HAHA something I actually know.<br>Juno allows you to set visual however you like. Sadly that doesn't transfer over to your typing text. IF you edit your text color it should show it to us... why it's not? No clue :(<br>
Lance<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Thu, Oct 30, 2008 at 7:46 PM, Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies List <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net">gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<div>
<div>OK, we're all on the same page then. Thanks for the exercise. Its been fun.
A friend I forwarded the discussion too also had trouble reading the yellow
text. On my email softward, I have the background set to brown, and my text to
green. Highlighting in yellow looks fine with a brown background, but if the
text comes out in yellow on a different background, it doesn't work out very
well. When I receive, it is usually with my background, brown. But some
messages, particularly Jeanene's, come in with a white background. Green and
blue are OK on that, but not yellow. When text comes in, it is usually green,
for me, but sometimes it comes in black, particularly from a friend in DC, and I
have to highlight to read it on a brown background. greenBubble comes in blue,
on a brown background, but occasionally in green.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Siarlys</div>
<div> </div>
<div>P.S. This is Lance's area of expertise. He could tell us all what is really
going on.</div><div class="Ih2E3d">
<div> </div>
<div>On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 00:11:22 -0400 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
List" <<a href="mailto:gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net" target="_blank">gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net</a>>
writes:</div>
</div><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-left: 10px; padding-left: 10px;"><div class="Ih2E3d">
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font size="2" color="#0000ff" face="Arial">I felt it was worth sharing, if only to sit back and see how
siarlys disected it, as i knew he would.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font size="2" color="#0000ff" face="Arial">As to the yellow text, i can't read it at all in yellow, so
i convert the whole email into plain text, and then i can read
it.</font></span></div>
<div dir="ltr" align="left"><span><font size="2" color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font></span> </div>
</div><div class="Ih2E3d"><div dir="ltr" align="left"><span>
<div align="left"><font size="2" color="#0000ff" face="Arial"><span>greenBubble</span></font></div></span></div><br>
<div dir="ltr" align="left" lang="en-us">
<hr>
<font size="2" face="Tahoma"><b>Subject:</b> Re: [GCFL-discuss] FW: Is America
Really Going to To this?<br></font><br></div>
<div></div>
</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"><div>Au contraire, I think you SHOULD read these two articles in full, AND I
think you should read one specific video paid for by Obama in full, and then
you should analyze them, cross-check them, to your heart's content. I find
these articles easy to discredit, but if you find them credible, so be it. We
each have one vote. greenBubble thought this article was worth sharing. I
thought it was worth dissecting. What I did note about both articles is that,
LIKE materials that issue from any candidate's campaign, they BEGIN with a
point of view they want to persuade the reader to, rather than beginning with
a set of facts they wish to report.</div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div>Siarlys</div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div>Incidentally, a Lutheran pastor I forwarded the discussion to thought it
was neat to put the citations in yellow text, because they were obviously
yellow journalism.</div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div>On Tue, 28 Oct 2008 11:21:34 -0700 "Discussion of the Good, Clean Funnies
List" <<a href="mailto:gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net" target="_blank">gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net</a>>
writes:</div>
</div></div><blockquote style="border-left: 2px solid rgb(0, 0, 0); margin-left: 10px; padding-left: 10px;"><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">
<div>Wait, so 2 independent articles attacking Obama are being discredited
because you find they have conservative tendencies. And then Claim their all
lies (yet neither companies have anything to do with each other so 2 lies
saying the same thing is in need of mathematical explanation).</div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div>BUT believe I should watch videos PAID for by Obama and believe it to
be all fact?</div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div>Come on sir, I find this very hard to swallow.</div>
<div><font size="2" color="#0000ff" face="Arial"></font> </div>
<div>~Lance<br></div>
</div></div><div class="gmail_quote"><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">On Mon, Oct 27, 2008 at 9:53 PM, Discussion of the
Good, Clean Funnies List <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net" target="_blank">gcfl-discuss@gcfl.net</a>></span>
wrote:<br>
</div></div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0px 0px 0px 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">
<div>
<div>Dear greenBubble and everyone,</div>
<div> </div>
<div>As you might expect, I can't find any merit in this article at
all.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The important reason is, why not?</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I note in passing that <i>The Spectator</i> and <i>World</i>
magazine are somewhat MORE partisan in their peculiar caterwauling than
either of the candidate's campaign organizations are. They have a right to
express their opinion, but there is nothing factually reliable
there.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I have a long term view of politics. Barack Obama became a plausible
candidate for president because he broke the decripit stereotypes that
American politics had been locked into. The artificial monstrosities of
"blue states" and "red states," the tired and almost meaningless terms
"liberal" and "conservative," the infatuation with cultural polarization
that accurately describes very few Americans. We are each much more
complex than either the media or the professional politicos give us credit
for, and we exist in much more complex webs of inter-relation to each
other.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Obama understands those complex interconnections that make us
Americans, and those voters who have supported him, and seem ready to do
so again, sense that, respond to it, look forward to leadership of the
nature he offers.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Also, he has a capacity to think about what he is doing, or saying,
and to then answer decisively, as opposed to acting without thinking (the
Bush style) or dithering without saying or doing anything (the style which
cost John Kerry the 2004 election). He doesn't run away or go into loud
denial either -- for instance, he waded right into the Jeremiah Wright
controversy, and refused to cater to any loud demands from either admirers
or critics of Wright.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>The Rush Limbaughs and Ann Coulters of the world (and add Melanie
Phillips to the list) feel threatened by Obama, because their careers and
influence, such as it is, are built in the very hatreds and polarizations
which Obama is capably demolishing. So, rather than criticize him for what
he is, they are trying to demonize him with the same tired old
characterizations. It is not working, because these characterizations do
not fit him, and a majority of voters recognize that.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>This article you just posted is exactly the kind of desperate
hysteria I am referring to.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>By contrast, the <i>Chicago Tribune</i>, the most conservative
Republican major daily in the country, has probably endorsed a Democrat
for the first time in its history in choosing Barack Obama. The Tribune
has been the source of the most critical factual data about Obama's less
than savory associations with Chicago politics. The Tribune observes,
however, that having had the opportunity to observe his career close-up
for many years, before he became a national figure, and since, it is
satisfied he is the most qualified candidate this year. By all accounts
from Illinois, people in the state like a combination of vision with
pragmatic political strategy, and don't hold some compromises with whoever
is in power against Obama.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>I believe the authors will be surprised at how Obama does in office.
I believe that his administration will not only be the end of
pseudo-"conservative" hysteria, it will be the end of liberalism as we
know it. Nancy Pelosi will just have to go along for the ride, because she
doesn't have any other options.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Now, as to the specific matter of Israel, I am a little disappointed
that Obama has catered so much to the mantra required of American
politicians to loudly proclaim their commitment to Israel. I don't believe
that the foreign policy of the United States of America should be held
hostage to any nation, including Israel. It speaks poorly of our democracy
when any ethnic voting bloc can exercise a veto for its pet nation. (By
the same token, I am not offended that Jonathan Pollard felt impelled to
spy on the U.S. for Israel -- they are, after all, two distinct sovereign
nations, and their interests do not always perfectly coincide). I feel the
same way about urban concentrations of Slovaks, Serbs and Croats
sabotaging George F. Kennan's diplomatic work with President Tito of
Yugoslavia during circa 1960. This is America, not a surrogate for any
foreign power. I also feel the same about President Reagan appointing an
ambassador to the Vatican, which is not a state except in its own
pretensions.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Israel does have a right to exist. Some of its policies are, in the
long run, going to jeopardize its own existence, and perhaps our nation
should firmly make that clear and refuse to give any Israeli government
carte blanche. Likewise, we should stop catering to brutal dictatorships
in Arabic-speaking nations, which simply turn the oppressed population
hostile to us, when we should be a beacon of hope to them. (Hosni Mubarak
in Egypt comes to mind, and our schizophrenic relationship to the Wahabi
theocracy in Saudi Arabia).</div>
<div> </div>
<div>But I expect President Obama will for the most part leave US policy
toward Israel about as it is. That is the safe thing to do, politically,
particularly during a president's first term. He may be able to help
Israel by reaching out more credibly to its neighbors.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>There are, in fact, millions of Arab-Americans, who have endured the
absurdity of being cast as second class citizens as Obama was accused of
being Muslim or Arab. As Colin Powell finally had the courage to point
out, "So what if he is?" He's not, but neither Muslim faith nor Arab
descent disqualifies any native-born American citizen from being
president. A large portion of Arab-Americans are fifth generation. Labor
unions in 1900 had to translate leaflets into Arabic, among a dozen other
languages, because so many Syrian and Lebanese immigrants were in the work
force. Generally, these Americans have not held candidates hostage by
demanding that they denounce Israel, or pledge military aid to whatever
country their grandparents or great great grandparents emigrated
from.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Is America really going to do this? I believe we are, and thank G-d
for it.</div>
<div> </div>
<div>Siarlys</div></div></div></div></blockquote></div></blockquote></blockquote></div></blockquote></div>