. But clearly, the country hasn't
been safe during Bush's presidency as the previous poster claimed. Why
weren't we on guard for the 9/11 attack. If the attack had come during
Clinton's term, he certainly would have been blamed. Where are Iraq's
weapons of mass destruction that were used to scare the country into going
to war? Why is Bush now AGAINST an investigation into intelligence failures?

Art H.

nobody

2004-02-01 03:29:02 UTC

Post by Mike Walton
http://www.geocities.com/jfkawards/lennon.htm

Hey. Once is enough.

Take your right wing bs somewhere else, thanks.

Mike Walton

2004-02-01 14:11:12 UTC

Post by Mike Walton
http://www.geocities.com/jfkawards/lennon.htm

Hey. Once is enough.
Take your right wing bs somewhere else, thanks.

The truth is the truth. This is not about right and left:

http://www.geocities.com/jfkawards/lennon.htm

It's the money trail, stupid !

The 1st Evel

2004-02-02 20:56:51 UTC

Post by R.A.G. Seely
Has anyone any idea why the Democrats (or at least many of their fans)
seem more intent on attacking each other, rather than focusing on
their main opponent on the dark side?

Let's face it, the Democratic nomination is actually 'win-able' for
these guys.

Thats' one way of looking at it: One race at a time.

Getting the votes in November is going to be an almost

Post by Strabbo
unrealistically tall order.

Always is.

Post by Strabbo
Not that I'm happy about it, but from what I've heard, Bush has the odds
on his side.

As it stands, yes. But a lot can happen in the next few months. No
matter what, Bush is not walking back in, but he does look set up at the
moment.

Post by R.A.G. Seely
-= rags =-
("you have to hand it to Paul Martin - he waited till *after* he was
elected leader/PM before he started killing off his fellow Liberal
opponents ...")

He was elected?
Oh, wait... I'm not a card-carrying member of the party, so I *didn't*
actually get to have a say in who's running my country.
Oh well, up with democracy!
(wherever it may be...)

Somewhere in the non existant E-groups.

Post by Strabbo
Marty
(bitter and bitterly cold)

I know that feeling.

Harris

2004-02-03 18:28:55 UTC

Post by Strabbo
All issues aside.... Kerry's so freakin' funny looking! I know, my
country's leaders have been pretty hideous for the most part since
Trudeau, but John Kerry looks to me like he's going to morph into that
mascot with the moon for a head that used to be in McDonald's
commercials - Mac Tonight.

Kerry funny looking? Did you ever see Lyndon Johnson?

Hell, I could picture Kerry's face on a 50-cent piece or a 10 dollar bill.

Art H.

abe slaney

2004-02-03 18:32:17 UTC

Kerry funny looking? Did you ever see Lyndon Johnson?
Hell, I could picture Kerry's face on a 50-cent piece or a 10 dollar bill.
Art H.

Bill Maher had a great line about Kerry looking like the tree that
doesn't like having his apples picked, in the Wizard of Oz. LOL!

Mister Charlie

2004-02-03 18:32:31 UTC

Post by abe slaney

Kerry funny looking? Did you ever see Lyndon Johnson?
Hell, I could picture Kerry's face on a 50-cent piece or a 10 dollar bill.
Art H.

Bill Maher had a great line about Kerry looking like the tree that
doesn't like having his apples picked, in the Wizard of Oz. LOL!

ar ar ....not quite accurate but funny nonetheless...

nobody

2004-02-13 13:56:14 UTC

Post by abe slaney

Kerry funny looking? Did you ever see Lyndon Johnson?
Hell, I could picture Kerry's face on a 50-cent piece or a 10 dollar bill.
Art H.

Bill Maher had a great line about Kerry looking like the tree that
doesn't like having his apples picked, in the Wizard of Oz. LOL!

That is perfect. They oughta put it on campaign buttons for the Bush
democrats who would prefer to finish what we started in Afghanistan to
giving over the Presidency to a guy who can't seem to make up his mind
about what he believes in (supporting the troops in Viet Nam, or
joining Hanoi Jane at a rally) and can't seem to recall that among all
Senators, he accepted more special interest money than any other...

And please don't forget, he's also married to one of the richest
heiresses in America. How'd you like to have Nancy Reagan times ten in
the White House... oh, the Porthault sheets! Ah, rich people culture,
back in the WH!

Wonder if any of the deer or rabbit or fox he's shot in his career as
a blueblooded hunter have ended up on his dinner table, or on his
wife's back as a scarf.

Yeah, those Dems really know how to run a good solid campaign. They
*care* about the little guy. LOL!

MBrent31

2004-02-13 18:09:21 UTC

Subject: Re: John Lennon and John Kerry
Date: 2/13/2004 5:56 AM Pacific Standard Time
That is perfect. They oughta put it on campaign buttons for the Bush
democrats who would prefer to finish what we started in Afghanistan to
giving over the Presidency to a guy who can't seem to make up his mind
about what he believes in (supporting the troops in Viet Nam, or
joining Hanoi Jane at a rally) and can't seem to recall that among all
Senators, he accepted more special interest money than any other...

or they might just try a button with Bush's face
and "AWOL IN GEORGIA" on it. or, "I LEFT
THE NATIONAL GUARD 8 MONTHS EARLY
TO GO TO HARVARD BUSINESS SCHOOL!"
on it ..."LOL!" ...(it's true, he did.)
go ask other national guardsmen and women how
many of them have the option of doing that...
oh, the perks of the rich and privileged!

there is no discrepancy at all between Kerry's having
shown support for his fellow troops (who he lived with
and saw die in Vietnam, for fuck's sake) and voicing
the opinion, when he returned, that the war should be
ended. again, he fucking WENT there at least -unlike
chicken-shit Bush- so he EARNED the fucking right
to have any opinion about the goddamn war he
wanted to have...I'm still looking for one live human
being who would not grant him that ...

i think you'll find, this year and for years to come, that
being against the Vietnam war is going to have less
and less bullshit attached to it. Fuck, read
McNamara's book, he says the war was fucked up
and he was the Sec. of Defense at the time!!!
Pulling punches about 'patroitism' regarding that
"war" continues to die a slow and rightful death ...

and if Kerry doesn't "care" about the little guy
simply because his wife happens to have INHERITED
her family's money, then Bush doesn't care
about the little guy, because his family is rich
too. "LOL!" (it's like trying to reason with a toddler.)

lastly, making fun of people's looks? wow. classy.
now that's the american politics i've come to expect!
always down to the real issues that matter!

MBrent31

2004-02-13 18:22:13 UTC

Subject: Re: John Lennon and John Kerry
Date: 2/13/2004 10:09 AM Pacific Standard Time

or they might just try a button with Bush's face
and "AWOL IN GEORGIA" on it.

sorry, i meant, of course, ALABAMA.
i can't keep his pecadillos straight! "LOL"

MacBeatle

2004-02-14 00:48:51 UTC

When exactly do you think he changed his mind? The day he was
discharged?
Or was he thinking "How will this look when I run for President?"
Principles,
my ass.

Post by MBrent31
i think you'll find, this year and for years to come, that
being against the Vietnam war is going to have less
and less bullshit attached to it. Fuck, read
McNamara's book, he says the war was fucked up
and he was the Sec. of Defense at the time!!!

Too little honesty and about twenty-five years too late...

Post by MBrent31
Pulling punches about 'patroitism' regarding that
"war" continues to die a slow and rightful death ...

Not for the vast majority of poor and middle class soldiers who got
screwed-up physically, mentally and emotionally - who are now middle
aged and a lot less idealistic than young people who were still wetr
behind the ears during the Sixties - as a military brat I can promise
you that McNamara's underestimation of the enemy in Viet Nam cost half
a million guys their sanity at the very least. They aren't going to
vote for a blue-blood who pretended to throw away his medals
(actually, he threw away the ribbons, and kept the medals) to make
political points with the anti-war crowd.

Post by MBrent31
and if Kerry doesn't "care" about the little guy
simply because his wife happens to have INHERITED
her family's money,

That's not how it worked in Kerry's case. His first wife attempted
suicide because Kerry was such a player and neglected her so badly.
Heinz inherited her money from her late husband and her alliance with
Kerry was forged in the wake of his disastrous first marriage and
subsequent "bachelor party" - he dated several well known actresses
before he came upon the former Ms. Heinz. Obviously he was looking for
a prospective first lady. Overall, I'd say his behavior is fairly
common. He wanted a trophy wife, and he found an ambitious beauty with
big bucks...

then Bush doesn't care

Post by MBrent31
about the little guy, because his family is rich
too. "LOL!" (it's like trying to reason with a toddler.)

Dubya wasn't the only guy who enlisted in the National Guard to avoid
going to Viet Nam - that fucked up war you're talking about? - I knew
guys who signed up for student deferments, guys who went to Canada,
and guys who signed up for ROTC knowing they would end up in the
National Guard... and guys who were just lucky their number didn't
come up in the draft. My own husband was draft age when the Cuban
Missile Crisis happened, and believe me, he was scared to death.
Thank God for Adlai Stevenson and the UN!

There *is* something very appealing about the President's faith (I
know, he is, like Mel Gibson, an evangelical Christian) co-existing
with his hard line on the War on Terrorism. There's very little
comparison between Viet Nam and this war, obviously... but as he said
on Meet the Press, we are at war. He did what his predecessors failed
to do, taking Saddam out. He's slowly but surely closing in on Osama.
We are committed, so how about supporting the guys who are out there
protecting your right to spout your opinions in Usenet? How about
looking past the slanted press reports and seeing the good things the
guys on the ground are doing in Iraq? Or aren't you interested in the
majority, meaning the guys who put their lives on the line so we won't
have any more 9/11s.

Post by MBrent31
lastly, making fun of people's looks? wow. classy.
now that's the american politics i've come to expect!
always down to the real issues that matter!

As if the Dems (and all the political cartoonists) haven't made fun of
Dubya's "nonplussed" look - or as if Lyndon Johnson, Richard Nixon,
Jimmy Carter (remember his "lust in the heart"??) and Bill Clinton's
looks haven't been the subject of jokes... this *is* politics in
America; it's a vulgar, raucous and extremely rough and tumble affair
every four years, and whether the President is a Republican or a
Democrat, everything about him is fair game. It's all politics, all
the time during an election year.

frannie

MBrent31

2004-02-14 06:53:15 UTC

Subject: Re: John Lennon and John Kerry
Date: 2/13/2004 4:48 PM Pacific Standard Time
When exactly do you think he changed his mind? The day he was
discharged?

again, like he has said, any fucking time
he wanted to. he earned the right to...
sure, when he was sitting at the war
rallies he was actually thinking about
his running for president. wow. savvy.

no, they're going to vote for someone who was actually fucking
there. and came home and knew what it was about.
obviously a lot of those poor people whom you so caringly
refer to came back from that "war" and knew that they
had gotten screwed by the united states, at that time.
instead of a chicken-shit blue-blood like G Bush, who
has gotten by with daddy's help.
those people know that john kerry knows what the
fuck they went through. good or bad.
does G.Bush know their feelings better? considering
he left the national guard 8 months early to go to
Harvard Business School, i would guess probably not.
(did someone say 'blue-blood?)

so,battle of the blue-bloods, i guess? oh well, i'll go for
the one who actually WENT THROUGH the experience
in vietnam.
and i'll give more consideration to their opinions about it
more than someone who weaseled out
of it, and then later becomes some war 'hawk' and says shit like
'bring it on' during a war he doesn't have to physically go to.
(actually, 'chicken-hawk' is the correct phrase.)

There *is* something very appealing about the President's faith (I
know, he is, like Mel Gibson, an evangelical Christian) co-existing
with his hard line on the War on Terrorism.

actually there is something totally *disgusting* about it.
talking about god and being a christian when you're labeling
entire countries "evil" and dropping thousands upon thousands
of bombs on two countries, so far. jesus christ would be
vomiting if he were alive and watching TV.

as for mel gibson, you're not even up on your popular
culture enough to know that gibson is actually a catholic,
and moreover a member of a splinter sect that doesn't
recognize some papal dogma (like the liturgy being done
in anything except the original Latin, etc, etc.)
um, pretty far from "evangelical christian". jeez, even
Entertainment Tonight can fill you in on these important
distinctions...

He did what his predecessors failed
to do, taking Saddam out. He's slowly but surely closing in on Osama.
We are committed, so how about supporting the guys who are out there
protecting your right to spout your opinions in Usenet?

predecessors like his daddy? or just Clinton? probably
just Clinton, i'm sure.
in fact, we're finding out that the years of no fly zones
and strategical strikes took out most all of saddam's
military leaving him without a pot to piss in, as they say.
oh, well, not counting all those tons of weapons of
mass destruction they've found.
and again, "he's" not doing jack shit. "he's" sitting back
running his blue-blood privileged mouth, while american
soldiers continue dying everyday for the PNAC
agenda. i support "the guys" (and women) who are "out there"
and i want them to come home and survive bush's contrived "war."
they're not "protecting" my right to voice my opinions.
that right was never ever threatened at any time, therefore
how could they be protecting it?

Or aren't you interested in the
majority, meaning the guys who put their lives on the line so we won't
have any more 9/11s.

"the majority" are the people who are coming to realize bush's
"war" has been a sick, half-cocked geo-political shell game.
and all those people killed for it. shameful. and "christian" to boot.

MacBeatle

2004-02-15 22:38:03 UTC

Post by MBrent31
so,battle of the blue-bloods, i guess? oh well, i'll go for
the one who actually WENT THROUGH the experience
in vietnam.

... go for it. You'll be backing a loser, a guy who
cheated on his wife when he was GOING THROUGH
the Viet Nam experience - while your political role
models were quivering and cowering in their VW buses
and putting up peace signs and demonstrating
against the war. Yeah, he's a GOOD blueblood,
and Dubya's evil.

Kerry came home, and spat on the grunts who
had served under him. Nice.

And let me ask you, my angry friend: What good does
it do - all this hate Bush stuff? Does it make you feel
better to hate someone who's got their finger on
the button? Someone who commands one of the
largest military establishments on earth?

Post by MBrent31
and i'll give more consideration to their opinions about it
more than someone who weaseled out
of it, and then later becomes some war 'hawk' and says shit like
'bring it on' during a war he doesn't have to physically go to.
(actually, 'chicken-hawk' is the correct phrase.)

No, chickenhawk refers to Michael Jackson.

Post by MacBeatle
There *is* something very appealing about the President's faith (I
know, he is, like Mel Gibson, an evangelical Christian) co-existing
with his hard line on the War on Terrorism.

LOFL! You could be talking about any president since Roosevelt.
Because America is the bombingest, most "christian" most
"good over evil" labeling country in the world. We are traditionally
aggressors - in any country where we get our oil. Or our pirated
movies...

And FYI Jesus would be forgiving if he were alive and watching tv.
Come to think of it, he already forgave America for being a two
faced bomb-the-evil-bastards before they bomb us country.

Post by MacBeatle
Or aren't you interested in the
majority, meaning the guys who put their lives on the line so we won't
have any more 9/11s.

"the majority" are the people who are coming to realize bush's
"war" has been a sick, half-cocked geo-political shell game.
and all those people killed for it. shameful. and "christian" to boot.

You just go ask the family of the 3000 who died on 9/11 if they think
it's a geopolitical game...
you go explain to them why Bush is an evil politician.

I suppose you would have scolded the Saudis for financing Al Q'eda.
Naughty naughty. And
you would have figured it out early on, and told the UN to "never
mind" inspecting for
MWDs. You would have waited until some frustrated Muslim lobbed a home
made dirty
bomb over the fence and irradiated your children, because Saddam
Hussein was left in
place. Wouldn't you.

Francie

MBrent31

2004-02-16 02:46:03 UTC

Subject: Re: John Lennon and John Kerry
Date: 2/15/2004 2:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
You just go ask the family of the 3000 who died on 9/11 if they think
it's a geopolitical game...
you go explain to them why Bush is an evil politician.

don't need to. there are enough testimonies
that confirm many family members of 9.11 do not
think Bush has made the right decisions after it ...

MBrent31

2004-02-16 02:48:45 UTC

Subject: Re: John Lennon and John Kerry
Date: 2/15/2004 2:38 PM Pacific Standard Time
... go for it. You'll be backing a loser, a guy who
cheated on his wife when he was GOING THROUGH
the Viet Nam experience -
LOFL! You could be talking about any president since Roosevelt.

Teddy

2004-02-14 07:48:05 UTC

Amazing, ain't it. We get to hear about somebody's spiffy car, and
we're supposed to ooh and ahh, but Kerry has a rich wife, and that's
supposed to be bad, but if Bush comes from a wealthy family, well,
OK--anybody else feeling dizzy here?

MacBeatle

2004-02-14 11:44:51 UTC

Post by Teddy
Amazing, ain't it. We get to hear about somebody's spiffy car, and
we're supposed to ooh and ahh, but Kerry has a rich wife, and that's
supposed to be bad, but if Bush comes from a wealthy family, well,
OK--anybody else feeling dizzy here?

Um, I'm not running for President, Miss Thang.

Teddy

2004-02-14 16:08:48 UTC

Um, I'm not running for President, Miss Thang.

We're talking values. Hey, why the name change?

MacBeatle

2004-02-15 22:50:01 UTC

***@yahoo.com (Teddy) wrote in message news:<***@posting.google.com>...
Ooo! I just found this great little quote in the NYTimes

Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, cautioned the White House
against panic.

"One lesson that Howard Dean should have taught all the pundits is
that the election isn't until Election Day," Mr. Gingrich said. "If
Kerry was a centrist from the Midwest or South, the next six or eight
months would be intense. But he's a Jane Fonda antiwar liberal. They
just need to let the country get to know Kerry, calmly and
methodically."

Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the
National Republican Congressional Committee, said he was struck by how
energized and unified the Democratic Party is, but suggested Mr. Bush
would be better off "remaining as president, doing his duties, raising
money for what will be a mammoth campaign; it would be better to hold
back before taking on his opponent."

Bwahahahahaha!

Mister Charlie

2004-02-16 01:50:27 UTC

Post by MacBeatle
Ooo! I just found this great little quote in the NYTimes
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, cautioned the White House
against panic.
"One lesson that Howard Dean should have taught all the pundits is
that the election isn't until Election Day," Mr. Gingrich said. "If
Kerry was a centrist from the Midwest or South, the next six or eight
months would be intense. But he's a Jane Fonda antiwar liberal. They
just need to let the country get to know Kerry, calmly and
methodically."
Representative Thomas M. Reynolds of New York, chairman of the
National Republican Congressional Committee, said he was struck by how
energized and unified the Democratic Party is, but suggested Mr. Bush
would be better off "remaining as president, doing his duties, raising
money for what will be a mammoth campaign; it would be better to hold
back before taking on his opponent."
Bwahahahahaha!

'Anti-war liberal'. You both say it as if that were a bad thing. Which
says volumes about you and Newt more than it does about Kerry.

MBrent31

2004-02-16 03:02:40 UTC

Subject: Re: John Lennon and John Kerry
Date: 2/15/2004 5:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
'Anti-war liberal'. You both say it as if that were a bad thing. Which
says volumes about you and Newt more than it does about Kerry.

it does seem to have a bit of a better ring
to it than, 'AWOL- chicken-hawk.'

MacBeatle

2004-02-17 01:28:00 UTC

'Anti-war liberal'. You both say it as if that were a bad thing. Which
says volumes about you and Newt more than it does about Kerry.

Keep that nose for news buried in your lower digestive tract, Charlie.

I quoted two people. Antiwar liberals aren't exactly the most popular
people in America these days -- or have you been too busy composing
your deathless atttack prose to notice that lots of us are busy
standing up for the soldiers who are capturing and killing terrorists
ON YOUR BEHALF every day????

Francie

Mister Charlie

2004-02-17 03:17:58 UTC

'Anti-war liberal'. You both say it as if that were a bad thing.

Which

Post by Mister Charlie
says volumes about you and Newt more than it does about Kerry.

Keep that nose for news buried in your lower digestive tract, Charlie.
I quoted two people. Antiwar liberals aren't exactly the most popular
people in America these days -- or have you been too busy composing
your deathless atttack prose to notice that lots of us are busy
standing up for the soldiers who are capturing and killing terrorists
ON YOUR BEHALF every day????

Horseshit. They aren't defending me from a damned thing.

More meaningless tripe.

Where exactly do you think the cynicism and mistrust of government came
from? The government! They lied to us in the 60's (they lied to us
since the dawn of time but I'm talking about recent events) and Bush
lied to us about the need for this war. Not that I agreed with it
before he went to Iraq, many of us then knew it was an ill-advised sham.
But time has proven us right.

Maybe in your house anti-was liberals are not particularly popular but I
guarantee they are returning to the national numbers more every day.

Only 48% believe Bush. A MAJORITY believe he misled the country AND
they disapprove of his performance.

If you had YOUR beak to the news you'd know.

UsurperTom

2004-02-17 04:41:14 UTC

Post by Mister Charlie
Only 48% believe Bush. A MAJORITY believe he misled the country

Were there any "undecideds" in this poll? If there are (which is usually the
case in polls), 48% would mean that either a plurality or close to half believe
him.
Usurper

Mister Charlie

2004-02-17 05:55:09 UTC

Post by UsurperTom

Post by Mister Charlie
Only 48% believe Bush. A MAJORITY believe he misled the country

Were there any "undecideds" in this poll? If there are (which is usually the
case in polls), 48% would mean that either a plurality or close to half believe
him.

Honestly, I do not know. It was a widely disseminated poll
Friday-Saturday. CNN et al.

MBrent31

2004-02-17 06:25:01 UTC

Subject: Re: John Lennon and John Kerry
Date: 2/16/2004 9:55 PM Pacific Standard Time

Post by UsurperTom

Post by Mister Charlie
Only 48% believe Bush. A MAJORITY believe he misled the country

Were there any "undecideds" in this poll? If there are (which is

usually the

Post by UsurperTom
case in polls), 48% would mean that either a plurality or close to

half believe

Post by UsurperTom
him.

Honestly, I do not know. It was a widely disseminated poll
Friday-Saturday. CNN et al.

no matter how it's sliced or diced, it's still an undesirable figure and seems
to be trending downward as people wake up from the effects of the weapons of
mass deception.
but, well, there's always the october suprise...Zeus help us, when they pull
it, too...

MacBeatle

2004-02-17 07:10:12 UTC

Post by Mister Charlie
They aren't defending me from a damned thing.
More meaningless tripe.
Where exactly do you think the cynicism and mistrust of government came
from? The government! They lied to us in the 60's (they lied to us
since the dawn of time but I'm talking about recent events) and Bush
lied to us about the need for this war. Not that I agreed with it
before he went to Iraq, many of us then knew it was an ill-advised sham.
But time has proven us right.

I hope you realize that your hero, John Kerry voted with the
President.

Post by Mister Charlie
Maybe in your house anti-was liberals are not particularly popular but I
guarantee they are returning to the national numbers more every day.

Not as fast as religious righties are organizing and multiplying...
are you ready for the great civil war reenactment?

Post by Mister Charlie
Only 48% believe Bush. A MAJORITY believe he misled the country AND
they disapprove of his performance.

Wow. and if you factor in the 4% margin for error, that means the
country is divided. Right down the middle... which runs roughly over
you and your romantic ideals.

Post by Mister Charlie
If you had YOUR beak to the news you'd know.

Your "beak" is so far up your own ass you have to wipe your nose with
toilet paper on a stick, Chuckles.

I'll repeat myself (although I don't expect you actually to read what
I post here, your whole purpose in life seems to be to dog me wherever
I post an opinion about *anything*):

The Beatles were never about hate. Not the kind of hate that makes you
say "FUCK YOU" to somebody you have never met and never will meet, if
I have anything to say about it.

The Beatles, the original band that made it big, were NOT about
cursing the President of the United States (that's a job for Bob
Dylan) for having less than perfect advice post 9/11. ALL US
presidents lie. President is probably one of the hardest jobs on
earth- which is why you can see them aging at an alarming rate, they
all go gray in office, especially lately... Dubya looks a lot more
than four years older than he did when he was elected.

Your hero Paul McCartney wrote a song called "Freedom" - something
about fighting for the right to our freedoms, I believe... he wrote it
for the police and firefighters and civilians and foreigners who made
the ultimate sacrifice when our country was attacked for the very
first time in history.

Instead of wasting your energy chasing after me, trolling me with your
impotent bleatings, making everything about me, you really ought to
put your money where your big fat mouth is, Chuckles... go volunteer
to work for the Democrats if that floats your boat.

But don't kid yourself. Cursing the President will get you nowhere.
It's a waste of time.

Probably John Lennon would tell you pretty much the same thing.

Yeah. That's the ticket. Now blow it out your ass before you get all
hissy and write about how I am crazy, fucked up, self-obsessed,
egotistical, and a bitch. I've just said it for you.

I remember a button that some of us were wearing in New York City in
1967. It said:

FUCK HATE

frannie or schwartz
http://www.petcondolences.com

Mister Charlie

2004-02-17 15:59:40 UTC

I hope you realize that your hero, John Kerry voted with the
President.

Again, your stoned reading comprehension is appalling. I have said, no
less than THREE times in the past two or three days, that I do not care
for Kerry much more than I do for Bush. He is no hero of mine. But
please, continue to spin your little fictions ... why break a pattern
now?

Post by Mister Charlie
Maybe in your house anti-was liberals are not particularly popular but I
guarantee they are returning to the national numbers more every day.

Not as fast as religious righties are organizing and multiplying...
are you ready for the great civil war reenactment?

LOL...what a smoky imagination!

Post by Mister Charlie
Only 48% believe Bush. A MAJORITY believe he misled the country AND
they disapprove of his performance.

Wow. and if you factor in the 4% margin for error, that means the
country is divided. Right down the middle... which runs roughly over
you and your romantic ideals.

Hardly. It's dropping daily, and it's the lowest of his presidency.
But just keep on spinning, top.

Post by Mister Charlie
If you had YOUR beak to the news you'd know.

Your "beak" is so far up your own ass you have to wipe your nose with
toilet paper on a stick, Chuckles.

Wow. I have been devastated by a professional author and ex-Beatle
girlfriend. Is MY face red! LOL!

Post by MacBeatle
I'll repeat myself (although I don't expect you actually to read what
I post here, your whole purpose in life seems to be to dog me wherever

Really? And your inability to read what I had said (re: Kerry for just
one example) has no bearing on this ridiculous posturing of yours? Har!

Post by MacBeatle
The Beatles were never about hate. Not the kind of hate that makes you
say "FUCK YOU" to somebody you have never met and never will meet, if
I have anything to say about it.

1.) What the Beatles were about (and you're wrong...in 1969, 1970 they
were very MUCH about 'fuck you') has NO relevance to this discussion.
Or diatribe on your part.

Post by MacBeatle
The Beatles, the original band that made it big, were NOT about
cursing the President of the United States (that's a job for Bob
Dylan) for having less than perfect advice post 9/11. ALL US
presidents lie. President is probably one of the hardest jobs on
earth- which is why you can see them aging at an alarming rate, they
all go gray in office, especially lately... Dubya looks a lot more
than four years older than he did when he was elected.

This rambling and irrelevant screed is more padding and red herringdom
of your writing style. ALL presidents lie. Hey, ALL serial murderers
kill, so why is there a law against it?

Shit. It depends on WHAT they lie about. AND the fact that there's
damned little to deal with from former presidents, our concern is and
SHOULD be the one in office NOW.

Post by MacBeatle
Your hero Paul McCartney wrote a song called "Freedom" - something
about fighting for the right to our freedoms, I believe... he wrote it
for the police and firefighters and civilians and foreigners who made
the ultimate sacrifice when our country was attacked for the very
first time in history.

sigh Years of explaining this to you have fallen on deaf ears. Paul
is no 'hero' (tho I am probably one of the few people on the planet who
actually likes Freedom), and of course this is simply another
misdirection away from your own incompetence and weak disjointed
argument.

Post by MacBeatle
Instead of wasting your energy chasing after me, trolling me with your
impotent bleatings,

LOL!!

making everything about me,

LOFL!!! I don't need to, you do that for me!

you really ought to

Post by MacBeatle
put your money where your big fat mouth is, Chuckles... go volunteer
to work for the Democrats if that floats your boat.

Why? There are competent people working all sides of the political
street. I am a citizen who has every right to speak my mind (and my
whole point is I am not alone anymore) about this unusualy corrupt
administration. I don't have to volunteer to do anything for anyone.

Perfect that Bush appeals to your sort.

Post by MacBeatle
But don't kid yourself. Cursing the President will get you nowhere.
It's a waste of time.

Uh huh. This coming from a braying ass.

Post by MacBeatle
Probably John Lennon would tell you pretty much the same thing.

Who cares? (Like you know what John would say. My take on it is he
would probably paste you one in the mouth. Go figure.)

Post by MacBeatle
Yeah. That's the ticket. Now blow it out your ass before you get all
hissy and write about how I am crazy, fucked up, self-obsessed,
egotistical, and a bitch. I've just said it for you.

LOL! Guess you finally bought a mirror, huh?

Post by MacBeatle
I remember a button that some of us were wearing in New York City in
FUCK HATE

Yeah. Then you lost it. (No hate in your dealings with me or ANYone
who criticizes you is there? HYPOCRITE.) LOL!

Post by MacBeatle
frannie or schwartz

or just plain nuts

Teddy

2004-02-17 20:11:29 UTC

Hey Mr. C,

Did you hear about the "feminist" who thinks Bush is cool? Well, she
lives on Planet Schwartz...

I guess now that she's too old to need an abortion herself, it doesn't
matter if he turns the clock back on reproductive rights. Not having
kids herself, it doesn't matter if he carries on with this "no child
left behind" farce.

And on a side issue: you know what's wrong with this country? Gay
people want to get married, that's what!

BWAWAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!

You know a certain gentleman from Louisiana made the recent holiday
very special...thanks for your email....but you can still be my
Valentine....

Well, they took some honey from a tree
dressed it up an' they called it me!

MacBeatle

2004-02-18 07:37:19 UTC

Post by Teddy
I guess now that she's too old to need an abortion herself, it doesn't
matter if he turns the clock back on reproductive rights. Not having
kids herself, it doesn't matter if he carries on with this "no child
left behind" farce.

Once again, the "DC" fails to retain basic information from one thread to the next.

"Alex? I'll take Dumb Cuntz for two hundred..."

Teddy

2004-02-18 13:08:54 UTC

Once again, the "DC" fails to retain basic information from one thread to the next.
"Alex? I'll take Dumb Cuntz for two hundred..."

Well, Francid, when you support Dubya, this is sure what it looks
like.

Hey, do you think the people who had you killfiled as BeatleMac had a
nasty surprise when you turned up as MacBeatle?

Jack Nichols

2004-02-17 22:18:03 UTC

How do you defend yourself against absurd charges when exculpatory
evidence is destroyed?

http://www.geocities.com/botenth/murder.htm

UsurperTom

2004-02-18 01:20:07 UTC

The Beatles, the original band that made it big, were NOT about cursing the

President of the United States

This is a rare occasion that I agree with Francie. I don't see why many fans
see the need to elevate the Beatles into a social issue. George Harrison said
that it was nonsense to suggest that the Beatles could save the world since
they couldn't even save themselves.
Usurper

MacBeatle

2004-02-18 07:33:35 UTC

The Beatles, the original band that made it big, were NOT about cursing the

President of the United States
This is a rare occasion that I agree with Francie. I don't see why many fans
see the need to elevate the Beatles into a social issue. George Harrison said
that it was nonsense to suggest that the Beatles could save the world since
they couldn't even save themselves.
Usurper

Rare, but welcome... thank you UTom.

fhs

http://homepage.mac.com/fabela913/PhotoAlbum26.html
Four more days of Beatles/frannie

Mister Charlie

2004-02-18 14:42:53 UTC

The Beatles, the original band that made it big, were NOT about cursing the

President of the United States
This is a rare occasion that I agree with Francie. I don't see why many fans
see the need to elevate the Beatles into a social issue.

The person who continues to introduce the Beatles into this -is-
frannie. She keeps telling us what they were about and what they
thought when it has no relevance to the issue. Of course one could say
that the issuse has no relevance to the Beatles, and they would be
correct. But then I personally did not start this thread, only opined
as many have.

MacBeatle

2004-02-18 19:31:21 UTC

Post by MacBeatle
The Beatles, the original band that made it big, were NOT about

cursing the

Post by MacBeatle
President of the United States
This is a rare occasion that I agree with Francie. I don't see why

many fans

Post by MacBeatle
see the need to elevate the Beatles into a social issue.

The person who continues to introduce the Beatles into this -is-
frannie.

Can't you read? John Lennon and John Kerry, right at the top.

She keeps telling us what they were about and what they

Post by MacBeatle
thought when it has no relevance to the issue.

You would miss the entire point of the thread, Cherkle.
You're too busy jerking off and spouting vile phrases
that aren't even unintentionally funny or amusing.

Of course one could say

Post by MacBeatle
that the issuse has no relevance to the Beatles, and they would be
correct. But then I personally did not start this thread, only opined
as many have.

I got your opined swingin. What a fucked up jerk you've become!

Mister Charlie

2004-02-18 22:35:54 UTC

Post by MacBeatle
The Beatles, the original band that made it big, were NOT about

cursing the

Post by MacBeatle
President of the United States
This is a rare occasion that I agree with Francie. I don't see why

many fans

Post by MacBeatle
see the need to elevate the Beatles into a social issue.

The person who continues to introduce the Beatles into this -is-
frannie.

Can't you read? John Lennon and John Kerry, right at the top.
She keeps telling us what they were about and what they

Post by MacBeatle
thought when it has no relevance to the issue.

You would miss the entire point of the thread, Cherkle.
You're too busy jerking off and spouting vile phrases
that aren't even unintentionally funny or amusing.
Of course one could say

Post by MacBeatle
that the issuse has no relevance to the Beatles, and they would be
correct. But then I personally did not start this thread, only opined
as many have.

I got your opined swingin. What a fucked up jerk you've become!

oh, ouchie.

UsurperTom

2004-02-18 23:59:57 UTC

The person who continues to introduce the Beatles into this -is-frannie.

There are 2 posters in this newsgroup whose names I won't mention who have a
pathological hatred of Bush and constantly drag the Beatles into their
rantings.
Usurper

MBrent31

2004-02-18 09:08:19 UTC

Subject: Re: John Lennon and John Kerry
Date: 2/16/2004 11:10 PM Pacific Standard Time
But don't kid yourself. Cursing the President will get you nowhere.
It's a waste of time.
Probably John Lennon would tell you pretty much the same thing.

bullshit. how about "Gimme Some Truth"...
listen to the righteous fucking vitriol in that
song. the anger is so palpable and intensely
focused. perfectly scathing and creative.
it's a poetic anvil dropped on the heads
of disgusting politicians. (particularly Nixon,
which 'dates' the song somewhat, but fill in the blank with the proper names of
your choice.
and make no mistake, the power and pertinence of the song will never ever
diminish. ever.)

"Gimme Some Truth" is one of the
greatest FUCK YOU's of all time.
the nerve, the courage, the absolute
fucking fearlessness of it. this massive
world was made just a little bit better
simply because this auditory middle finger exists.
and continues on...
and if you can't dig the reality in that, then
you're no fucking artist at all...

oh yes, one can get many places by
cursing presidents. it's an activity i wholeheartedly advise and endorse...
it's just one more thing that keeps us
even close to being human...constantly reminding the bastards that we've still
got their number...

MacBeatle

2004-02-18 14:58:53 UTC

bullshit.

You can keep your righteous anger, mbrent! John Lennon was a
full-blown artist, and his songs have been used in discussion groups
like these to project a "Lennon meaning" onto the basest emotions, as
well as ascribing Lennon ideals to various political and religious
figures... if you can remember the scene in "The Making of Imagine"
when the homeless guy is hanging around and John opens the front door
and talks to him about the meanings of his songs...

how about "Gimme Some Truth"...

Post by MBrent31
listen to the righteous fucking vitriol in that
song. the anger is so palpable and intensely
focused. perfectly scathing and creative.
it's a poetic anvil dropped on the heads
of disgusting politicians. (particularly Nixon,
which 'dates' the song somewhat, but fill in the blank with the proper names of
your choice.
and make no mistake, the power and pertinence of the song will never ever
diminish. ever.)

Every Beatles song and every Lennon song yields infinite meanings.
You've chosen yours... but Gimme Some Truth isn't what we are talking
about here. You can use it to justify your cursing the President, but
that's just your tiny little angry opinion. John released a helluva
lot of anger in lots of his songs - but at the end of the day he
realized that any form of hatred and all forms of violence, even
emotional violence are *counterproductive*.

Post by MBrent31
<snip rant>
oh yes, one can get many places by
cursing presidents. it's an activity i wholeheartedly advise and endorse...
it's just one more thing that keeps us
even close to being human...

Neanderthal, maybe.

constantly reminding the bastards that we've still

Post by MBrent31
got their number...

The mainstream press (feeding off the Internet and tabloids) gives us
"their numbers" on a daily basis.

You need to chill, fella. Charlie says John would pop me in the mouth.

I knew John. I don't think he was *ever* inclined to punch anyone over
a political opinion. And hit a woman? NO FUCKING WAY!

Some other songs I would recommend you listen to:

God
Working Class Hero
I Don't Wanna Take It
How Do You Sleep
Serve Somebody
Love
Woman
Starting Over
Beautiful Boy
Living on Borrowed Time
Grow Old With Me
Watching the Wheels Go Round
Woman Is The Nigger of the World
Bless You
Steel and Glass
Jealous Guy

and so on.

frannie

Mister Charlie

2004-02-18 15:08:52 UTC

Post by MacBeatle
You need to chill, fella. Charlie says John would pop me in the mouth.
I knew John. I don't think he was *ever* inclined to punch anyone over
a political opinion. And hit a woman? NO FUCKING WAY!

Read a book or two. "I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her..."

If he saw what a lying harpy you'd become I imagine the thought would
occur to him. ;-)

MacBeatle

2004-02-18 19:28:43 UTC

Read a book or two. "I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her..."

A lyric that was written, what, fifteen years before his death? You
seem to be stuck in the Timewarp of Goldman-Seaman-Giuliano-Rosen, a
zone of wannbe hipsters who couldn't see John Lennon as he really was
to save their miserable little lives.

Post by Mister Charlie
If he saw what a lying harpy you'd become I imagine the thought would
occur to him. ;-)

Fortunately for both of us, I didn't become a harpy and John's been
dead for 24 years, so your little "joke" is about as buoyant as Pussy
Bompansero.

Mister Charlie

2004-02-18 22:35:24 UTC

Read a book or two. "I used to be cruel to my woman, I beat her..."

I never identified when he said it, as it doesn't matter. Nice try tho.

Post by Mister Charlie
If he saw what a lying harpy you'd become I imagine the thought would
occur to him. ;-)

Fortunately for both of us, I didn't become a harpy and John's been
dead for 24 years, so your little "joke" is about as buoyant as Pussy
Bompansero.

Again, incomprehensible, thru and thru.

MBrent31

2004-02-16 03:00:05 UTC

Subject: Re: John Lennon and John Kerry
Date: 2/15/2004 2:50 PM Pacific Standard Time
Ooo! I just found this great little quote in the NYTimes
Newt Gingrich, the former House speaker, cautioned the White House
against panic.

"LOL". you mean the guy who told his wife
while she was in a hospital bed that he was leaving her
for another woman? that newt gingrich?
oh sorry, john kerry is the only one around here
that can be cited for "extra-marital activity."

lets not forget neil bush and his asian prostitutes! that cracked me up!
"um, ...they just showed up at the door...
i didn't know what to do..."

oh, the merriment never ends!

Teddy

2004-02-16 19:29:01 UTC

"LOL". you mean the guy who told his wife
while she was in a hospital bed that he was leaving her
for another woman? that newt gingrich?
oh sorry, john kerry is the only one around here
that can be cited for "extra-marital activity."
lets not forget neil bush and his asian prostitutes! that cracked me up!
"um, ...they just showed up at the door...
i didn't know what to do..."
oh, the merriment never ends!

--what he said.

MacBeatle

2004-02-17 02:56:54 UTC

Post by Teddy
--what he said.

Too bad you couldn't come up with your own retort, Tiddles...
perhaps you need a visit to the Argument Clinic. Walk this way...

http://homepage.mac.com/fabela913/PhotoAlbum26.html
My Beatles Photo Gallery
ONE WEEK ONLY

Teddy

2004-02-17 10:28:21 UTC

Post by Teddy
--what he said.

Too bad you couldn't come up with your own retort, Tiddles...
perhaps you need a visit to the Argument Clinic. Walk this way...

Just agreeing with my well-spoken buddy Tim there, Francid. Ever done
that?

PS At the Argument Clinic, they just yell, "Yes it is!" "No it isn't!"
till the bell goes off, pretty much--then Michael Palin finds out John
Cleese isn't allowed to argue anymore. So, ummm, did you have a point?

MacBeatle

2004-02-13 21:26:55 UTC

Kerry funny looking? Did you ever see Lyndon Johnson?
Hell, I could picture Kerry's face on a 50-cent piece or a 10 dollar bill.
Art H.

Bill Maher had a great line about Kerry looking like the tree that
doesn't like having his apples picked, in the Wizard of Oz. LOL!

That is perfect. They oughta put it on campaign buttons for the Bush
democrats who would prefer to finish what we started in Afghanistan to
giving over the Presidency to a guy who can't seem to make up his mind
about what he believes in (supporting the troops in Viet Nam, or
joining Hanoi Jane at a rally) and can't seem to recall that among all
Senators, he accepted more special interest money than any other...
And please don't forget, he's also married to one of the richest
heiresses in America. How'd you like to have Nancy Reagan times ten in
the White House... oh, the Porthault sheets! Ah, rich people culture,
back in the WH!
Wonder if any of the deer or rabbit or fox he's shot in his career as
a blueblooded hunter have ended up on his dinner table, or on his
wife's back as a scarf.
Yeah, those Dems really know how to run a good solid campaign. They
*care* about the little guy. LOL!

Kerry Would Be Third-Richest U.S. President
Dan Ackman, 02.13.04, 7:00 AM ET

NEW YORK - Whatever schoolboy lore says about Abe Lincoln's log cabin
or Lyndon Johnson's "Aw shucks" Texas upraising, many, if not most,
U.S. presidents were born well-to-do, and nearly all were quite well
off by the time they sought the nation's highest office.

A few presidents were spectacularly wealthy, such as the nation's
first president, George Washington, who we reckon would have made the
Forbes 400 of his day on the strength of his Virginia plantation and
his wife's fortune. Others, like Lyndon Johnson and Andrew Jackson,
used government service as a springboard to personal fortune.

If the Democratic primaries play out as expected, this year the race
for the White House will pit Sen. John F. Kerry of Massachusetts
against George W. Bush. President Bush, the second son of a president
to attain the office, made our list of the richest presidents partly
based on his claim to a family fortune, but mostly because of a
windfall on his investment in the Texas Rangers baseball franchise.

The Richest U.S. Presidents
It is difficult to compare personal wealth across historical periods,
but below is our best estimate of the relative net worths of the
richest five U.S. presidents. The rankings are based on our own
calculations and extensive interviews with presidential historians.

Rank
Name
Party
Term

1.
George Washington
Federalist
1789-1797

2.
John F. Kennedy
Democrat
1961-1963

John F. Kerry*
Democrat
NA

3.
Andrew Jackson
Democrat
1829-1837

4.
Lyndon B. Johnson
Democrat
1963-1969

5.
Herbert Hoover
Republican
1929-1933

* Candidate. NA: not applicable.

Sen. Kerry, like the last JFK from Massachusetts to serve as
commander in chief, is also extremely wealthy. We estimate his family
fortune at $525 million, which would make him, if elected, the
third-richest president ever. But the key word is "family." The Kerry
money comes from his wife, Theresa Heinz Kerry, who inherited it from
her late husband, Sen. John Heinz III of the Heinz food family.

This puts Kerry in a situation somewhat similar to President
Kennedy's. President Kennedy's father, Joseph, and his mother, Rose,
were both still alive when JFK was in office and when he was
assassinated, so John never inherited even a share of the Kennedy
family fortune, which we estimated to be worth $850 million at its
height in 1990.

But Joseph Kennedy was, under campaign finance laws at the time, free
to spend basically as he wished on his son's electioneering efforts,
which he certainly did.

Here John Kennedy and candidate Kerry part company. Current federal
law prohibits wife Theresa from donating more than $2,000 to her
husband's campaign. Indeed, in December, when Howard Dean was riding
high, Kerry mortgaged his share of his family townhouse on Boston's
Beacon Hill to raise money for his campaign.

In the course of his career, Kerry's campaigns have received
substantial funding from employees and affiliates of such companies as
Fleet Boston Financial (nyse: FBH - news - people ), Time Warner
(nyse: TWX - news - people ), Citigroup (nyse: C - news -
people ) and Goldman Sachs (nyse: GS - news - people ), according
to the Center for Public Integrity, a Washington, D.C.-based
investigative group. Corporate lawyer firms like Boston-based Mintz,
Levin, Cohn, Ferris, Glovsky and Popeo and New York-based Skadden,
Arps, Slate, Meagher and Flom have also been big backers.

While there are limits on what Theresa Heinz Kerry might contribute to
her husband's campaign, she may, depending on how current law is
construed, be able to spend as much of her own money as she wishes on
"issue ads"--advertisements that advance a cause or theme. She might
also contribute unlimited sums to other groups running their own issue
ads.

Of course, if Sen. Kerry's campaign were to benefit from spousal
spending, there would inevitably be allegations that he was exploiting
a loophole. Others would say that the candidate was simply countering
the incumbent president's huge lead in fundraising.

Either way, this was the kind of issue that the widow Martha Dandridge
Curtis, who married the legendarily forthright Washington--cherry tree
and all that--never had to worry about.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/02/13/cx_da_0213kerry.html

Mister Charlie

2004-02-03 18:31:47 UTC

Kerry funny looking? Did you ever see Lyndon Johnson?
Hell, I could picture Kerry's face on a 50-cent piece or a 10 dollar bill.

He's scary. AOL had a picture of him peeking out of some curtains
yesterday and he looked like an old, tired Frankenstein.

I sure wish we had someone better than this to go up against the admin
machine.

Rarebird Nine

2004-02-10 19:05:55 UTC

I like this picture better:

http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/9/134218.shtml

Mister Charlie

2004-02-10 19:08:49 UTC

Post by Rarebird Nine
http://www.newsmax.com/archives/ic/2004/2/9/134218.shtml

Yeah? So what?

MBrent31

2004-02-13 06:08:22 UTC