gary350

>GWB, Worst President? Yes. Ever.

I always thought it went "for the price of a dime I can always turn to you." [Jimi] 'Scuse me, while I kiss this guy [/Jimi]

The rest of the lyrics don't matter - it's just the damn 8675309 (8675309) 8675309 (8675309) 8675309 (8675309) 8675309 (8675309) 8675309 (8675309) 8675309 (8675309) over and over and over. . . Guess that's why they're getting so damn much money for the number!

Thank for planting that in my head - what are you going to do next, post the lyrics to "It's a small world after all"?

I, for one, haven't forgotten, and hope we keep taking it hard to Al Queda and the Taliban and any other terrorists that want to take it to us. But I would just add this quote from Colin Powell, Jan 8th, 2004, regarding the link between Iraq and Al Queda: "I have not seen smoking-gun, concrete evidence about the connection"

Interesting - I found a report or at least a reference to this survey on all the major news sites I checked (NBC, CBS, ABC. . . ), but not a word about it on foxnews.com. Fair and balanced - yeah. . .

Like so many parts of skydiving, CRW will take your breath away. Relax, enjoy, listen to your teachers, be careful, have a blast!

Wrong! I hate to give a lecture, but I will - you young people have no clue about what it takes to survive CRW. There is a piece of equipment much more important than your precious altimeter or helmet. Please see attached.

It came from a little outfit called The Associated Press as published, among other places, in The Washington Post. http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A44591-2003Aug25¬Found=true

Wow - you're pretty sure of that. And you MAY be right. And maybe not - I suggest you read a current survey of American voters: http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4253596/ A couple highlights: "A majority of Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war" "The survey results, which also show declining support for the war in Iraq and for Bush's leadership in general, indicate the public is increasingly questioning the president's truthfulness" "Bush's rating on handling the economy stood at 44 percent, down 7 percentage points, with nearly half of the public saying they are worse off now than they were when Bush became president three years ago. Six in 10 disapprove of the job Bush is doing creating jobs. On education, 47 percent said they approve of the job Bush is doing, down 8 points from January. And his rating on health care has also fallen." "These doubts have affected Bush's reelection prospects. In a head-to-head matchup, Kerry beat Bush by 52 percent to 43 percent among registered voters." ---------------------------------------------------------- "Religions vary in their degree of idiocy, but I reject them all. For most people, religion is nothing more than a substitute for a malfunctioning brain." Gene Rodenberry

Late 80's, Los Angeles, 1st date with a woman I work with. Fairly high-end date - me in suit/tie, Cambodian restaurant, L.A. Philharmonic, fancy piano bar for coffee drinks, head for home down Wilshire. I had recently started BASE jumping and am pretty excited (and probably a little full of myself) about it. So, we're driving right by anyway and all, so hey, wanna check out this little skyscraper we've been jumping? We were just gonna walk around and gaze up at it - no jumping or even climbing planned. But not surprisingly, on a weekend night/early morning, there was a load there, just about ready to go. No shit, there we were, prime location to watch some cool BASE jumping and maybe impress the date a bit with something truly different. What went wrong was in NO WAY amusing or funny - we witnessed a BASE accident and the death of a fine person with a family. I ended up, in my suit, sliding under a fence and climbing up onto the roof of a parking garage and being the first to find the body, and trying to give him CPR. Obviously a horrible experience, and certainly NOT impressive to my date. She was pretty unhappy with me for exposing her to the emotional trauma.

Hi LJ! Dangerous ground? I LIVE for danger! I actually do struggle with how dangerous it is to let myself believe that this nightmare might actually come to an end in november. I want to believe, I want to be optimistic and positive, but at the same time I don't want to set myself up to be devastated emotionally if it doesn't happen. Life will have to go on. Trying to find a balance between the two. But like a lot of people across the country, I am disgusted and angry and fearful like I have never been before, and I AM going to channel it into action. My hope comes from hearing more and more folks who are in the middle, or even to the right, who think this administration is not just conservative but radical, out of control, untrustworthy, and flat out bad for America's future. I know how many people are reactionary and fickle and just plain clueless - I know a terrorist attack might swing things suddenly. But, THIS POLL IS GREAT NEWS! MORE PEOPLE ARE GETTING IT!!!! At least for now, and damnit, I'm gonna risk letting myself have some hope. Happy VD to you and Raist!

Thanks Bill. Hope it's not too tacky to do this once, but because of relevance (IMNERHO), I'm going to post in this thread the same response I wrote in another: He didn't disagree. In fact he jokingly made a reference to the troll sign on his avatar. I don't think that I was over the top. Perhaps a more astute observer would have seen the mocking, satiric nature of the response, and maybe, just maybe inferred that it was a way to gently express disgust by using self-deprecating humor instead of defensiveness or anger. In fact, I do think that in general, this technique is disgusting - it's an attempt at censorship of postings that bring up subjects that are embarrassing or disagreeable to certain readers. Scream troll and hijack the thread and maybe the poster will be shamed into keeping quiet? I'm sure it works sometimes - not many folks, especially if relatively new to the online community, enjoy being humiliated and censured. But it didn't work a few weeks ago when I posted the news, (accompanied by my sickened, satiric thanks to George Bush for providing it with his lies) that the 500th American soldier had been killed in Iraq. That post was a great example - the good little dittoheads quickly came out in force to express their boredom with the subject, distract from it with links to "gay-curious" websites, ridicule the poster, and of course scream "TROLL!" (even a moderator!) Nice try, but despite the attempts at censorship, it turned out to be a 424 post long, pretty much civilized discussion of (mostly) America's policies regarding Iraq and of the Bush administration's lies - exactly what was intended by the original post, and a good use of the forum, IMO. Looking back at it, I'm particularly interested to observe FallRate's contribution to the discussion about the milestone of 500 American soldiers being killed in Iraq: (Defending Jimbo's "*Yawn*") >Actually, Jimbo might give the post a bit more consideration if he had the faintest reason to believe that Gary fives a fuck about the dead soldiers, instead of being quite giddy about the fact that he can use it to make a half-assed argument against the current administration. (Response to Jimbo posting a link to a gay-curious website) >Hysterical, Jimbo!!! Kudos. (Another defense of Jimbo's "*Yawn*") >The yawn was directed at the fact that your post is a blatant troll. But you know that...troll! (Response to another poster calling Jimbo on his "boredom") >There are trolls. Then there are those losers who prop 'em up. That's it. A serious thread that goes one week/424 posts and THAT is the entire contribution from FallRate. I'm NOT saying he doesn't have the right to say what he said or only contribute drivel to serious discussions or anything else - he does have the right to post whatever he wants within the rules. But I do think it is ironic that HE is the one screaming troll, or in the case of this thread, you. Seems like there is a direct correlation between the level of discomfort with the subject matter (Bush, lies, dead Americans, dropping poll numbers...) and the likelihood that someone (dittoheads) will call troll, even if it isn't. Sure, you can adjust the definition of troll to suit your own needs and MAKE it fit, but I don't think that makes it right - I think it is a form of attempted censorship and complete bullshit.

He didn't disagree. In fact he jokingly made a reference to the troll sign on his avatar. I don't think that I was over the top. Perhaps a more astute observer would have seen the mocking, satiric nature of the response, and maybe, just maybe inferred that it was a way to gently express disgust by using self-deprecating humor instead of defensiveness or anger. In fact, I do think that in general, this technique is disgusting - it's an attempt at censorship of postings that bring up subjects that are embarrassing or disagreeable to certain readers. Scream troll and hijack the thread and maybe the poster will be shamed into keeping quiet? I'm sure it works sometimes - not many folks, especially if relatively new to the online community, enjoy being humiliated and censured. But it didn't work a few weeks ago when I posted the news, (accompanied by my sickened, satiric thanks to George Bush for providing it with his lies) that the 500th American soldier had been killed in Iraq. That post was a great example - the good little dittoheads quickly came out in force to express their boredom with the subject, distract from it with links to "gay-curious" websites, ridicule the poster, and of course scream "TROLL!" (even a moderator!) Nice try, but despite the attempts at censorship, it turned out to be a 424 post long, pretty much civilized discussion of (mostly) America's policies regarding Iraq and of the Bush administration's lies - exactly what was intended by the original post, and a good use of the forum, IMO. Looking back at it, I'm particularly interested to observe FallRate's contribution to the discussion about the milestone of 500 American soldiers being killed in Iraq: (Defending Jimbo's "*Yawn*") >Actually, Jimbo might give the post a bit more consideration if he had the faintest reason to believe that Gary fives a fuck about the dead soldiers, instead of being quite giddy about the fact that he can use it to make a half-assed argument against the current administration. (Response to Jimbo posting a link to a gay-curious website) >Hysterical, Jimbo!!! Kudos. (Another defense of Jimbo's "*Yawn*") >The yawn was directed at the fact that your post is a blatant troll. But you know that...troll! (Response to another poster calling Jimbo on his "boredom") >There are trolls. Then there are those losers who prop 'em up. That's it. A serious thread that goes one week/424 posts and THAT is the entire contribution from FallRate. I'm NOT saying he doesn't have the right to say what he said or only contribute drivel to serious discussions or anything else - he does have the right to post whatever he wants within the rules. But I do think it is ironic that HE is the one screaming troll, or in the case of this thread, you. Seems like there is a direct correlation between the level of discomfort with the subject matter (Bush, lies, dead Americans, dropping poll numbers...) and the likelihood that someone (dittoheads) will call troll, even if it isn't. Sure, you can adjust the definition of troll to suit your own needs and MAKE it fit, but I don't think that makes it right - I think it is a form of attempted censorship and complete bullshit. Billvon's timely post regarding the definition of a troll: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=919329 Note to SkydiverRick: (realizing you may not give the slightest shit) Though you did provide the catalyst, I hope you won't take this rant(?) as directed much at you personally. I notice your genuine participation in many threads and don't have reason to believe that you particularly wish to discourage posters with opposing views.

Just not feeding the troll. Troll? How can you possibly. . . HEY - who changed my avatar?!? God damnit - that's not funny!!!

What, no excuses? No blaming it on 9-11 or Clinton or a vast left-wing conspiracy?

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/4253596/ Poll: Public’s trust in Bush at low ebb Many think he lied or exaggerated on WMD By Richard Morin and Dana Milbank washingtonpost.com Updated: 7:59 a.m. ET Feb. 13, 2004 WASHINGTON - A majority of Americans believe President Bush either lied or deliberately exaggerated evidence that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction in order to justify war, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll. The survey results, which also show declining support for the war in Iraq and for Bush's leadership in general, indicate the public is increasingly questioning the president's truthfulness -- a concern for Bush's political advisers as his reelection bid gets underway. Barely half -- 52 percent -- now believe Bush is "honest and trustworthy," down 7 percentage points since late October and his worst showing since the question was first asked, in March 1999. At his best, in the summer of 2002, Bush was viewed as honest by 71 percent. The survey found that nearly seven in 10 think Bush "honestly believed" Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Even so, 54 percent thought Bush exaggerated or lied about prewar intelligence. Honesty and credibility have been central to Bush's appeal since the 2000 campaign, when he benefited from disgust over President Bill Clinton's lies about the Monica S. Lewinsky affair and when Bush's campaign accused then-Vice President Al Gore of "saying one thing and doing another." But a number of factors, including the failure to find unconventional weapons in Iraq and the administration's underestimating of its Medicare prescription drug plan's costs, appear to have undermined perceptions of his credibility. Bush's possible Democratic opponent, Sen. John F. Kerry (Mass.), has begun to talk about a "credibility gap." Even some Bush allies say they have been misled about Iraq's weapons, and the current Time magazine cover story asks: "Believe him or not -- does Bush have a credibility gap?" Questions about Bush's use of prewar intelligence, in addition to feeding doubts about his honesty, have sent his performance rating plummeting. Fifty percent of Americans approve of the job he is doing, the lowest level of his presidency in Post-ABC polling and down 8 percentage points from January. The survey found that, for the first time since the war ended, fewer than half of Americans -- 48 percent -- believe the war was worth fighting, down 8 points from last month. Fifty percent said the war was not worth it. Nine-point advantage for Kerry These doubts have affected Bush's reelection prospects. In a head-to-head matchup, Kerry beat Bush by 52 percent to 43 percent among registered voters. Bush had more passionate support -- 83 percent of his backers said their support was strong, while 59 percent of Kerry supporters said so -- and retains an advantage over Kerry in dealing with Iraq and the war on terrorism. But the Democrat was seen as better able to handle the economy and jobs, education, and health care -- all top issues with voters this year. The survey found a steep drop in public perceptions of Bush as a president and as an individual. In a sign that Bush has been set back by recent controversies over Iraqi weapons, his National Guard record and the federal budget, the number of Americans viewing him as a "strong leader" has slipped to 61 percent, down 6 points from December and the lowest level since the 2001 terrorist attacks. Bush's rating on handling the economy stood at 44 percent, down 7 percentage points, with nearly half of the public saying they are worse off now than they were when Bush became president three years ago. Six in 10 disapprove of the job Bush is doing creating jobs. On education, 47 percent said they approve of the job Bush is doing, down 8 points from January. And his rating on health care has also fallen. But the president's declining ratings related to Iraq were most striking. Approval of his handling of the situation there has fallen to 47 percent, down 8 percentage points in the past three weeks. About half of Americans -- 51 percent -- said they would prefer a report evaluating the accuracy and use of prewar intelligence before the election, while 35 percent favor what Bush has ordered: a broader study of the overall accuracy of U.S. intelligence-gathering operations that reports its findings after the election. While 21 percent believe that Bush lied about the threat posed by Iraq, a larger number -- 31 percent -- thought he exaggerated but did not lie. Indeed, six in 10 Americans believed, as Bush did, that Iraq had such weapons. Three in four Democrats said Bush either lied or exaggerated about what was known about Iraq's weapons, while an equally large majority of Republicans said the president did neither. Slightly more than half of all independents believed Bush had misled the public about Iraq's weapons cache. 'He's manipulatable' "I think he was believing what he wanted to believe," said one respondent, Ron Perholtz, an accountant from Jupiter, Fla. "I can't say he's dishonest. He heard what he wanted to hear. He's manipulatable by [Vice President] Cheney and others." Many respondents expressed regrets about the Iraq war. For example, Mike Richcreek, 52, of Warner Robbins, Ga., believes Bush neither exaggerated nor lied. "He went by what the intelligence given to him showed," Richcreek said. But, at the same time, Richcreek said he has begun to doubt the merits of the war. "I'm not sure now we should have gone to war in the first place," he said. "You think of all of our young kids getting killed. That's a problem. I'm glad I didn't have to make the decision." A total of 1,003 randomly selected adults were interviewed Feb. 10 to 11. The margin of sampling error for the overall results is plus or minus 3 percentage points. Assistant polling director Claudia Deane contributed to this report. © 2004 The Washington Post Company

Saw this years ago on "Worst Of The Web" Strange Foreign Objects in Dog Feces http://www.watchingyou.com/poop.html Thankfully, no pictures - just stories. Yuck.

A truly miserable failure - more jobs lost than the previous 11 presidents. . . COMBINED!

A guy walks into the psychiatrist office and blurts out, "I'm a teepee! I'm a wigwam!" The shrink says, "Calm down - you're too tense!"

COMPUTER VIRUS MAKING TO BE PROSECUTED AS HATE CRIME FOR TARGETING STUPID PEOPLE Systems Administrators Now On Front Lines of Bias Crime Washington, D.C. (SatireWire.com) — With yet another email virus spreading across the globe, 41 U.S. states and six European countries today announced that the act of creating an attachment-based computer virus will now be considered a hate crime because it intentionally targets stupid people. Hate crime victim Bob Fnork (center) is stunned to discover he has just opened another infected attachment. "In a hate crime, the offender is motivated by the victim's personal characteristics, and in the case of email viruses, the maker is clearly singling out those who open email attachments when they've been told a thousand times not to," said California Attorney General Bill Lockyer. "Like any other segment of the population, people of stupidity need protection from bias." The decision, however, is already causing a firestorm of controversy. In the United States, the American Civil Liberties Union vehemently opposed the action, arguing it runs counter to the spirit of hate crime laws. "Hate crime statutes are specifically designed to protect minority groups," said ACLU President Nadine Strossen. "I'm not sure the number of stupid computer users meets that criterion." France, meanwhile, said it would not prosecute anyone willing to write a virus in French. But in London, the British Civil Idiots Union applauded the move, arguing that virus-based hate crimes cause victims to suffer psychological harm. "Every time we pass on one of these emails, our self-esteem is shattered when we are forced to publicize our condition," said CIU President Michael Overly. "It's always a shock to my system every time I have to write, "Hey everybody, if you get an email attachment from me, don't open it! I just found out my computer got infected by a virus! Sorry!" In identifying virus-based hate crime activity, U.S. and European law enforcement authorities said they will focus on anyone creating a virus delivered via email attachment that contains either no subject line or a vague subject line such as "Hey, check this out!" "I saw this and thought of you!" or "I am wanting to get your opinion on this." Congressional leaders also said they will amend the 1990 Hate Crimes Statistics Act and require the FBI to track data on crimes based on race, religion, sexual orientation, ethnicity, or stupidity. As a result, some experts expect the annual number of hate crimes in the U.S. alone to jump from 6,500 to 132 million. Others believe the actual number will be higher, but say many crimes will go unreported because the victim refuses to recognize what has happened. Dallas, Texas resident Mike Smith is a case in point. "I am not a victim of a hate crime because I am not stupid," said Smith. "I got an email with an attachment from my buddy in Phoenix, so naturally, I opened it. What's so stupid about that?" What, Smith was asked, did the email say? "It said, 'I_love_you.' Why?" In Moline, Ill., police have already made their first arrest under the expanded laws. Matthew Spere, a 17-year-old high school senior, was taken into custody this morning after police said he had created and propagated a variant of the "Goner" virus. In a phone interview, Spere denied the charges. "My virus wasn't targeting stupid computer users specifically, just anyone using Microsoft's Outlook Express or AOL," he said. "Oh... damn."

Arguably laughable, and hardly worth addressing, though others in the thread have done a good job anyway.

Outstanding. Thank you.

Paul - PM sent. -Crash

Can't make this stuff up. . . http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/americas/02/04/cuba.car.ap/