Road Rage Incident - Did I do the right thing?

Tom Sherman wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

C'mon Tom... where ARE you coming from with that??? You fix the
problem by going back to giving them LESS education?

You teach students to think and analyze, not perform rote tasks.

Wait a minute - you can't teach students to think for themselves! They
might not accept national myths and blindly obey authority if we did that!

So you think we were doing a BETTER job educating kids five years ago?

Wow. Heaven forbid we teach them how to respond to an essay question
or do basic math... why, the little dears will be ruined for life.

Sorry - we were talking about lawmakers and elected officials. This
is a rabbit trail. Now if you can show me proposed legislation that
impacts what you're doing in your own bedroom, please let me know and
we can get back on track.

There were plenty of sodomy laws on the books in the US until Lawrence
vs. Texas. And yes, there were prosecutions under these laws.

Not recently though... you can't show a single case of anything
current or pending, yet you lay awake at night worrying about it.
Doesn't make sense to me.

There are still many laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual
gender preference.

I can't think of one. If you're talking about same sex "marriage",
that's not discrimination. The definition of marriage that's been in
place for thousands of years hasn't changed based on current trends.
If you want same sex marriages to be legalized, by all means vote for
the polititians who support it. That's how a democracy is supposed to
work.

Tom, I'm serious about this... you really need to spend a few Sundays
sitting in a pew in a church somewhere as an educational experience.
It's clear you don't have the first clue about what the "religious
right" is about. Sure there are some whackos (as with any group), but
you've worked yourself into a positive froth about a group of people
you obviously don't understand at all.

Those "whackos" have publicly stated that they expect payback in the
form of legislation, judicial appointments, and executive orders in
return for their electoral support of the Republican Party.

Everyone wants "payback" for their support of elected officials.

The people of Wisconsin had the good sense to re-elect Russ Feingold,
who was the only Senator to have the courage to vote against the PATRIOT
ACT, despite the hysteria whipped up by Rove's minions and the lap dog,
corporate owned, mainstream media.

"Lap dog, corporate owned, mainstream media"... well, I don't entirely
disagree with that description, but you're placing it in the wrong
lap. There are plenty of statistics to back up my claim (analysis of
which candidates get favorable coverage vs. negative coverage, etc.).

Statistics compiled and interpreted by Republican partisans.

Sigh... if you're far enough left that Dan Rather seems "right",
you're waaaaaayyyyyy out there. ;-)

If Bill
Clinton had ignored warnings of terrorist suicide hijackings and sat
around listening to children reading "My Pet Goat" instead of ordering
the Air Force to intercept the hijacked airliners, the Republicans and
the media would have called for his impeachment on the basis of
cowardice and incompetence.

Why is it that it seems every Democrat in the world thinks the
government is frozen in its tracks and unable to do anything without
direct orders from the POTUS? Can't interpret intelligence info
without him doing it... can't react to terrorist acts without him
directly directing it... does that even make a little sense?

Instead, they portrayed Bush II as a hero
while he ran off and hid in Omaha. Where in the mainstream media was it
reported that the Cheney/Rove administration lied about Air Force One
being a target on 9-11-2001?

"Running off and hiding" was precisely what the Secret Service was
supposed to do - at least until the scope of the issues were known. I
think what really gets your goat is that he did a really good job of
handling the aftermath (reaching the highest approval rating of any
president on record). Must be hard for you to swallow, huh?

Why does Bush II constantly get praised for his leadership, when he can
not answer an un-scripted question without the help of a wire?

You really ARE a conspiracy theorist - I thought you were just playing
one.

I could go on, but it is only falling on deaf ears.

No, I've read up on these situations, and have posted positive
evidence to the contrary, but that doesn't seem to soak in. You can
go on believing that somehow GWB used a 1960's technology "wire" to
RECEIVE, and somehow magically kept it from being picked up by the
microphone... (and accuse ME of having "deaf ears"... heh).

But don't let the facts change your opinions, for goodness sake...

Pot, kettle, black.

I'm open to credible evidence to the contrary on anything I write.
You just haven't provided much of it. You dream up wild conspiracy
theories where storm troopers kick down your bedroom door, but can't
come up with a single instance of a pending or proposed law that
indicates anyone cares what's going on in there... you accuse GWB of
crippling our colleges by slashing funding (when he's actually
increased it dramatically), and on and on and on... and then accuse
*me* of "ignoring facts". Sigh...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tom Sherman wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

...
FWIW, I get most of my news via the www.drudgereport.com site - links
to just about every news source on the planet, and a very wide
political range (plenty of links to articles from the NY Times, Yahoo
to Fox and the Wall Street Journal. Or by "balanced" do you mean
"anything that helps hold down the left side of the scale"? ;-)...

If Mr. Hickey thinks that is balanced (NY Times and Yahoo: right of
center-mainstream, WSJ: pro-corporate agenda, Fox: Republican Party
adjunct) it is clear he has sipped the Rove Kool-Aid.

None of the above sources are willing to challenge the myths of
“American Exceptionalism”, “free market infallibility” and the “level
playing field”.

There really isn't enough of a market for that kind of thing for them
to register on the www.drudgereport.com site, ya' know... ;-)

But thanks for the chuckle (NY Times and Yahoo, "right of center"...
heh heh heh - center of what? Howard Dean's belly button?).

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

Tom Sherman wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:
...
It IS kind of funny that those you accuse of not caring about the
future of the poor are doing their level best to ensure that one of
the main safety nets is healthy (healthier than it is now in terms of
return), while those you claim DO care are willing to let the system
coast to a halt....

Cut the bull ****. You either are lying or completely ignorant. The
right wing rich have dreamed of ending Social Security for 7 decades
now. The Cheney/Rove plan is designed to destroy Social Security.

Oh, by the way... did you catch the Senate vote on Social Security
today?

The language was that fixing our SS system is "a vital national
priority. And that action should be taken at the earliest
opportunity."

Passed by a slim majority. 100 to nobody, including of course a Mr.
Kerry and Ms. Clinton.

Still think there isn't anything wrong with the system? Maybe at
least now the two sides can (finally) start a dialog on the subject
instead of playing charades through the press (and politicizing an
issue that shouldn't be partisan to start with).

Hopefully that will result in better information getting to those who
are "news source challenged"...

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame

AustinMN wrote:
Sniper8052 wrote:

I was going to answer this but what's the point you're clearly far to
smart for me and everyone else. Against such overwhelming evidence as
you have quoted there is clearly no defense. Are you perhaps a
lawyer? Oops must convert to metric that's *attorney*.

Sniper8052


It has been made clear I had based my position on ignorance. I was
wrong, and I apologize for the flame.

Austin

Your apology accepted shake hands-hugs (in a manly way of course)

Sniper8052

Mark Hickey wrote:

Tom Sherman wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:

...
It IS kind of funny that those you accuse of not caring about the
future of the poor are doing their level best to ensure that one of
the main safety nets is healthy (healthier than it is now in terms of
return), while those you claim DO care are willing to let the system
coast to a halt....

Cut the bull ****. You either are lying or completely ignorant. The
right wing rich have dreamed of ending Social Security for 7 decades
now. The Cheney/Rove plan is designed to destroy Social Security.


Oh, by the way... did you catch the Senate vote on Social Security
today?

The language was that fixing our SS system is "a vital national
priority. And that action should be taken at the earliest
opportunity."

Passed by a slim majority. 100 to nobody, including of course a Mr.
Kerry and Ms. Clinton.

Still think there isn't anything wrong with the system? Maybe at
least now the two sides can (finally) start a dialog on the subject
instead of playing charades through the press (and politicizing an
issue that shouldn't be partisan to start with).

Hopefully that will result in better information getting to those who
are "news source challenged"...

Mr. Hickey needs to understand the difference in fixing the system
(moderate revenue increase) and destroying it (long term Rove/Norquist
et al goal).

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

Mark Hickey wrote:

Tom Sherman wrote:


Mark Hickey wrote:


...
FWIW, I get most of my news via the www.drudgereport.com site - links
to just about every news source on the planet, and a very wide
political range (plenty of links to articles from the NY Times, Yahoo
to Fox and the Wall Street Journal. Or by "balanced" do you mean
"anything that helps hold down the left side of the scale"? ;-)...

If Mr. Hickey thinks that is balanced (NY Times and Yahoo: right of
center-mainstream, WSJ: pro-corporate agenda, Fox: Republican Party
adjunct) it is clear he has sipped the Rove Kool-Aid.

None of the above sources are willing to challenge the myths of
“American Exceptionalism”, “free market infallibility” and the “level
playing field”.


There really isn't enough of a market for that kind of thing for them
to register on the www.drudgereport.com site, ya' know... ;-)

But thanks for the chuckle (NY Times and Yahoo, "right of center"...
heh heh heh - center of what? Howard Dean's belly button?).

Mr. Hickey needs to read some foreign and non-corporate owned news sources.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

Mark Hickey wrote:
Tom Sherman wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

C'mon Tom... where ARE you coming from with that??? You fix the
problem by going back to giving them LESS education?

You teach students to think and analyze, not perform rote tasks.

Wait a minute - you can't teach students to think for themselves!
They
might not accept national myths and blindly obey authority if we did
that!

So you think we were doing a BETTER job educating kids five years
ago?

Wow. Heaven forbid we teach them how to respond to an essay question
or do basic math... why, the little dears will be ruined for life.

Are you really this stupid? Is your sister really a teacher? Teaching
the FCAT is not the same as teaching reading, writing, math, and
analytical skills. It is teaching to take a test. That's the opinion
of every teacher that I've spoken to.


Sorry - we were talking about lawmakers and elected officials.
This
is a rabbit trail. Now if you can show me proposed legislation
that
impacts what you're doing in your own bedroom, please let me know
and
we can get back on track.



There were plenty of sodomy laws on the books in the US until
Lawrence
vs. Texas. And yes, there were prosecutions under these laws.

Not recently though... you can't show a single case of anything
current or pending, yet you lay awake at night worrying about it.
Doesn't make sense to me.

Hickey, again, you're so ****ing stupid that I am no longer worried
about your views. You'll eventually walk into an open manhole and
perish and we'll all be better off.

You lost the point on this, and decide to re-focus on making him dig
through legislative actions to find proposed legislation to impact
sexual morality? Try watching the porn witch-hunt hearings that
Senator Brownback (R-KS) has been holding this winter. There is
example number one.

Hmmm... lets keep digging, shall we? Alabama has current legislation
that prohibits the sale of any "sexual aids" in the entire state. The
state AG fought to keep that law on the books, even though doing so
would have completely violated Lawrence v. Texas. The retarded federal
judge that heard the case ignored Lawrence v. Texas and upheld it.
But, there was no whine of "activist judges" when that case was
decided. So, yes, Alabamans can still use a vibrator, but they need to
drive to Florida to buy it.

Want me to go on? Or are the big words hurting your head?


There are still many laws that discriminate on the basis of sexual
gender preference.

I can't think of one. If you're talking about same sex "marriage",
that's not discrimination. The definition of marriage that's been in
place for thousands of years hasn't changed based on current trends.
If you want same sex marriages to be legalized, by all means vote for
the polititians who support it. That's how a democracy is supposed
to
work.


If you think "defense of marriage" is anything short of an intrusion
into private sexual matters, you're proving your stupidity once again.


If you want to see the way marriage has been in place for thousands of
years, I guess that our "quaint new trends" also include not marrying
your first cousins (commonplace until quite recently); not marrying
children (ditto); not allowing divorce (ditto); polygamy (ditto).

And, no, idiot, our Constitution guarantees equal protection for all --
no matter what the politicians think. You don't need 51% of the
population to agree to grant a group civil rights. That is precisely
NOT how our republic works. We have basic guarantees -- that is why
satanists can practice their religion, not because 51% of the
population thinks they should be able to.

By your reasoning, when those of us with brains can finally convince
51% of our neighbors that christianity is a stupid set of moronic
superstitions with no more credibility than halloween stories about
goblins, we ought to be able to take that 51% and deprive christians of
their right to protection under the law. I love it when those of you
who are terrified of homosexuals being married demand that you have the
right to vote on how other people live their lives.

Don't get me wrong... I'm actually AGAINST gay marriage -- but that is
only because I am against ALL marriage. I don't think the government
should be getting in the business of marriage at all, whether between a
man and a woman, two men, or two women. Therefore, I'd rather see the
equal protection argument resolved by the government losing all rights
to regulate or approve of marriage at all. If you want to get
"married," then go to your local house of superstition and get your
wizard to "marry" you.


Tom, I'm serious about this... you really need to spend a few
Sundays
sitting in a pew in a church somewhere as an educational
experience.
It's clear you don't have the first clue about what the "religious
right" is about. Sure there are some whackos (as with any group),
but
you've worked yourself into a positive froth about a group of
people
you obviously don't understand at all.

Those "whackos" have publicly stated that they expect payback in the

form of legislation, judicial appointments, and executive orders in
return for their electoral support of the Republican Party.

Everyone wants "payback" for their support of elected officials.


And yes, it is generalizing about christians. There are many
good-minded people who actually respect the teachings of the
philosopher known as Jesus of Nazareth -- who was by most accounts I
can come up with -- a magnificent man. Those people who actually
follow his teachings are rarely found in a church. And most organized
churches actually disprove the existence of god, because if he actually
existed, 90% of the christian churches (at least in this country) would
be burning to the ground under a hail of lightning. If those idiots
who are still waiting for Jesus to come back actually knew what he was
about, they'd wish that he DIDNT come back -- because if he ever does,
he is going to be ****ED at what has been done in his name. So, these
so-called christians should thank their belief in god that it's all a
fairy tale and that they'll never be actually called to answer for
their actions.

The people of Wisconsin had the good sense to re-elect Russ
Feingold,
who was the only Senator to have the courage to vote against the
PATRIOT
ACT, despite the hysteria whipped up by Rove's minions and the lap
dog,
corporate owned, mainstream media.

"Lap dog, corporate owned, mainstream media"... well, I don't
entirely
disagree with that description, but you're placing it in the wrong
lap. There are plenty of statistics to back up my claim (analysis
of
which candidates get favorable coverage vs. negative coverage,
etc.).

Statistics compiled and interpreted by Republican partisans.

Sigh... if you're far enough left that Dan Rather seems "right",
you're waaaaaayyyyyy out there. ;-)


Dan Rather is an idiot. Even I could see that those papers were faked.
He should be off the air. Not for being too partisan, but for being
so goddamned stupid. I wouldnt hire him to wash my car.

If Bill
Clinton had ignored warnings of terrorist suicide hijackings and sat

around listening to children reading "My Pet Goat" instead of
ordering
the Air Force to intercept the hijacked airliners, the Republicans
and
the media would have called for his impeachment on the basis of
cowardice and incompetence.

Why is it that it seems every Democrat in the world thinks the
government is frozen in its tracks and unable to do anything without
direct orders from the POTUS? Can't interpret intelligence info
without him doing it... can't react to terrorist acts without him
directly directing it... does that even make a little sense?


I actually (gasp) need to side with Hickey here. The president is
mostly an actor, and Rove and Cheney were not frozen in their tracks on
Sept. 11. GWB wasn't supposed to know what to do. You'd have frozen
up too.

That being said, he is an actor playing a role. I would have hoped
that he could have played the role better.

Then again... perhaps his thought was that he didnt want to panic the
kids. I dunno... but I think that the criticism of him for sitting
there reading "my pet goat" for seven minutes is a little shrill and a
little mislaid. Yes, he is an idiot. But, I won't blame him for any
harm that came to the country during those seven minutes.

Instead, they portrayed Bush II as a hero
while he ran off and hid in Omaha. Where in the mainstream media was
it
reported that the Cheney/Rove administration lied about Air Force
One
being a target on 9-11-2001?

"Running off and hiding" was precisely what the Secret Service was
supposed to do - at least until the scope of the issues were known.
I
think what really gets your goat is that he did a really good job of
handling the aftermath (reaching the highest approval rating of any
president on record). Must be hard for you to swallow, huh?

Ok, now Hickey is back to his old job-exporting moronic self. Bush's
approval rating jumped within 24 hours of Sept. 11. Not because he did
a goddamn thing, but because we have a groupthink mentality in this
country that we need to rally around the flag when there is a crisis --
instead of question why things happen and how to actually prevent them.
I can see the good in that -- but there is a lot of bad in that too.

Bush was the same idiot on Sept. 12 that he was on Sept. 10. Polls
about his "approval rating" when no actions were actually taken to
warrant a change in approval are, at best, meaningless.


Why does Bush II constantly get praised for his leadership, when he
can
not answer an un-scripted question without the help of a wire?

You really ARE a conspiracy theorist - I thought you were just
playing
one.



I buy the "fly by wire" theory too. But... again, I think it is a
little unfair to criticize Bush for it. He's a figurehead, managed by
corporate, Saudi, and Israeli interests. This is like blaming Donovan
McNabb's mother for the Eagles' loss in the superbowl.

I could go on, but it is only falling on deaf ears.

No, I've read up on these situations, and have posted positive
evidence to the contrary, but that doesn't seem to soak in. You can
go on believing that somehow GWB used a 1960's technology "wire" to
RECEIVE, and somehow magically kept it from being picked up by the
microphone... (and accuse ME of having "deaf ears"... heh).

But don't let the facts change your opinions, for goodness sake...

Pot, kettle, black.

I'm open to credible evidence to the contrary on anything I write.
You just haven't provided much of it. You dream up wild conspiracy
theories where storm troopers kick down your bedroom door, but can't
come up with a single instance of a pending or proposed law that
indicates anyone cares what's going on in there... you accuse GWB of
crippling our colleges by slashing funding (when he's actually
increased it dramatically), and on and on and on... and then accuse
*me* of "ignoring facts". Sigh...

Mark, you arent open to ****. Every time Tom kicks your ass on a
point, you use the typical nazi-esque strategy of changing the frame of
the question. You hold up a target, you say "take three shots at this"
and if he hits the bullseye, you move the target and complain that the
next two didn't hit it. Tom is a little bit off base on some of his
presumptions, but he is wiping the floor with you because even his weak
points are the result of his own critical thinking breaking down.... on
the other hand, my fellow republican, yours are just because FOX hasn't
spoon-fed you the right line yet.

Please, will you and the rest of the assholes like you LEAVE the
republican party? If people like Tom represent the democratic party, I
could very easily see bi-partisan debates and compromises and a very
successful america. Retards like you are going to lead us to a state
that resembles mussolini's corporate state dream.

Mark Hickey wrote:

...
If Bill
Clinton had ignored warnings of terrorist suicide hijackings and sat
around listening to children reading "My Pet Goat" instead of ordering
the Air Force to intercept the hijacked airliners, the Republicans and
the media would have called for his impeachment on the basis of
cowardice and incompetence.


Why is it that it seems every Democrat in the world thinks the
government is frozen in its tracks and unable to do anything without
direct orders from the POTUS? Can't interpret intelligence info
without him doing it... can't react to terrorist acts without him
directly directing it... does that even make a little sense?


Instead, they portrayed Bush II as a hero
while he ran off and hid in Omaha. Where in the mainstream media was it
reported that the Cheney/Rove administration lied about Air Force One
being a target on 9-11-2001?


"Running off and hiding" was precisely what the Secret Service was
supposed to do - at least until the scope of the issues were known. I
think what really gets your goat is that he did a really good job of
handling the aftermath (reaching the highest approval rating of any
president on record). Must be hard for you to swallow, huh?...

Mass hysteria in the face of a perceived crisis is not a new phenomenon.
Ask the failed Austrian painter/bitter WW1 veteran.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

MJR wrote:

...
If Bill
Clinton had ignored warnings of terrorist suicide hijackings and sat


around listening to children reading "My Pet Goat" instead of

ordering

the Air Force to intercept the hijacked airliners, the Republicans

and

the media would have called for his impeachment on the basis of
cowardice and incompetence.

Why is it that it seems every Democrat in the world thinks the
government is frozen in its tracks and unable to do anything without
direct orders from the POTUS? Can't interpret intelligence info
without him doing it... can't react to terrorist acts without him
directly directing it... does that even make a little sense?



I actually (gasp) need to side with Hickey here. The president is
mostly an actor, and Rove and Cheney were not frozen in their tracks on
Sept. 11. GWB wasn't supposed to know what to do. You'd have frozen
up too.

That being said, he is an actor playing a role. I would have hoped
that he could have played the role better.

Then again... perhaps his thought was that he didnt want to panic the
kids. I dunno... but I think that the criticism of him for sitting
there reading "my pet goat" for seven minutes is a little shrill and a
little mislaid. Yes, he is an idiot. But, I won't blame him for any
harm that came to the country during those seven minutes....

Bush II could have simply said that events were happening that needed
his attention, and left the classroom - I doubt the children would have
panicked. He could have at least been in the loop, even if would not
have changed anything.

I do not criticize the decision to move Bush II to a "safe location" on
9-11-2001 - I likely would have made the same decision. What I object to
was the lie that there were indications of an attack on Bush II in order
to make him look more heroic. Why not tell the truth; "We were not sure
of the situation, so we moved the president to a military base where he
would be safe and have access to the information he needed to address
the crisis"? But then everything with Rove is spin and image creating to
distract from reality.

And I will stick to my point - if Bill Clinton, Al Gore, or John Kerry
had been in the exact same situation as Bush II on 9-11-2001 and had
done the exact same thing, they would have been virtually crucified for it.

--
Tom Sherman - Earth (Downstate Illinois, North of Forgottonia)

Tom Sherman wrote:

Mark Hickey wrote:

Oh, by the way... did you catch the Senate vote on Social Security
today?

The language was that fixing our SS system is "a vital national
priority. And that action should be taken at the earliest
opportunity."

Passed by a slim majority. 100 to nobody, including of course a Mr.
Kerry and Ms. Clinton.

Still think there isn't anything wrong with the system? Maybe at
least now the two sides can (finally) start a dialog on the subject
instead of playing charades through the press (and politicizing an
issue that shouldn't be partisan to start with).

Hopefully that will result in better information getting to those who
are "news source challenged"...

Mr. Hickey needs to understand the difference in fixing the system
(moderate revenue increase) and destroying it (long term Rove/Norquist
et al goal).

Mr. Sherman needs to post some sort of evidence to support that
there's anything on the table that would "destroy" Social Security.
Now that we've (hopefully... if a 100 to zero vote in the Senate
doesn't convince him...) established there IS a problem we can
hopefully find a solution. If you think that there a bill that would
"destroy" SS would pass Congress, you're fooling yourself.

Mark Hickey
Habanero Cycles
http://www.habcycles.com
Home of the $695 ti frame