Shhhh....Don't Tell Ashcroft But There's Hope For The USA

[HDPM]

Check this article out. Pot 'n Porn (http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,947880,00.html)

Can you guess my favorite line in the article? /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif

[andyfox]

"You'd be surprised how many producers and manufacturers are Republicans."?

[HDPM]

That was too easy but you win anyway. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

I wish I knew how to break into the industry. The real secret is Republicans are increasingly annoying me. But I can't be a Democrat because I'm a conservative nut case in a lot of ways. And I won't join the Libertarians even though I agree with a lot of their stuff. And I'm just not so good at group joining in general. So I don't know. If I did get into the porn industry, I think I'd cater to republicans, but I don't know if I could donate my porn-created cash to them. A few local republicans have already managed to cut themselves off from more cash from HDPW and I. May be an uncomfortable occasion when one of them hits us up again, given a couple of votes in the legislature. Wouldn't want to taint them w/ where the cash came from ya know. /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif

[andyfox]

"Republicans are increasingly annoying me."

Interesting, because I find Democrats incrasingly annoying to me. And I am a left-wing nut case on a lot of issues.

Maybe it's not us. Maybe after a lifetime of watching the likes of Trent Lott and Bill Clinton and Jessie Helms and Tom Daschle and Lyndon Johnson and Richard Nixon and Janet Reno and John Aschcoft in power it's understandable to be turned off.

[snakehead]

if you get into the business, be sure to get a hold of me. I have a good eye for talent.

[andyfox]

I'm wondering how he can tell the Democrats from the Republicans. Must be some leftward leaning or something.

[HDPM]

It's kind of like gaydar. /forums/images/icons/tongue.gif

[Baltimore Ron]

"'Republicans are increasingly annoying me.'"

"Interesting, because I find Democrats incrasingly annoying to me. And I am a left-wing nut case on a lot of issues."

Andy,

This isn't all that surprising. The old rule-of-thumb in describing the two parties was that the republicans wouldn't stay out of your bedroom and the democrats wouldn't stay out of your wallet. It's a little simplistic, and there's plenty of overlap these days, but I think it's a good description of the two parties' respective default modes.

I suspect that most people would like a little less of both "not staying out of" and this is one of the reasons that so many people don't bother to vote. While I could never be a dem (I lean to the wallet side of things) and you could never be a repub, maybe there's another alternative in the future that can capture the great majority of people who just want to be left alone for the most part. Whaddya think?

BTW, thanks for the kind words the other day. It is true I don't post often, but then again, I try to save my poor, overworked fingers for when I have something important to contribute. /forums/images/icons/cool.gif I am surprised, however, that Tommy didn't flame me over the grammar thing. Didn't I read an essay of his taking pickers of grammar nits to task?

One of these days I'll make it to the left coast and we'll sit at the bar a talk politics and trade bad beat stories. What say?

BR

[HDPM]

Hmmmm, the "Leave Me Alone" Party has a nice ring to it. The libertarians or greens aren't the answer. The Reform Party isn't. So maybe a new "third party" is the answer.

[andyfox]

I have the courtesy to correct typograhpical and spelling errors when I quote from another's post, I would appreciate you doing the same. /forums/images/icons/wink.gif

I'm not sure if it's the policies that are annoying me, or the hypocrisy and disingenuousness. For example, Mr. Daschle talks about the big corporations being on the wrong side and his wife is the biggest lobbyist for the airlines. All the Dems lined up behind Clinton with much harumphing about how disgusting he was, yada-yada, but when it came to the vote, he was their guy and he could have done what he done in Macy's window and they would have voted no on impeachment. It was a disgusting spectacle.

Sometimes leaving people alone is a recipe for disaster (see American Airlines). I think a major reason a lot of people don't vote is because both parties, for the most part, circle around the middle. I mean it's not as if we have viable Communist or Libertarian parties who can win seats in the congress and take part in a coalition government or decide who our prime minister will be.

I like to post whether I have something important to contribute or not. Keep 'em all guessing.

If you do decide to come out here to left field, I'd be thrilled to talk politics and poker.

And good grammar are overrated.

[andyfox]

I think it will take a charismatic individual who then has the willingness and organizational skills to expand upon his accomplishment. Perot was running neck-and-neck with Bush and way ahead of Clinton in 1992 before the self-destructed. Imagine someone like him who gets, say, 30% of the Presidential vote, even winning some states. He then organizes in key states where the party can win some congressional and possibly even some senatorial seats.

I can think of things that seemed less likely in politics that have happened.

[Zeno]

HDPM, Andy, and anyone else, check out this former Party: Know-Nothings (http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/aae/side/knownot.html)

I do not advocate the platform of this defunct party just the unofficial name. It was an important party in that it fractured the Whigs and helped end that party and that some of the Know-Nothings then joined the Republican Party. /forums/images/icons/shocked.gif /forums/images/icons/laugh.gif All this is a very interesting part of American political history.

We should start a new party, perhaps, the Know-Nothing Porn Party or something along those lines. I would be willing to play the dunce figurehead of the party while the real political players (HDPM and Andy Fox and ) pulled the puppet strings from behind the scenes. It would be a perfect role for me because I am apolitical and would enjoy the farce. We could have a populist theme: A porn movie in every VCR, or: Potheads for Porn, or: [insert popular vote-getting gibberish]. Does anyone think this is a good idea or am I just being a Dunce? /forums/images/icons/grin.gif /forums/images/icons/smirk.gif /forums/images/icons/wink.gif


[i]Le Misanthrope

[HDPM]

I've been thinking about a name for the party. Maybe the Stop Annoying Me party. SAM for short. Lots of ways to use that abbreviation. Better than GOP. Instead of a circus elephant or a jackass, we could have a babe for a mascot, something like the chrome ones on mudflaps for ease of graphics. Say we'll turn the ATF from an agency to a convenience store. And we'll eliminate annoying stuff. I don't know, lots of ways to improve government and make it less annoying to nut cases who like vice as long as nobody loses an eye. Zeno might be a good front man. I want to be in a smoky back room somewhere. Andy needs to raise us some cash. I want to run hilarious ads and they will cost. I don't see us getting the soccer mommy vote tho.

[Michael Davis]

"Say we'll turn the ATF from an agency to a convenience store."

You got me to laugh outloud, with nobody else around.

[John Cole]

"Good grammar are overrated."

Andy,

The words "grammar" and "glamour" are etymologically similar. The implication is, of course, that someone who speaks well is both glamorous and grammarous.

Here's a link to an article by Joseph Williams in which he dicusses how readers perceive usage errors. Although a bit long, you need to read it to the end. (Catch my mistake?)

http://lilt.ilstu.edu/padunn/docstolink/Wms%20_Phenomenology.html

[Cyrus]

Thanks for the link, John. Do you have the complete text somewhere else on the web? A matrix seems to be missing, after the following paragraph:<ul type="square">Now, our experiencing or noticing of any given grammatical rule has to be cross-categorized by the variable of our noticing or not noticing whether it is or is not violated. That is, if we violate rule X, a reader may note it or not. But we must also determine whether, if we do not violate rule X, the same reader will or will not notice that we have violated it. Theoretically, then, this gives us four possible sets of consequences for any given rule. They can be represented on a feature matrix like this: [/list]

[John Cole]

Realized after I gave the link how bad the text had been rendered; here's a better version:

http://www.stthomasu.ca/~hunt/williams.htm