PocketRocket

Thanks, JD. Not gonna win any Pulitzers, but it WAS fun.

Well, thank you, T-BAG, from you it's high praise, I hope JAMES soon gets over his poetry craze For his ramblings oft seem to be quite inane So much so that I question whether he's sane

You know, this whole political poetry thing looks like fun. Maybe it's time for al of us to take a crack at it. Here's my inaugural entry..... FROM BAD TO VERSE July 22 2006 PocketRocket A would-be pundit spouted out verse That went consistently from bad to worse His phrasing, rhythm and scansion were bad His own ideology off just a tad He spouted of sadness, he spouted of woe He spouted of Chretien, and of Trudeau He spouted of judges who are soft on crime He seemed to be spouting off all of the time He spouted of immigrants tainting our shores And how terrorists lurked behind each of their doors He spouted and spouted and ranted and raved How though draconian measures the worlds could be saved And yet in his spouting, himself he betrayed And his own hypocrisy oft he displayed For any news source at odds with his agenda He deems to be just left-wing propaganda And yet in his poems his readers he chides Those who disagree with him he simply derides Saying we’re thinking thoughts we are programmed to think While HE tries to program with verses that stink And so he’ll continue to spout out his creed But likely very few will take any heed ‘Cause his ultra-right ramblings to read are no fun For he stands to the right of Atilla the Hun

So what you're saying in the last verse is that if we disagree with this simple, black-and-white, childlike view you have, that we are commiting "terrorist sin". And yet, in another of your terribly-crafted excuses for a poem, you state that..... So, in other words, if it's a viewpoint that you disagree with, it's "propoganda" and mental "programming". But, if through your awful verse, you get EVERYONE to agree with your own simplisticly skewed view, then it's simply avoiding "sin". Not very strong on consistency are you??? (Not very strong on poetry either, it seems.)

Stringing together words in a rhyme Is something that people do all of the time But crafting those words to make cohesive sense Is a horse of a different colour Don't quit your day job, JAMES I've seen better verse from primary school students.

I am wondering what exactly this has to do with provincial politics in Canada.

Yeah. Okay. I wasn't aware of a new device which gives definite insights into possible alternate timelines. Please let me know where I can get one. I'm thinking lottery $$$$$$$

My sympathies go out to his wife.

Gotta laugh at these people. Nothing will make them happy other than living the lifestyle that they follow. It's like "Don't have abortions". Found a solution for that??? "Okay then, don't have sex unless it's within the bonds of marriage, between 10:00-10:20 pm, with the lights out, whilst wearing heavy flannel pyjamas, and by all means, DO NOT ENJOY IT!!!!"

Can anyone remember the last president that was NOT criticized???

Lets not get overjoyed. For reproductive purposes, this makes men pretty much superfluous.

Then maybe we should call it the Amer-eh???

Freedom of speech does, unfortunately, also permit the printing of terrible verse.

Maybe Al-Qaeda simply employs better security techniques than the current White House administration

I think virtually everyone on this board is in agreement that Cindy lost her marbles quite some time ago. That being the case, I fail to see why starting more threads on her contributes to "debate" in any way. A new Sheehan thread always goes something like "She's nuts" "You're right" "She's lost it" etc etc etc. Enough with Cindy already!!!!!

Yes, for reasons pointed out above by various contributers.

I know, it's probably a typo, but the word "education" sitting back to back with a spelling error always makes me chuckle.

It takes little effort to blab everything you hear to the world without regard for the broader ramifications. And yet you have just described the job of a news reporter, to "blab" anything that seems to be newsworthy. This is obviously newsworthy. or it would have gone unreported. As for the "broader ramifications", as other have so ably pointed out, these terrorists must be aware that this sort of thing is going on. In fact, if memory serves, as early as couple years ago it was reported that a few people had been captured as a result of the tracking of the movement of money through the international banking system. The memory of the general public may be short, but I doubt the same holds true for the terrorist organizations. And yet it has been done in the past. Why does this current administration find it so difficult??? Perhaps, I daresay, some of these "leaks" may have been intentional. Plame is a good example. It served the purpose ot Bush et al to out her. It also serves Bush's purpose to have continued stories to highlite how the war on terror is being compromised by the NYT and any other media which tend to disagree with him. When it is convenient for GWB, or any other politician, they love the press. Look at all the photo ops taken by ALL politicians at every opportune moment. And yet, when the press reports something inconvenient, they are subject to implications of being "traitorous". I see nothing wrong with the NYT or any other paper reporting whavtever they discover. It is, as I stated earlier, their mandate. If they allow the government to start picking and chooseing what they are going to report, THAT is when we REALLY have to worry about "Big Brother" taking over.

Anne's response to the final question about whether she could not write a more reasonable critique??? In other words, trash sells. More evidence supporting what I've argued for quite some time; Coulter's mandate us NOT to attempt to illuminate our lives with some higher political truth, but rather to sell books. Just ask the editors of the National Enquirer, the World Weekly News et al how to sell copy. They're right on side with Coulter.

A newspaper's job is to report news. This is news, at least to the general public. One of the government's jobs is to keep their secrets, well, secret. Obviously they have failed to do this. So who is doing their job better, the NYT or the government???

Several years ago there were some restaraunts and coffee shops that had smoking rooms set aside. Likewise some bingo halls. I don't see why this compromise is unacceptable. I have a good friend who is the owner of a local bar. The building has a small, unused banquet hall upstairs. He wanted to turn this into a dedicated smoking room for his patrons, which would prevent any non-smokers from being fumigated by smoke. He even equipped the room with a VERY powerful exhaust fan, which virtually guaranteed no smoke leakage to the main floor. The powers that be told him quite firmly, "NO". If his patron wanted to smoke, they would be forced outdoors. Now, we've gone beyond even that. It's okay for a smoker to go outside on a patio, but if the patio has any semblance of a roof to protect against rain, it is considered an "enclosed" space, and so smoking there is illegal. So, what they are saying is for smoking purposes, a roof with no walls, is an enclosed room. The spirit of the legislation seems to be, on the surface, to accomodate non-smokers, so they are not subject to a smoke-filled environment. Unfortunately, it goes far beyond that, and is actively persecuting those who are engaging in an activity which is not only legal, but taxed beyond belief. For the goverment to step up to the plate and say "Smoking is bad", well, it's tantamount to a pimp coming out and decrying prostitution as evil. The hypocrisy in this matter is beyond belief.

TEMAGAMI: I have read many of your posts, though I have not responded to any as of yet. The reason for this is simple, I have hesitated until now to get involved in a thread based on a topic I know little about. My involvement now has come more in the form of suggestions and requests for further information so I may be better educated on the matter at hand. You have displayed an admirable ability to convey you thoughts and feelings in an educated manner, moreso than many of the long-time users on this board, and far better than the average internet chatroom denizen. Even though some of your posts have been a bit antagonistic, that type of post has largely been in direct response to similarly antagonistic posts from others who oppose your viewpoint. However, posts such as the following...... .........which came immediately after this........ ........do not paint you in a particularly great light. In fact, are you not doing exactly the thing you accuse MONTY BURNS of doing, being tough in front of a keyboard??? Posts like this do little to advance your case, and simply take away from you credibility. Just an observation. I disapprove of many of the posts I've seen from those who oppose your case here, not because of the content, but because of the approach. In forum situations, fighting fire with fire often simply makes for a larger fire, and consequent smoke which serves only to cloud the issue at hand. Please do not take offense that I chose your posts to address in this manner. I did so NOT because of any allegiance, but simply because the two posts I quoted stood together and were, to me, self contradictory. Not to mention the fact that this is simply what I happened to be reading this morning and so what I happened to address. To MONTY, KINDRED et al, ANY message can be put across in a non-antagonistic manner, if we simply take the time to consider the words we choose, and in so doing, the message is often better received and more seriously considered. We would all do well to remember this

Thanks for the reply. I was not aware that there was an earlier protest on-site only. So, in that regard at the very least, I guess you are right. THAT protest didn't call much attention to the matter. The current protest is certainly getting THAT job done. However, I would like to know, for my own education only, what exactly happened at the on-site protest, specifically the police raids etc. Perhaps you would do me the favour of pointint me (via link perhaps) to somewhere that I may find more information on the matter. Thanks in advance.

Okay, this is my first contribution to this topic, not only this thread, but the topic as it has been discussed in various threads here. As a suggestion/idea/whatever; rather than blockading the highway and making miserable the lives of many people in Caledonia who are not involved at all, why not simply blockade the development site. Prevent the construction contractors from doing their jobs. Sit in front of the tractors and bulldozers. That way, the only ones being hurt are the developers, and the contractors working for them. This would have a couple benefits: 1) The contractors themselves would lose money, and would not be willing to deal with those same developers in the future. 2) The developers would lose both money and face. 3) The average working Joe on the site would get to sit around the site, getting paid for doing nothing, so they would likely become covert allies. 4) It would probably put many Caledonians onside with the Natives, not to mention raising the sympathy, rather than the ire, of the population at large. This may be overly simplistic, but any thoughts on this???

Sheehan's stand on this should surprise no one. At least no one who's paid the slightest attention to her activities in the recent past. She seems to have become the rallying point for the anti-war movement of late, which is really to bad for them as she is certainly not an accomplished speaker and has repeatedly displayed an inability to deal with a hostile media. Rather than a knight on a crusade, she comes off more like a Quixotic figure tilting at windmills.