well I heard about this on radio and did a simple google search. it was at the top
of the list. Ingrid

"Bob Chipeska" wrote:
So why did you post this "information" from a certified hate-monger like
Rense?

wrote in message
...
I dont have any idea who this is


~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
List Manager: Puregold Goldfish List
http://puregold.aquaria.net/
www.drsolo.com
Solve the problem, dont waste energy finding who's to blame
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Unfortunately, I receive no money, gifts, discounts or other
compensation for all the damn work I do, nor for any of the
endorsements or recommendations I make.

escapee wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jul 2004 18:34:12 -0400, "Jean B." opined:
I want it released on video/DVD well before the elections. It is
simplistic, and somewhat odd, but still worth seeing.


Simplistic and odd in what way? Will you cite the specifics, please.

It will be released in September or October, well before the election.

Well, some things I thought were odd:

Bush clowning around before the camera (officially) rolled to make
him look stupid.

Juxtaposition between Bush's golfing and answering some serious
question. So, was he cornered on the golf course?

The implication that Bush should not be vacationing. (I don't
know what is the norm for presidents, but I do think they need
time off, maybe even moreso when they are dealing [?!] with
stressful situations.

Bush's initial reaction when told about the Twin Tower(s). Now,
initially I thought that was perhaps not too bad, given that he
was with those young kids. What was he supposed to do? Jump up
screaming and panic them all? I dunno know about that though.
Seemed laggier than I thought previously.

That being said, I do hope EVERYONE sees this movie, and I am glad
that it will be released ere the election. I will certainly buy it.

Note: I detest Bush and would sooner vote for a barnyard animal!
--
Jean B.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:03:45 -0400, "Jean B." opined:

Well, some things I thought were odd:

Bush clowning around before the camera (officially) rolled to make
him look stupid.

Bush did look stupid because he is relatively stupid. He's not a president I'm
proud to call my own. He can barely speak without coaching. He uses terms, but
he uses them incorrectly.

Juxtaposition between Bush's golfing and answering some serious
question. So, was he cornered on the golf course?

Bush answered a serious question, then said, "now watch this drive." How or why
a president would go on vacation during an ongoing war is beyond me. He has
taken more vacation time than any other president.

The implication that Bush should not be vacationing. (I don't
know what is the norm for presidents, but I do think they need
time off, maybe even moreso when they are dealing [?!] with
stressful situations.

Not during wartime. Sorry. Bush should not have been vacationing. This was
still not a lie told by Michael Moore. Bush was indeed on vacation for the
entire month of August that year.

Bush's initial reaction when told about the Twin Tower(s). Now,
initially I thought that was perhaps not too bad, given that he
was with those young kids. What was he supposed to do? Jump up
screaming and panic them all? I dunno know about that though.
Seemed laggier than I thought previously.

Bush knew about the first jumbo jet before entering the classroom. He should
have cancelled the classroom and got to a safe place. Immediately removing
himself from that school is what he should have done. I've heard some say he
could have told the children he had to leave because he is the president and he
was called to duty. Then, propose an invitation to all the children to come to
Washington for a tour of the White House.

That being said, I do hope EVERYONE sees this movie, and I am glad
that it will be released ere the election. I will certainly buy it.

Note: I detest Bush and would sooner vote for a barnyard animal!

I actually feel sorry for the man. He's a bumbling idiot and that scares me. I
still don't know any lies Micheal Moore told in any of his films.

Victoria


Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

"escapee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:03:45 -0400, "Jean B." opined:

Well, some things I thought were odd:

Bush clowning around before the camera (officially) rolled to make
him look stupid.

Bush did look stupid because he is relatively stupid. He's not a
president I'm
proud to call my own. He can barely speak without coaching. He uses
terms, but
he uses them incorrectly.

This is an important issue. I don't think that Bush truly is retarded. He
may be average or slightly above average. He seems to have some verbal
problems that make him appear to be more stupid than he probably is.
However, the stupidity is appealing to his supporters. They don't feel
threatened by complexities that require thinking or that might lead to an
ambiguous conclusion. The neo-cons are all about emotion. If you listen to
any of the talkers like Hannity and Limbaugh they constantly appeal to
emotions. This is bad, that is good. This is God's way, that is the
devil's way. There is a lot of feel-good flag waiving. Groups are
scapegoated, leading to polarization. Our foreign policy reflects the
good-evil model. One the other hand, liberals are seen as unexciting and
too intellectual. They talk about data points and nuance. Nothing is
completely bad or completely good. Liberal allow for data to be considered
in context and for that context to change. Change leads to an evolution in
opinion (AKA - "flip-flopping.") This is all too much for people who want
the black and white version of things to be handed to them in a pre-digested
form. Sadly, we have become a nation of people who vote based on whether a
candidate looks "French" (what ever the hell that means) or if they have
good hair (but not TOO good.) Intellect scares people. Universities are
evil black boxes that turn out bad people (except for the people who develop
weapon systems.)

"escapee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 12:03:45 -0400, "Jean B." opined:

Well, some things I thought were odd:

Bush clowning around before the camera (officially) rolled to make
him look stupid.

Bush did look stupid because he is relatively stupid. He's not a
president I'm
proud to call my own. He can barely speak without coaching. He uses
terms, but
he uses them incorrectly.

This is an important issue. I don't think that Bush truly is retarded. He
may be average or slightly above average. He seems to have some verbal
problems that make him appear to be more stupid than he probably is.
However, the stupidity is appealing to his supporters. They don't feel
threatened by complexities that require thinking or that might lead to an
ambiguous conclusion. The neo-cons are all about emotion. If you listen to
any of the talkers like Hannity and Limbaugh they constantly appeal to
emotions. This is bad, that is good. This is God's way, that is the
devil's way. There is a lot of feel-good flag waiving. Groups are
scapegoated, leading to polarization. Our foreign policy reflects the
good-evil model. One the other hand, liberals are seen as unexciting and
too intellectual. They talk about data points and nuance. Nothing is
completely bad or completely good. Liberal allow for data to be considered
in context and for that context to change. Change leads to an evolution in
opinion (AKA - "flip-flopping.") This is all too much for people who want
the black and white version of things to be handed to them in a pre-digested
form. Sadly, we have become a nation of people who vote based on whether a
candidate looks "French" (what ever the hell that means) or if they have
good hair (but not TOO good.) Intellect scares people. Universities are
evil black boxes that turn out bad people (except for the people who develop
weapon systems.)

Vox Humana wrote:

This is an important issue. I don't think that Bush truly is
retarded. He
may be average or slightly above average. He seems to have some
verbal
problems that make him appear to be more stupid than he probably is.

He makes a very poor spokesperson because he has such difficulty with
both extemporaneous and (especially) impromptu speaking. He'd look much
smarter if he only read from prepared speeches, but in this world where
1/2 the people are of below average intelegence (think about it),
slipping-up and saying something stupid makes him appear more human to
many people (as you further point out.)

The real measure of how smart someone running the show is seen in the
people he surounds himself with. No one can know everything, yet the
President is responsible for making decisions on everything, or to
responsibly delegate authority. (As someone in another thread wrote, you
can delegate authority, but you can't delegate responsiblity.)

Unfortunately the President doesn't get his job based on how well he
delegates authority for things he's responsible for. He gets his job by
appealing to the masses. Bush's handlers have done a good job of making
it appear that his faux pas make him human by contrasting them with some
strong, difinitive talk -- even if that strong difinitive talk is
nothing more than well worded chest-thumping. Dan Quayle, another guy
who said some stupid things, didn't have such good handlers.


However, the stupidity is appealing to his supporters. They don't
feel
threatened by complexities that require thinking or that might lead to
an
ambiguous conclusion. The neo-cons are all about emotion. If you
listen to
any of the talkers like Hannity and Limbaugh they constantly appeal to
emotions. This is bad, that is good. This is God's way, that is the
devil's way. There is a lot of feel-good flag waiving. Groups are
scapegoated, leading to polarization. Our foreign policy reflects the
good-evil model.

Pandering has always been a good short-term stratagy. Most people don't
understand the complex relationships of the world, and have no idea of
the long-term effects of anything. I think most people also have seen
their personal long-term plans change so drastically that they start to
believe that life isn't about long-term plans, but rather short-term
reactions to forces that they don't believe they have any control of.

The good vs. evil paradigm is the easist way to pander. Us vs. them.
We're good. Anything in our way is evil. And if we have any compasion
for the evil, the only reason why we'd ever let it show would be as a
trick to concoure that evil.

One the other hand, liberals are seen as unexciting and
too intellectual. They talk about data points and nuance. Nothing is
completely bad or completely good. Liberal allow for data to be
considered
in context and for that context to change. Change leads to an
evolution in
opinion (AKA - "flip-flopping.") This is all too much for people who
want
the black and white version of things to be handed to them in a
pre-digested
form.

The interesting thing here is that it didn't have to be this way. The
liberals appear more intellectual right now, but there are smart people
on both sides. The liberals could have become the panderers, and the
conservatives could have been the intelectuals. And half a decade ago it
was. Harry Truman and JFK were both big-talkers who loved to pander, and
Eisenhower was an intelectual who didn't.


Sadly, we have become a nation of people who vote based on whether a
candidate looks "French" (what ever the hell that means) or if they
have
good hair (but not TOO good.) Intellect scares people. Universities
are
evil black boxes that turn out bad people (except for the people who
develop
weapon systems.)

We haven't become a nation of shallow people. We always have been. Only
the details change.

At this point, it seems the conservatives have a lock on pandering, and
will continue to be able to convince people that they are good and the
liberals are evil. But even though in the light of our current
perspective, I have to believe that some day the tables will turn again.
And again after that.

I also suspect that we're at a point in time when that table turning is
in full-swing. Michael Moore does a good job of claiming the liberals
are good, and the conservatives are evil. Is he pandering? You bet he
is. But if the pandering of conservatives for the past 20 years is
acceptable, then the pandering of liberals is too. Pandering is
ultimately the only way to truly gain power.

We're starting to get to the point where the conservatives are seeing
that pandering isn't going to continue to work because the liberals are
beginning to be successful at it, too. We're at the point in the typical
high school movie where the star quarterback (or cheerleader) sees that
the nerds have become better at communicating a populous message, and
the quarterback (or cheerleader) starts to turn to threats to keep
people on their side.

And just as the star quarterback (or cheerleader) isn't retarded in
those movies, on the surface they begin to appear to be the stupidest
people in the school. The truth is that while they may not be the
brainiak that the head nerd is, they just haven't needed to rely on
anything other than pandering. There are always some smart guys on both
sides, and some dumb guys on both sides. You don't get to be a leader by
being retarded. It just doesn't show well in a movie -- and for the new
populous message of the nerds to work, they need to emphasize the
stupidity of the football team or cheerleading squad.

Bush isn't retarded. He's just the chosen leader of the conservatives,
and the conservatives have done the best job of pandering in recent
history. I'm apparently not a very good liberal because I'm being too
intellectual about this. Now is the time for true liberals to start
pandering, and spouting populous messages. We should be painting Bush as
stupid and evil. If liberals want to get back into power, they can't be
like me, and look at it the way I have. Liberals need to flat-out say
Bush is stupid and evil, and Kerry is the savoir.

I won't be voting for the stupid, evil guy this year. I never have voted
for the stupid, evil guy. Perhaps popular opinion will agree with me on
who the stupid, evil guy is this time, and we'll see a liberal in the
Whitehouse next January 20.

Or then again the evil people could postpone the election to try to stop
the inevitable turning of the tables.

--
Warren H.

==========
Disclaimer: My views reflect those of myself, and not my
employer, my friends, nor (as she often tells me) my wife.
Any resemblance to the views of anybody living or dead is
coincidental. No animals were hurt in the writing of this
response -- unless you count my dog who desperately wants
to go outside now.
Blatant Plug: Books for the Pacific Northwest gardener:
http://www.holzemville.com/mall/nwgardener/index.html

"Warren" wrote in message
news8ULc.145020$JR4.48296@attbi_s54...

Bush's handlers have done a good job of making
it appear that his faux pas make him human by contrasting them with some
strong, difinitive talk -- even if that strong difinitive talk is
nothing more than well worded chest-thumping. Dan Quayle, another guy
who said some stupid things, didn't have such good handlers.


You're right. The frequency with which Bush uses the word "folks" is enough
to make me want to puke.

By the way, he doesn't have handlers. He has sitters.

"Warren" wrote in message
news8ULc.145020$JR4.48296@attbi_s54...

Bush's handlers have done a good job of making
it appear that his faux pas make him human by contrasting them with some
strong, difinitive talk -- even if that strong difinitive talk is
nothing more than well worded chest-thumping. Dan Quayle, another guy
who said some stupid things, didn't have such good handlers.


You're right. The frequency with which Bush uses the word "folks" is enough
to make me want to puke.

By the way, he doesn't have handlers. He has sitters.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:47:15 GMT, "Vox Humana" opined:

This is an important issue. I don't think that Bush truly is retarded. He
may be average or slightly above average. He seems to have some verbal
problems that make him appear to be more stupid than he probably is.
However, the stupidity is appealing to his supporters. They don't feel
threatened by complexities that require thinking or that might lead to an
ambiguous conclusion. The neo-cons are all about emotion. If you listen to
any of the talkers like Hannity and Limbaugh they constantly appeal to
emotions. This is bad, that is good. This is God's way, that is the
devil's way. There is a lot of feel-good flag waiving. Groups are
scapegoated, leading to polarization. Our foreign policy reflects the
good-evil model. One the other hand, liberals are seen as unexciting and
too intellectual. They talk about data points and nuance. Nothing is
completely bad or completely good. Liberal allow for data to be considered
in context and for that context to change. Change leads to an evolution in
opinion (AKA - "flip-flopping.") This is all too much for people who want
the black and white version of things to be handed to them in a pre-digested
form. Sadly, we have become a nation of people who vote based on whether a
candidate looks "French" (what ever the hell that means) or if they have
good hair (but not TOO good.) Intellect scares people. Universities are
evil black boxes that turn out bad people (except for the people who develop
weapon systems.)


Truly, this is the best post I've seen in this newsgroup lately. I also don't
think Bush is retarded, but I do absolutely believe he has just enough
"dumbdown" to appeal to the toothless. Unfortunately, there are many toothless
in the U.S.




Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

Whoa..........Excuse me here, but what in the hell does this discussion have
to do with gardening??!!
Unless you people are trying to develop a verbal fertilizer...........
Now, I don't know about you people, but my list of newsgroups shows plenty
of political NGs.
Why must this migrate here?

You may now, of course, act like children, and ream me for butting in.
Murri

"escapee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:47:15 GMT, "Vox Humana"
opined:

This is an important issue. I don't think that Bush truly is retarded.
He
may be average or slightly above average. He seems to have some verbal
problems that make him appear to be more stupid than he probably is.
However, the stupidity is appealing to his supporters. They don't feel
threatened by complexities that require thinking or that might lead to an
ambiguous conclusion. The neo-cons are all about emotion. If you listen
to
any of the talkers like Hannity and Limbaugh they constantly appeal to
emotions. This is bad, that is good. This is God's way, that is the
devil's way. There is a lot of feel-good flag waiving. Groups are
scapegoated, leading to polarization. Our foreign policy reflects the
good-evil model. One the other hand, liberals are seen as unexciting and
too intellectual. They talk about data points and nuance. Nothing is
completely bad or completely good. Liberal allow for data to be
considered
in context and for that context to change. Change leads to an evolution
in
opinion (AKA - "flip-flopping.") This is all too much for people who
want
the black and white version of things to be handed to them in a
pre-digested
form. Sadly, we have become a nation of people who vote based on whether
a
candidate looks "French" (what ever the hell that means) or if they have
good hair (but not TOO good.) Intellect scares people. Universities are
evil black boxes that turn out bad people (except for the people who
develop
weapon systems.)


Truly, this is the best post I've seen in this newsgroup lately. I also
don't
think Bush is retarded, but I do absolutely believe he has just enough
"dumbdown" to appeal to the toothless. Unfortunately, there are many
toothless
in the U.S.




Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

Whoa..........Excuse me here, but what in the hell does this discussion have
to do with gardening??!!
Unless you people are trying to develop a verbal fertilizer...........
Now, I don't know about you people, but my list of newsgroups shows plenty
of political NGs.
Why must this migrate here?

You may now, of course, act like children, and ream me for butting in.
Murri

"escapee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:47:15 GMT, "Vox Humana"
opined:

This is an important issue. I don't think that Bush truly is retarded.
He
may be average or slightly above average. He seems to have some verbal
problems that make him appear to be more stupid than he probably is.
However, the stupidity is appealing to his supporters. They don't feel
threatened by complexities that require thinking or that might lead to an
ambiguous conclusion. The neo-cons are all about emotion. If you listen
to
any of the talkers like Hannity and Limbaugh they constantly appeal to
emotions. This is bad, that is good. This is God's way, that is the
devil's way. There is a lot of feel-good flag waiving. Groups are
scapegoated, leading to polarization. Our foreign policy reflects the
good-evil model. One the other hand, liberals are seen as unexciting and
too intellectual. They talk about data points and nuance. Nothing is
completely bad or completely good. Liberal allow for data to be
considered
in context and for that context to change. Change leads to an evolution
in
opinion (AKA - "flip-flopping.") This is all too much for people who
want
the black and white version of things to be handed to them in a
pre-digested
form. Sadly, we have become a nation of people who vote based on whether
a
candidate looks "French" (what ever the hell that means) or if they have
good hair (but not TOO good.) Intellect scares people. Universities are
evil black boxes that turn out bad people (except for the people who
develop
weapon systems.)


Truly, this is the best post I've seen in this newsgroup lately. I also
don't
think Bush is retarded, but I do absolutely believe he has just enough
"dumbdown" to appeal to the toothless. Unfortunately, there are many
toothless
in the U.S.




Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

Nobody will ream you for butting in. All you did was add to the off topic
thread, which is fine. There are very few newsgroups who don't have at least
one thread dedicated to this disaster in America.

On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 23:47:15 -0400, "Lady Blacksword"
opined:

Whoa..........Excuse me here, but what in the hell does this discussion have
to do with gardening??!!
Unless you people are trying to develop a verbal fertilizer...........
Now, I don't know about you people, but my list of newsgroups shows plenty
of political NGs.
Why must this migrate here?

You may now, of course, act like children, and ream me for butting in.
Murri

"escapee" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:47:15 GMT, "Vox Humana"
opined:

This is an important issue. I don't think that Bush truly is retarded.
He
may be average or slightly above average. He seems to have some verbal
problems that make him appear to be more stupid than he probably is.
However, the stupidity is appealing to his supporters. They don't feel
threatened by complexities that require thinking or that might lead to an
ambiguous conclusion. The neo-cons are all about emotion. If you listen
to
any of the talkers like Hannity and Limbaugh they constantly appeal to
emotions. This is bad, that is good. This is God's way, that is the
devil's way. There is a lot of feel-good flag waiving. Groups are
scapegoated, leading to polarization. Our foreign policy reflects the
good-evil model. One the other hand, liberals are seen as unexciting and
too intellectual. They talk about data points and nuance. Nothing is
completely bad or completely good. Liberal allow for data to be
considered
in context and for that context to change. Change leads to an evolution
in
opinion (AKA - "flip-flopping.") This is all too much for people who
want
the black and white version of things to be handed to them in a
pre-digested
form. Sadly, we have become a nation of people who vote based on whether
a
candidate looks "French" (what ever the hell that means) or if they have
good hair (but not TOO good.) Intellect scares people. Universities are
evil black boxes that turn out bad people (except for the people who
develop
weapon systems.)


Truly, this is the best post I've seen in this newsgroup lately. I also
don't
think Bush is retarded, but I do absolutely believe he has just enough
"dumbdown" to appeal to the toothless. Unfortunately, there are many
toothless
in the U.S.




Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html




Need a good, cheap, knowledge expanding present for yourself or a friend?
http://www.animaux.net/stern/present.html

"escapee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:47:15 GMT, "Vox Humana"
opined:

This is an important issue. I don't think that Bush truly is retarded.
He
may be average or slightly above average. He seems to have some verbal
problems that make him appear to be more stupid than he probably is.
However, the stupidity is appealing to his supporters. They don't feel
threatened by complexities that require thinking or that might lead to an
ambiguous conclusion. The neo-cons are all about emotion. If you listen
to
any of the talkers like Hannity and Limbaugh they constantly appeal to
emotions. This is bad, that is good. This is God's way, that is the
devil's way. There is a lot of feel-good flag waiving. Groups are
scapegoated, leading to polarization. Our foreign policy reflects the
good-evil model. One the other hand, liberals are seen as unexciting and
too intellectual. They talk about data points and nuance. Nothing is
completely bad or completely good. Liberal allow for data to be
considered
in context and for that context to change. Change leads to an evolution
in
opinion (AKA - "flip-flopping.") This is all too much for people who
want
the black and white version of things to be handed to them in a
pre-digested
form. Sadly, we have become a nation of people who vote based on whether
a
candidate looks "French" (what ever the hell that means) or if they have
good hair (but not TOO good.) Intellect scares people. Universities are
evil black boxes that turn out bad people (except for the people who
develop
weapon systems.)


Truly, this is the best post I've seen in this newsgroup lately. I also
don't
think Bush is retarded, but I do absolutely believe he has just enough
"dumbdown" to appeal to the toothless. Unfortunately, there are many
toothless
in the U.S.

Bush, on the radio this morning - something like "Anyone can be a war
president. I wanna be a PEACE president". Jeez.........isn't this the same
chimp who was waving his pee-pee around not long ago, saying he was a war
president?

What's sad is that anyone without learning problems will rise to the
expectations of peers, and (I firmly believe) anyone else who challenges
them. I'd faint if a candidate or president said "Look...if I told you I
could turn the economy around, I'd be lying to you. Go to my web site.
There's a list of books and links that'll explain why the economic situation
we're in today is the result of a mixture of policies dating back between 5
and 20 years".

Can you imagine? A politician asking his constituents to turn off the TV,
read, and think, like REAL citizens should?

"escapee" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 22 Jul 2004 17:47:15 GMT, "Vox Humana"
opined:

This is an important issue. I don't think that Bush truly is retarded.
He
may be average or slightly above average. He seems to have some verbal
problems that make him appear to be more stupid than he probably is.
However, the stupidity is appealing to his supporters. They don't feel
threatened by complexities that require thinking or that might lead to an
ambiguous conclusion. The neo-cons are all about emotion. If you listen
to
any of the talkers like Hannity and Limbaugh they constantly appeal to
emotions. This is bad, that is good. This is God's way, that is the
devil's way. There is a lot of feel-good flag waiving. Groups are
scapegoated, leading to polarization. Our foreign policy reflects the
good-evil model. One the other hand, liberals are seen as unexciting and
too intellectual. They talk about data points and nuance. Nothing is
completely bad or completely good. Liberal allow for data to be
considered
in context and for that context to change. Change leads to an evolution
in
opinion (AKA - "flip-flopping.") This is all too much for people who
want
the black and white version of things to be handed to them in a
pre-digested
form. Sadly, we have become a nation of people who vote based on whether
a
candidate looks "French" (what ever the hell that means) or if they have
good hair (but not TOO good.) Intellect scares people. Universities are
evil black boxes that turn out bad people (except for the people who
develop
weapon systems.)


Truly, this is the best post I've seen in this newsgroup lately. I also
don't
think Bush is retarded, but I do absolutely believe he has just enough
"dumbdown" to appeal to the toothless. Unfortunately, there are many
toothless
in the U.S.

Bush, on the radio this morning - something like "Anyone can be a war
president. I wanna be a PEACE president". Jeez.........isn't this the same
chimp who was waving his pee-pee around not long ago, saying he was a war
president?

What's sad is that anyone without learning problems will rise to the
expectations of peers, and (I firmly believe) anyone else who challenges
them. I'd faint if a candidate or president said "Look...if I told you I
could turn the economy around, I'd be lying to you. Go to my web site.
There's a list of books and links that'll explain why the economic situation
we're in today is the result of a mixture of policies dating back between 5
and 20 years".

Can you imagine? A politician asking his constituents to turn off the TV,
read, and think, like REAL citizens should?

"Lady Blacksword" wrote in message
...
Whoa..........Excuse me here, but what in the hell does this discussion
have
to do with gardening??!!

New to Usenet? Feel compelled to read every single post? Need a newsreader
that can mark and delete off-topic posts? Don't know how to use a killfile.
I sure someone can help.