In article <[email protected]>, Graham Walters
<graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Sums it up rather well I think...
I'm in awe of this site...
<http://www.werenotafraid.com/>
djb
--
~ Stay Calm... Be Brave... Wait for the Signs ~
------------------------------------------------------
One site: <http://www.balderstone.ca>
The other site, with ww links<http://www.woodenwabbits.com>
John DeBoo wrote:
> Dhakala wrote:
>
> >
> > Lew Hodgett wrote:
> >
> >>Saw a headline from one of the daily London rags:
> >>
> >>BASTARDS.
> >>
> >>Says a whole bunch about the British resolve if you ask me.
> >
> >
> > LOL! Yes, it does.
> >
> > I really wish I knew where you found that headline.
>
> For sure it would never appear in a US news(?)paper as the liberals
> would be crying about the use of the word and less about the events that
> led to its use.
Well, someone in another group told me a San Francisco newspaper used
the same headline on Sept. 12, 2001. :-)
Dhakala wrote:
> John DeBoo wrote:
> > Dhakala wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Lew Hodgett wrote:
> > >
> > >>Saw a headline from one of the daily London rags:
> > >>
> > >>BASTARDS.
> > >>
> > >>Says a whole bunch about the British resolve if you ask me.
> > >
> > >
> > > LOL! Yes, it does.
> > >
> > > I really wish I knew where you found that headline.
> >
> > For sure it would never appear in a US news(?)paper as the liberals
> > would be crying about the use of the word and less about the events that
> > led to its use.
>
> Well, someone in another group told me a San Francisco newspaper used
> the same headline on Sept. 12, 2001. :-)
Whoa! I didn't know SF was a center of neo-con sentiment. Oh. Right.
It's probably the most liberal city in the U.S.
Mr. DeBoos seems to be suffering from hardening of the preconceptions.
The pertinent point Charlie was making had to do with preconceptions,
which you deftly dance around. Starting with seeming sneering at
"liberals", however you'd characterize such as a subset of humanity.
May I humbly request that you chill out, relax, and resume evolving?
Rather than liberal/conservative, you might split populations along
progressive/reactionary lines. Good thing for progressives
historically, or we'd still be bowing to the crown.
Given the current crop of reactionaries (W, Cheney, Rummy, Rove, ad
nauseam) and the prospect of Secretaries of Faith and Propaganda, we
need to muster all the progressives we can.
TTFN,
J
Charlie Self wrote:
>
> Dhakala wrote:
>
>>John DeBoo wrote:
>>
>>>Dhakala wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Saw a headline from one of the daily London rags:
>>>>>
>>>>>BASTARDS.
>>>>>
>>>>>Says a whole bunch about the British resolve if you ask me.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>LOL! Yes, it does.
>>>>
>>>>I really wish I knew where you found that headline.
>>>
>>>For sure it would never appear in a US news(?)paper as the liberals
>>>would be crying about the use of the word and less about the events that
>>>led to its use.
>>
>>Well, someone in another group told me a San Francisco newspaper used
>>the same headline on Sept. 12, 2001. :-)
>
>
> Whoa! I didn't know SF was a center of neo-con sentiment. Oh. Right.
> It's probably the most liberal city in the U.S.
>
> Mr. DeBoos seems to be suffering from hardening of the preconceptions.
Preconceptions my eye, personally observed facts! I love the city and
think its beautiful, but... I don't live there but have visited many
times, however no matter how you slice it, SF travels to the beat of a
different drum - period. SF is one of a few cities that could get away
with posting BASTARDS on their papers, the rest of this country would
have a freaking heart attack!
John
>[email protected] wrote in news:1121113182.200591.116440
>@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
>
>> The pertinent point Charlie was making had to do with preconceptions,
>> which you deftly dance around. Starting with seeming sneering at
>> "liberals", however you'd characterize such as a subset of humanity.
>>
>> May I humbly request that you chill out, relax, and resume evolving?
>>
>> Rather than liberal/conservative, you might split populations along
>> progressive/reactionary lines. Good thing for progressives
>> historically, or we'd still be bowing to the crown.
>>
Perhaps better would be "statists", "libertarians" (with a small "l").
Your "progressives" are actually statists who would have been the ones
advocating for the crown and stronger government control.
>> Given the current crop of reactionaries (W, Cheney, Rummy, Rove, ad
>> nauseam) and the prospect of Secretaries of Faith and Propaganda, we
>> need to muster all the progressives we can.
>>
As opposed to the prior crop of numbed, unresponsive heads of state who
were content to only voice verbal disapproval of various terrorist
activities?
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
"Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
>
> > It's a national tabloid newspaper, not just available in London...
> >
> > Sums it up rather well I think...
> >
> > Graham
>
> Brits tend to have better headlines than the US. I thought it was very
> good.
>
> OTOH, I saw the Queen visiting the injured. Have they not suffered
enough?
>
To heck with the queen ,camilla , the royal whore was visiting the injured
can you believe that...
"Graham Walters" <graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
> It's a national tabloid newspaper, not just available in London...
>
> Sums it up rather well I think...
>
> Graham
Brits tend to have better headlines than the US. I thought it was very
good.
OTOH, I saw the Queen visiting the injured. Have they not suffered enough?
Dhakala wrote:
>
> John DeBoo wrote:
>
>>Dhakala wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>Saw a headline from one of the daily London rags:
>>>>
>>>>BASTARDS.
>>>>
>>>>Says a whole bunch about the British resolve if you ask me.
>>>
>>>
>>>LOL! Yes, it does.
>>>
>>>I really wish I knew where you found that headline.
>>
>>For sure it would never appear in a US news(?)paper as the liberals
>>would be crying about the use of the word and less about the events that
>>led to its use.
>
>
> Well, someone in another group told me a San Francisco newspaper used
> the same headline on Sept. 12, 2001. :-)
They might well have, but then SF has always traveled to the beat of a
different drum than the majority of the US. It's really sad that such
things have to occur, the terrorist attacks. I've traced my family
roots back to 1796 in the UK.
John
[email protected] wrote in news:1121113182.200591.116440
@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com:
> The pertinent point Charlie was making had to do with preconceptions,
> which you deftly dance around. Starting with seeming sneering at
> "liberals", however you'd characterize such as a subset of humanity.
>
> May I humbly request that you chill out, relax, and resume evolving?
>
> Rather than liberal/conservative, you might split populations along
> progressive/reactionary lines. Good thing for progressives
> historically, or we'd still be bowing to the crown.
>
> Given the current crop of reactionaries (W, Cheney, Rummy, Rove, ad
> nauseam) and the prospect of Secretaries of Faith and Propaganda, we
> need to muster all the progressives we can.
>
> TTFN,
> J
>
>
It's just names, right? It's always been "us" and "them".
Which changes, over time, no?
Patriarch,
chillin'
Dhakala wrote:
>
> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>
>>Saw a headline from one of the daily London rags:
>>
>>BASTARDS.
>>
>>Says a whole bunch about the British resolve if you ask me.
>
>
> LOL! Yes, it does.
>
> I really wish I knew where you found that headline.
For sure it would never appear in a US news(?)paper as the liberals
would be crying about the use of the word and less about the events that
led to its use.
John
It's a national tabloid newspaper, not just available in London...
Sums it up rather well I think...
Graham
"Lew Hodgett" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> Saw a headline from one of the daily London rags:
>
> BASTARDS.
>
> Says a whole bunch about the British resolve if you ask me.
>
> Lew
In article <[email protected]>,
Lew Hodgett <[email protected]> wrote:
> Saw a headline from one of the daily London rags:
>
> BASTARDS.
>
> Says a whole bunch about the British resolve if you ask me.
>
> Lew
I believe it was Churchill who said: ( I recite from memory..)
"The worse they get,
the better WE get."
In article <[email protected]>,
Andy Dingley <[email protected]> wrote:
> You'll note that Blair has been light on his visiting the injured
> duties. Now _he'd_ be lynched on the spot.
He really must be more careful with whom he sleeps.
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 12:48:20 -0600, Dave Balderstone
<dave@N_O_T_T_H_I_S.balderstone.ca> wrote:
>In article <[email protected]>, Graham Walters
><graham@**aceglow**.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>
>> Sums it up rather well I think...
>
>I'm in awe of this site...
>
><http://www.werenotafraid.com/>
>
>djb
Thanks for the link. Some gems on there.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 15:19:00 -0600, John DeBoo <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Dhakala wrote:
>
>>
>> Lew Hodgett wrote:
>>
>>>Saw a headline from one of the daily London rags:
>>>
>>>BASTARDS.
>>>
>>>Says a whole bunch about the British resolve if you ask me.
>>
>>
>> LOL! Yes, it does.
>>
>> I really wish I knew where you found that headline.
>
>For sure it would never appear in a US news(?)paper as the liberals
>would be crying about the use of the word and less about the events that
>led to its use.
John, you're kinda off-base. Don't forget that the "them" you're so
sore at are the wanton heathens, and your beloved conservatives are
the law-and-order straight-laced moralists who don't care for naughty
words and love Jesus. It's alright to disagree with anyone you like,
but try to keep track of what your good ol' boys are all about.
On Sat, 09 Jul 2005 14:15:28 GMT, "Edwin Pawlowski" <[email protected]>
wrote:
>OTOH, I saw the Queen visiting the injured. Have they not suffered enough?
We like the Queen. It's the offspring and hangers-on we don't care for.
In the '80s I carried a card in my wallet, as did many others. It was a
facsimile of the standard organ donor consent card, but this one said
"In the event of a major accident, I do not want Margaret Thatcher to
pose next to my bedside."
You'll note that Blair has been light on his visiting the injured
duties. Now _he'd_ be lynched on the spot.