Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: Can't handle the truth....

  1. #1
    Half-Fast Rider Strieber's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Dripping Springs / Port Aransas
    Posts
    633
    The purpose of modern government is to take money from the folks who save and pay their bills and live within their means, and use that to hire government workers; and to keep their power by using the money to buy votes from those who do not save and pay their bills and live within their means.
    JERRY POURNELLE

    ><)))))*> -----------------------------

  2. #2
    Homesick for Texas Weeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    South of DC/North of Georgia/East of the Mississippi
    Posts
    11,037
    Now that he isn't the Commander-in-Chief any more...I can say

    Clinton was pathetic
    .

  3. #3
    Half-Fast Rider Strieber's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Dripping Springs / Port Aransas
    Posts
    633
    Originally posted by Weeg
    Now that he isn't the Commander-in-Chief any more...I can say

    Clinton was pathetic
    Is......
    The purpose of modern government is to take money from the folks who save and pay their bills and live within their means, and use that to hire government workers; and to keep their power by using the money to buy votes from those who do not save and pay their bills and live within their means.
    JERRY POURNELLE

    ><)))))*> -----------------------------

  4. #4
    Fighting the smoothification of America Crunchy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    World wide
    Posts
    60
    Originally posted by Strieber


    Is......
    That all depends on what the definition of 'is' is.

    George Washington vs. The Grand Jury


    Prosecutor: Please state your name and occupation, sir.

    Washington: George Washington, President of the United States.

    Q: Mr. Washington, you are accused of having chopped down a cherry tree.

    A: Yes, sir. But first, I would like to read a statement. "I acknowledge an inappropriate act and accept full responsibility for my actions. I appear here today as a result of a politically inspired lawsuit. Beyond this, I will refuse to answer any specific questions."

    Q: Now, in your previous deposition, you denied having chopped down this tree. Is that correct?

    A: Well, what I said was that there "is no evidence" connecting me to that crime.

    Q: But you now admit an "inappropriate" act against that tree. Yet you deny having committed perjury.

    A: Well, that depends on what the definition of "is" is. When asked the question, I responded in the present tense. Now, had the question been "Had there ever been an inappropriate action taken toward that tree," that would have been different.

    Q: Did you or did you not chop down that cherry tree?

    A: Define "tree."

    Q: Tree: According to Webster's, "a woody perennial plant with one main stem or trunk which develops many branches, usually at some height above the ground."

    A: Define "chop."

    Q: Mr. Washington, there is a common-sense definition of the word "chop" that I think we can agree on. So, I repeat, sir, did you or did you not chop down that cherry tree? And I remind you, you are under oath.

    A: Well, if by "chop down" you mean, did I strike the tree several times in an inappropriate fashion resulting in its falling to the ground, my answer is I have no present recollection of having delivered several chops.

    Q: Did you chop the tree, Mr. Washington, one or more times, causing it to fall to the ground?

    A: I refer to my earlier statement. There was, in fact, an "inappropriate" act.

    Q: Did you touch, have contact with or use any object on the tree, in an inappropriate manner, causing its fall to the ground?

    A: I refer to my earlier statement.

    Q: Were you ever alone with the tree?

    A: Well, that depends on your definition of "alone."

    Q: Did you tell others that you did not chop down this tree?

    A: Well, I told others that I did not deliver several chops to a cherry tree. You'll have to ask them what they thought I meant by that.

    Q: So, when you told these people, do you think that they thought you had, in fact, committed an inappropriate act?

    A: Well, I know that when I told them that I did not chop down the tree, I know what I meant. You'd have to ask them to find out what they thought I meant, because I know what I meant when I said it. But others might have thought I meant something different when I said what I said, but I really didn't, although they might have thought so.

    Q: Did you instruct your secretary to retrieve the fallen branch?

    A: Define "instruct."

    Q: Did you advise, suggest or otherwise indicate to your secretary that it would be better if the tree branch had been retrieved?

    A: I think I might have indicated that if the tree branch weren't available, then its non-availability would negate any retrieval. Then again, I might not have.

    Q: Well, then, sir, let's try again. Did you or did you not chop down the cherry tree?

    A: Define "cherry."

    Q: Mr. Washington --

    A: Well, is a "cherry" tree still a "cherry" tree if it has no cherries? Because I distinctly recall no such cherries on the tree in question.

    Q: By that logic, Mr. Washington, a tree is no longer a tree if it has no leaves.

    A: Exactly.

    Q: Mr. Washington, when your lawyer submitted an affidavit by your intern, stating that you did not chop down that tree, you knew that statement to be incorrect, didn't you?

    A: No, sir. I think that when she said that, she was assuming that a tree must have cherries in order for it to be, in fact, a cherry tree. As I earlier indicated, most normal people think cherries are necessary before a cherry tree could properly be called a "cherry tree." So I think that she thought that you would have thought that cherries were necessary to the definition of tree and, therefore, when she said what she said -- I didn't think what she said was wrong -- since at the time she said it, I wasn't thinking about right or wrong.

    Q: Mr. Washington, is it your testimony that most normal people think that cherries are necessary for a cherry tree to remain a cherry tree?

    A: Define "normal."



  5. #5
    MoJo Mother Superior Bikin'chick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    In my own little world!!!
    Posts
    679
    HAHAHAHAHA!!

    It's not the price or the weight of the bike, but the strength & determination of the rider.



    Got Mojo???



    "Evil pursueth sinners; but to the righteous good shall be repayed."
    Proverbs 13:21



    "And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free."
    John 8:32


  6. #6
    Just a boy and his bike Schroeder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    Somewhere in the Ford Galaxy
    Posts
    1,280
    Crunch has serious skills there.

    Did you ever counsel the White House??
    Snoopy was getting old. Had to put him down.

    Ineptitude: If you can't do something well, learn to enjoy doing it poorly.

    Now, she should be good-looking, but we're willing to trade looks for a certain... morally casual attitude.

  7. #7
    Mojo Philomath Dave K's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2002
    Location
    Hollywood Park
    Posts
    2,583
    An extremely opinionated Venting Rant (nothing to do with cycling):

    I am still amazed at the ease that Clinton had in duping the voting population into thinking he was generally trustworthy and a better choice than George Bush Sr. or Bob Dole. Of course if Perot hadn't run, he probably wouldn't have won either time. Still, it amazes me that people couldn't see what a lying, self-serving, no-principles, scum-bucket he is and was. I mean, what kind of person would take a charitable deduction on their income taxes for donating all his used underwear to charity? People just didn't seem to care though. No one's perfect, certainly not any of the Bush's or Doles, but at least they had some honesty and character.
    "The policy of the American government is to leave its citizens free, neither restraining them nor aiding them in their pursuits. ..." Thomas Jefferson

  8. #8
    Homesick for Texas Weeg's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    South of DC/North of Georgia/East of the Mississippi
    Posts
    11,037
    Originally posted by Dave K
    I mean, what kind of person would take a charitable deduction on their income taxes for donating all his used underwear to charity
    Even the ones with Skid Marx?
    .

  9. #9
    Half-Fast Rider Strieber's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Dripping Springs / Port Aransas
    Posts
    633
    I hate to sound like a Republican mouth piece, but the liberal slant the media has helped Clinton out tremendously. If you can't see the slant then you need to redefine what you consider a logical thought process. Example........

    Lifted from a conservative news site:

    If you want an incredibly powerful example of the bias of environmentalist extremists, to open the eyes of someone who thinks they're just people who want clean water, clean air and trees, watch the battle over forest management.
    President Bush visited Oregon on Thursday and spoke right over a couple of mealy mouthed protesters. He made a great speech, but the best part of it went mostly unreported - except by the Washington Times.

    Bush wants to apply South Dakota's forest management techniques to the whole West, because you need to get out that "fuel" that leads to the forest fires that have burned up an area the size of New Hampshire. As a precedent, Mr. Bush referred to the exemption Tom Daschle (D-SD) gave his state. The Times reports, "President Bush yesterday said a relaxation of logging rules that Senate majority leader Tom Daschle recently secured for South Dakota should be extended to the rest of America."

    What could be more in tune with the "fairness" these Democrats are always mouthing off about than that? Yet none of the other media outlets mentioned that fact! And while these protesters try to shout down the president, they are totally silent on Tom Daschle. Why? Because these people don't care about the environment. Trees are just a convenient cover for their real agenda: which is to push liberal, socialist candidates like Daschle.

    http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp...atoday/4387547
    The purpose of modern government is to take money from the folks who save and pay their bills and live within their means, and use that to hire government workers; and to keep their power by using the money to buy votes from those who do not save and pay their bills and live within their means.
    JERRY POURNELLE

    ><)))))*> -----------------------------

  10. #10
    Tam
    Tam is offline
    MoJo Neophyte Tam's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2002
    Location
    Austin, Texas
    Posts
    10

    Angry Amazement from the other side

    Me? I'm amazed at how many people have been suckered into the overwhelmingly right-wing talk-show view of Clinton as a thoroughly evil man and poor president! Sure, he had flaws, and thanks to the media we all know exactly what they were and with whom he engaged them. But I'll take a president who can't keep his dick in his pants over a power-drunk ex-frat boy of questionable intelligence who is determined to drag us into war with Iraq any day!

    The Republicans represent the interests of large corporations and right-wingers. The Democrats represent workers. If you work for a living, the Democrats fight for your rights. You say you vote Republican because you don't want gun control, or abortion? Well, which issue most directly affects your abililty to support yourself and your family: your employment , or the damned gun/abortion thing? Right--so vote Democratic!

    Wake up, people! If you're middle class and you're voting Republican because you think you'll be wealthy one day, think again! The middle class is being systematically destroyed by the Republican party and the large corporations who are their sponsors. This country is degenerating into "have's" and "have not's" and it's a sin and a shame! The wealthy are passing laws left and right to protect their assets and to keep the riff-raff (read: you and me) out of their class! Look at all the gated communities, and all the middle class families who have to work two jobs to make ends meet.

    Let me refresh the collective memory. President Clinton:
    1. Signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act. If you or your spouse has taken advantage of being able to take 3 months off work to handle a new baby, thank Clinton and us Democrats because it sure as hell wasn't the Republicans behind that one.
    2. Forged a bipartisan commission to pass NAFTA, which allowed us Americans to sell 23% more stuff to Mexico. Charisma is a double-edged sword: it got him in trouble with women, but it allowed him garner critical bipartisan support for key legislation that neither senior nor junior Bush has been able to do.
    3. Cut taxes in 1993 for 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, while raising taxes on only the top 1.2% of taxpayers.

    The list goes on. Source: http://www.bartcop.com

    Anyway, enough rant. All these right-wing posts really got my dander up, is all. Just wanted you folks to know you aren't the only voice.
    Tam Thompson
    http://www.thompsontraining.com
    Austin, Texas

  11. #11
    Half-Fast Rider Strieber's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Dripping Springs / Port Aransas
    Posts
    633

    Re: Amazement from the other side

    Your statement illustrates the arrogance and ignorance which you have towards others with differing opinions. I think it's ludicrous to blame the failings of a self centered president on one genre of the media. Try taking a look at his actions or lack of actions. That is the reason why history will reflect what kind of person he truly is.


    Originally posted by Tam
    Me? I'm amazed at how many people have been suckered into the overwhelmingly right-wing talk-show view of Clinton as a thoroughly evil man and poor president! Sure, he had flaws, and thanks to the media we all know exactly what they were and with whom he engaged them. But I'll take a president who can't keep his dick in his pants over a power-drunk ex-frat boy of questionable intelligence who is determined to drag us into war with Iraq any day!
    Once again, I will ask you, as I have of others, to specifically elaborate on why you think Bush is of lesser intelligence. Just because you feel that way doesn't count. If you are going to enter into an intelligent debate feelings will get you nowhere. Try using logic. I'm saddened everytime I hear the bleating of the left trying to propogate the misinformation that Bush is hell bent on war with Iraq. I just can't comprehend the thought process of someone willing to sit back and let an enemy who is determined to strike hard take the 1st strike. Guess what? We are at war. On Sept. 19th, 2001, Congress approved any action against a terrorist regime. Now you liberals are using this as a political ploy to take power from our strategy. I'm sure every terrorist out there praises Allah when he sees or hears statements like yours. Where were you when Clinton deployed the military at a greater rate than any other president in history? His doing so made American ideals subject to disdain throughout the world. As Clinton will never understand, the military should NEVER be deployed for political purposes.

    Originally posted by Tam

    The Republicans represent the interests of large corporations and right-wingers. The Democrats represent workers. If you work for a living, the Democrats fight for your rights. You say you vote Republican because you don't want gun control, or abortion? Well, which issue most directly affects your abililty to support yourself and your family: your employment , or the damned gun/abortion thing? Right--so vote Democratic!
    If you think the Dems represent the working people think again. They represent the Government. I think it's humorous that so many people think the Democrats champion the poor by expanding governmental roles in their lives, when so many would be better off by relying on themselves. Recently, a Chinese basketball player was to be drafted by an NBA team. The Communist Chinese dictatorship mandated that the Chinese "People" received 60% of his salary. US citizens were outraged....until a sportscaster on ESPN threw out a verbal pimp-slap by asking his audience; "How many of you have taken a look at your personal finances?" Think about it....Would you be better off if the Federal, State, and local governments took significantly less than the 70% (give or take) of your paycheck? Sad.... Communism in China taxes less than liberalism in the US.

    Originally posted by Tam
    Wake up, people! If you're middle class and you're voting Republican because you think you'll be wealthy one day, think again! The middle class is being systematically destroyed by the Republican party and the large corporations who are their sponsors. This country is degenerating into "have's" and "have not's" and it's a sin and a shame! The wealthy are passing laws left and right to protect their assets and to keep the riff-raff (read: you and me) out of their class! Look at all the gated communities, and all the middle class families who have to work two jobs to make ends meet.
    Who the hell are you to tell me where I should or shouldn't live? I have every freedom to choose who I want to work for. So do you. If the corporation you work for is keeping you down, then start your own business. If you really want to see oppression see what the government imposes on businesses. Namely, your employer. The middle class is very healthy in this country and this country is one of the very few that even has a middle class. Your statement that the GOP is enacting laws to protect your assests is more correct than you realize. Just whom do you think they're protecting your assets from? The Democrats who want to confiscate more of your paycheck to pay for programs to "benefit you". I for one, would rather determine how I spend the money I earn rather than a governmental union worker appointed for life in a non-challenging job environment.

    Originally posted by Tam
    Let me refresh the collective memory.
    Ergo: Let me revise history....

    Originally posted by Tam
    President Clinton:
    1. Signed into law the Family and Medical Leave Act. If you or your spouse has taken advantage of being able to take 3 months off work to handle a new baby, thank Clinton and us Democrats because it sure as hell wasn't the Republicans behind that one.
    Yeah I can really afford to take three months off without a paycheck. Institute a 15% flat tax and maybe one of my daughters parents can stay home to raise her rather than go to work to afford to pay the 70% tax rate.

    Originally posted by Tam
    2. Forged a bipartisan commission to pass NAFTA, which allowed us Americans to sell 23% more stuff to Mexico. Charisma is a double-edged sword: it got him in trouble with women, but it allowed him garner critical bipartisan support for key legislation that neither senior nor junior Bush has been able to do.
    Who passed Nafta? Clinton signed it, but the negotiations which forged it took place in the years prior to Clinton even taking office. Yes, he caught heat, not from women, but from the Unions. Yes you are right that NAFTA was a boon for the economy (even the Union workers). Ironic that every other Democrat in the world vehemently opposed it.

    Originally posted by Tam
    3. Cut taxes in 1993 for 15 million low-income families and made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, while raising taxes on only the top 1.2% of taxpayers.
    How do you explain Clinton levying a tax on Social Security benefits? What socio-economic segment do SS recipients fall under? What irks me the most was Clinton and his propoganda machine going on every "Talk Show" and repeating that the Republicans were going to cut Social Security, when Clinton himself began taxing their benefits. He didn't cut the amount of the check, he just made sure the goverment got its cut. BTW, the IRS data indicates the top 5% of taxpayers pay almost 90% of the income tax revenue.

    Originally posted by Tam
    The list goes on. Source: http://www.bartcop.com
    You're quoting a political humor site? And you are slandering Bush about being "Questionably intelligent"? Do yourself a favor and stop getting you political info from Saturday Night Live. I sure you would dismiss my viewpoints, as others have before you, if I were to tell you I have listened to Rush limbaugh before. I suggest you try it for a week. At least he holds serious discussions of the topics. it's bound to be a better source of information than "BartCop's Political Humor".

    Originally posted by Tam
    Anyway, enough rant. All these right-wing posts really got my dander up, is all. Just wanted you folks to know you aren't the only voice.
    Just the voice of logic...... It's funny how the liberals are the first to cry out about governmental intrusion into our lives when they are the first to champion more "help" from the government. Oh the dichotomy.... Or perhaps hypocrisy is the correct word.
    Last edited by Strieber; 09-11-2002 at 12:22 PM.
    The purpose of modern government is to take money from the folks who save and pay their bills and live within their means, and use that to hire government workers; and to keep their power by using the money to buy votes from those who do not save and pay their bills and live within their means.
    JERRY POURNELLE

    ><)))))*> -----------------------------

  12. #12
    Got Mojo? Cosa Nostra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    My own little world
    Posts
    11,146
    IMHO, you guys are both guilty of the same thing. Strieber pimpin the right wing views, Tam pimpin the left wing views and both getting defensive. Also IMO, this is what is truly wrong with politics these days. Republicans and Democrats are both guilty of playing the political game to make them look good and the other look bad. Whichever party has the power currently is going to win. Of course the Dems are going to say that Bush is using Iraq to to steer attention away from the economy. The republicans were the ones who were leading the charge against Clinton and his libido. The whole time they're ignoring what might be best for us, the general populous. If we vote a straight ticket just because we consider ourselves a Republican or Democrat then we may be just as guilty of perpetuating this. I really wish we had a third party, that way if no one party had power then they would all have to work together and they might actually get some more stuff done other than politicking and blowing hot air. ARGGGGG! Just the opinions of a middle of the road guy, some Republican views, some Democrat views.

    *disclaimer. If I have offended or made either of you mad, I apologize since I have never met either one of you and don't know what you are really like. Just annoyed today by all of this 9/11 stuff. The media blitz is just driving me insane. Doesn't help that my stress level keeps getting higher and higher since I can't ride for 6-8 more weeks.
    Where's the Mojo?

  13. #13
    Half-Fast Rider Strieber's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Dripping Springs / Port Aransas
    Posts
    633
    Cosa,
    Excellent statement. I too have some beliefs that are more stereotypically democratic. Just not too many of them.
    The nineeleven media blitz is overwhelming. Some of it has been pretty informing. One of the networks played a program last night (9/10)...I've been saving myself to see the interview on CBS at 7pm with Bush. I suggest anyone who claims GW is unintelligent watch him tonight and still see if you agree with those who make their living from tearing down those on top.

    Cosa, I have to question on something in your post. Who is more responsible for us knowing of Clintons ill-directed libido? The Republican Party or Clinton himself? It seems to me the democrats are engaging more so in character assassination by slandering the intelligence of the President and the Republicans were simply discussing Clinton's actions and thier legality. Yes, they indeed were illegal.

    As far as politicians ignoring what is best for the populus, I think the reason why they engage in such tactics is that they believe their ideas are best for society and the other guy's ideas are bad for society. Unless of course the politician is completely self serving. One can only hope that the voters can see through the politicos words and judge them by their actions.
    Last edited by Strieber; 09-11-2002 at 05:07 PM.
    The purpose of modern government is to take money from the folks who save and pay their bills and live within their means, and use that to hire government workers; and to keep their power by using the money to buy votes from those who do not save and pay their bills and live within their means.
    JERRY POURNELLE

    ><)))))*> -----------------------------

  14. #14
    Got Mojo? Cosa Nostra's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Location
    My own little world
    Posts
    11,146
    Don't check this forum very often, but IMO Linda Tripp and Ken Starr were out to get Clinton for whatever reason. I also think that more than anything the media is responsible for the whole thing and the republicans were jumping at the chance to get slick willie. Let's remember though that he wasn't the first President to sleep around, Kennedy did and people still regard him as a great president, for what I don't know though. If you look at it though the medias portrayal of "Camelot" made him great. Didn't Jefferson have an illegitmate child from one of his slaves? So, in summary I blame the media first and then the republicans second, but if Billy boy could have kept his dick in his pants it wouldn't matter.
    Where's the Mojo?

  15. #15
    MoJo Friar Brian B's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Austin
    Posts
    115
    Hey guys, let's get back to the 'politics' of cycling. You guys can meet at Starbucks and continue your discussion over coffee. Maintain the integrity of this website by sharing topics of our beloved sport.
    "It's clearly a budget. It's got a lot of numbers in it."-George W. Bush (I couldn't resist!)

Remove Ads

Search tags for this page (caching method: table)

There are currently no search engine referrals.
Click on a term to search our site for related topics.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •