Pubs are truly Desperate now

----- Original Message -----
From:
Sent: Wednesday, October 24, 2007 3:04 PM
Subject: Fw: History Quiz - Lesson


Surprised me!

-------------- Forwarded Message: --------------
From:

Here is a little history lesson for you. If you
> don't know the answer, make your best guess.
> Answer all the questions before looking at the
> answers.
> Who said it?
>
>
> 1) "We're going to take things away from you on
> behalf of the common good."
> A. Karl Marx
> B. Adolph Hitler
> C. Joseph Stalin
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 2) "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to
> government of the few, by the few, and for the
> few......
> And to replace it with shared respons ibility for
> shared prosperity."
> A. Leni n
> B. Mussolini
> &n bsp; C. Idi Amin
> D. None of the Above
>
>
> 3) "(We) ...can't just let business as usual go
> on, and that means something has to be taken away
> from some people."
> A. Nikita Khrushev
> B. Josef Goebbels
> C. Boris Yeltsin
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 4) "We have to build a political consensus and
> that requires people to give up a little bit of
> their own ... in order to create this common
> ground."
> A. Mao Tse Dung
> B. Hugo Chavez
> C. Kim Jong Il
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 5) "I certainly thi nk the free-market has failed."
>
> A. Karl Marx
> B. Lenin
> C. Molotov
> D. None of the above
>
>
> 6) "I think it's time to send a clear message to
> what has become the most profitable sector in (the)
> entire economy that they are being watched."
> A. Pinochet
> B. Milos evic
> C. Saddam Hussein
> D. None of the above
>
>
> Scroll down for answers
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> &n bsp;
>
> Answers
> (1) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/29/2004
> (2) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 5/29/2007
> (3) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
> (4) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
> (5) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 6/4/2007
> (6) D. None of the above. Statement was made by
> Hillary Clinton 9/2/2005
> May Want to Question ...or Be afraid, Be very afraid!!
>

RESPONSE FROM HOLLANDER TEAM........................

Now, After all of the evidence of how Bush, the Republican controlled congress, and the radical religious right have continually screwed the country, you are actually going to buy in to this anti-Hillary stuff? First of all, did you investigate each individual statement and confirm that she actually said them? Then, if she did, did anyone check on the context in which the statements were made? Thirdly, I could make up a questionnaire such as this about Bush and the Republicans which would be far longer and have many times more incriminating allegations.

Is the author of this exam worried that president Hillary wants us to become a communist nation? That is what seems to be implied here. My belief is that the far more likely thing she meant (if she did say these things) is that we need to take away from the greedy, super rich, crooks of the country. People like CEO's who literally make 100 million times more money than the regular employees of a company, even while running said company into bankruptcy. I think that rather than focusing on some perceived slights against Americanism by Hillary Clinton, we ought to pay much more attention to things like - how are we going to win and end the war (which has now lasted longer than World War II), and what the hell possessed Bush to veto the SCHIP bill.

Lastly, I wonder what it is about Mrs. Clinton that makes some people hate her so much. Is it that she is a woman? A woman who refuses to keep her place, like in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant? Is it that she would like for ALL Americans to have health care, not just the wealthy and those lucky few who receive benefits through their employers? I would like to see an itemized list from anyone as to what, exactly, she has done that has supposedly screwed the country so thoroughly. My bet is, if they are truly honest about it, they hate her because she stuck by Bill when he got a blowjob in the Oval Office. Personally, I was much more offended that the Republicans spent billions of my tax dollars to investigate the President's wiener.

From our dear Buddhist friends (complete with terrible para-phrasing): In good times, remember the bad in order to keep yourself grounded. In bad times, remember the good so as to give yourself hope.

Remember the Bill Clinton era, and the spring of the 21st century.

Clinton camp relishes Republicans' focus
BY TOM BRUNE | tom.brune@newsday.com
October 23, 2007

WASHINGTON - After GOP presidential hopefuls voiced jeers, snide remarks and hand-wringing warnings about a possible Hillary Rodham Clinton presidency during their recent debate, the Democratic front-runner's aides smirked.

"We can understand why they're all so angry," Clinton spokesman Blake Zeff said yesterday. "As Chris Wallace made clear, Hillary is beating each of them."

During Sunday's debate sponsored by the Florida Republican Party and Fox News, moderator Wallace said, "All of you - I repeat all of you - are losing to her in the polls."

Ducks Beat UW 55-34, Ranked #7 Nationally! Oops, make that #5

Compassionate Conservative

But ultimately, the president's demand for a far more limited extension of the existing insurance program held sway with enough Republicans. Rep. Steve King (R-Iowa) charged that "SCHIP stands for Socialized, Clinton-style Hillarycare for illegals and their parents."

Perpetrate your Violence on my Soul

Tumultuous.
Who asked for all this turmoil in here? It wasn't me, was it.
It was me, old friend
I thought I saw you come in, who are you again?
Just someone you once knew
Once, from long ago? Who are your friends?
I have always been with you, these others are new
Could you quiet them please, its so hard to think in here with all this noise
They aren't saying anything, little one
Please, I can't think any more. Tell them to let me be.
Only you can do that, they listen to you alone
Aren't you supposed to shield me? Make them go away!!
Try young one...speak and listen to what they say
NO, there are too many
Try
I am you, you are me, we are one but not the same. Perpetrate your violence on my soul, you cannot change my world.
They have not changed. You lost your world and you must now find your way.
But I can't move...

Repent, Ye Sinners!

This coming election day we are voting on an increase in the cigarette tax. This particular tax is supposed to fund health care for thousands of uninsured children in Oregon. My first question is: What happened to the other tobacco taxes the state has levied? Wasn't that revenue supposed to go to children's health care? I take this proposed tax as a personal attack. Why should I pay for other people's children to have health care when I can't even afford any for myself? Here's an idea. Put a huge tax on Lego's and juice boxes. Then the people who have children are paying for their own damn health costs.

"We weren't heroes.
We were guys who were there, and we did what we were supposed to do."
- Pete Lansford, US Marine, Iwo Jima

That, sir, is the very definition of hero.

Do Not Vote for This Guy

He doesn't want Democrats to vote—unless it's to appoint him to the Federal Election Commission.
By Dahlia Lithwick
Posted Tuesday, Sept. 25, 2007, at 6:54 PM ET

Hans von Spakovsky
Another one for you to file under "fox guards the henhouse": The Senate rules committee votes tomorrow (Wednesday) on whether to give Hans A. von Spakovsky a full six-year term on the Federal Elections Commission. For Senate Democrats to even consider allowing someone with von Spakovsky's background to sit on the independent agency tasked with protecting the integrity of federal elections is beyond incredible. If von Spakovsky is confirmed, it will be yet more evidence that Democrats have no more regard for the rule of law, or the integrity of the Justice Department, than Karl Rove does.

See the whole article here

These two still have a great vibe Together

Free The Duck!

Now we know why the Duck was imprisoned and why college students were sporting tee shirts with "Free The Duck" emblazoned over a pic of the duck behind bars. Hi-Fuckin-Larious.

DUCK UPDATE

I'm back from the game. Its 3 am and I am spent. Ducks thumped Fresno State 52 - 21 (That last touch down of theirs was scored in the last few seconds of the game after ALL of our starting players had been pulled out.) I'll tell ya about it when I wake up.

The Duck mascot has apparently commited some "crime" and was not allowed to participate in the activities yesterday. He did mysteriously appear on the jumbo-tron for a few minutes. I will investigate and report on these fowl doings.

Goin' to the Game

GO DUCKS !!!


Most schools go with the more terrifying animals for their mascots. We've heard many people deride the Oregon colleges for having such silly mascots as a duck and beaver. Personally, I like a university that has a self deprecating sense of humor, and can still kick the living shit out of a team like Michigan.

By Ernest Miller

An interesting story about a Disney character's use as a university mascot (Donald endures in hearts of Duck fans). It was a simpler time:

The university has had a web-footed mascot since at least the 1920s, when a live duck named Puddles surfaced at football and basketball games. A duck emblem was in use by 1933, and by 1936 it was starting to look more like Donald, catching the attention of Disney officials.

In 1947, Oregon Athletic Director Leo Harris shook hands with Walt Disney himself on an agreement to allow Oregon to use Donald as the mascot. The deal was put in writing in 1974 in a licensing agreement giving the university limited use of Donald at athletic venues.

Wow. A good-natured handshake agreement for almost thirty years.

Of course, such things could not be allowed to continue:

In 1991, the agreement was expanded to allow wider use of the likeness on sweatshirts, glassware and other merchandise.

The frenzied "charging duck" pumping his fists inside a large, eight-sided letter 'O' was a ubiquitous campus logo for years. It was eventually replaced as the UO marketing machine grew and felt confined by Disney's restrictive contract, which forbids the school from selling items with the Donald Duck logo beyond the Oregon border.

Although Donald is much beloved by Oregon fans, a stylized "O" will have to do for out-of-staters.

Ah well.

So you got ripped-off by a huge corporation?

Gee, what a surprise that one of those benevolent entities would do something like that! Okay. Seriously. People are steamin' mad at Apple Computers for overcharging them for their new iphones and then subsequently dropping the price. Overcharging?What? You mean you had to pay a premium for being the first kid on your block to own the new Cabbage Patch doll? That's how these things work folks. Basic 101 business classes tell you that much. A new product comes out and costs a little more at first. As more units sell, the price drops and less wealthy consumers can afford it. Later on even poor people can afford one. Finally the market is so saturated with the WB6PD that the price goes low enough for all the hillbillies to have one in every room of the trailer.

Look. If you insist on being ahead of the bell curve by purchasing the latest, greatest, whiz-bang 6000 plus deluxe, the nano-second it comes out, you are going to pay more for the privilege of being a yuppie puke. I noticed a lot of television personalities whining about the supposed scam, including the normally thoughtful and wise Keith Olbermann. How much do you guys make in salary? You're bitching about a couple of hundred bucks. If I had your wealth I'd be spending that much on tips after lunch, you selfish jerks.

Now I've said my piece and will let you go. I'm sure you need to get in line for the next Star Wars movie. They haven't produced one yet, but hey, you'll be the first geek in line when they do. Be sure to bring your heel-less Skechers, your designer water bottle, your iphone, your ipod, your wii, and your crack-berry. Its gonna be a long wait to be first.

Judge Voids F.B.I. Tool Granted by Patriot Act

By ADAM LIPTAK
Published: September 7, 2007
A federal judge yesterday struck down the parts of the recently revised USA Patriot Act that authorized the Federal Bureau of Investigation to use informal secret demands called national security letters to compel companies to provide customer records.

The law allowed the F.B.I. not only to force communications companies, including telephone and Internet providers, to turn over the records without court authorization, but also to forbid the companies to tell the customers or anyone else what they had done. Under the law, enacted last year, the ability of the courts to review challenges to the ban on disclosures was quite limited.

The judge, Victor Marrero of the Federal District Court in Manhattan, ruled that the measure violated the First Amendment and the separation of powers guarantee.

Judge Marrero said he feared that the law could be the first step in a series of intrusions into the judiciary’s role that would be “the legislative equivalent of breaking and entering, with an ominous free pass to the hijacking of constitutional values.”

According to a report from the Justice Department’s inspector general in March, the F.B.I. issued about 143,000 requests through national security letters from 2003 to 2005. The report found that the bureau had often used the letters improperly and sometimes illegally.

Yesterday’s decision was a sequel to rulings by Judge Marrero in 2004 and a federal judge in Connecticut in 2005, both of which enjoined an earlier version of the law. Congress responded last year by amending the law in reauthorizing it.

The earlier version of the measure barred all recipients of the letters from disclosing them. The amended law changed the ban slightly, now requiring the F.B.I. to certify in each case that disclosure might harm national security, criminal investigations, diplomacy or people’s safety.

The law authorized courts to review those assertions, but under extremely deferential standards. In some cases, judges were required to treat F.B.I. statements “as conclusive unless the court finds that the certification was made in bad faith.”

In yesterday’s decision, Judge Marrero said that the revisions to the law did not go far enough in addressing the flaws identified in the earlier decisions and that in fact they created additional constitutional problems.

Recipients of the letters, he wrote, remain “effectively barred from engaging in any discussion regarding their experiences and opinions related to the government’s use” of the letters. Indeed, the very identity of the Internet service provider that brought this case remains secret.

The judge said the F.B.I. might be entitled to prohibit disclosures for a limited time but afterward “must bear the burden of going to court to suppress the speech.” Putting that burden on recipients of the letters, he said, violates the First Amendment.

The decision found that the secrecy requirement was so intertwined with the rest of the provision concerning national security letters that the entire provision was unconstitutional.

Judge Marrero used his strongest language and evocative historical analogies in criticizing the aspect of the new law that imposed restrictions on the courts’ ability to review the F.B.I.’s determinations.

“When the judiciary lowers its guard on the Constitution, it opens the door to far-reaching invasions of privacy,” Judge Marrero wrote, pointing to discredited Supreme Court decisions endorsing the internment of Japanese-Americans during World War II and racially segregated railroad cars in the 19th century.

“The only thing left of the judiciary’s function for those Americans in that experience,” he wrote, “was a symbolic act: to sing a requiem and lower the flag on the Bill of Rights.”

Lawyers for the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the Internet company, said Judge Marrero had confirmed a bedrock principle.

“A statute that allows the F.B.I. to silence people without meaningful judicial oversight is unconstitutional,” said Jameel Jaffer, an A.C.L.U. lawyer.

Judge Marrero delayed enforcing his decision pending an appeal by the government. Rebekah Carmichael, a spokeswoman for the United States attorney’s office in Manhattan, said the government had not decided whether to file one.