Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Re: Obama Jokes Funnier Yet
10 views
Skip to first unread message
linuxgal
Apr 25, 2012, 7:03:12 AM4/25/12
to
BroilJAB wrote:
> Obama frantic for votes is claiming that 'Mitt
> was born with a silver spoon'. Laughing Mitt
> quipped: Obama was born with a Cocker
> Spaniel's bone in his mouth.
How many Obama jokes are there? Three. The rest are facts.
> Obama frantic for votes is claiming that 'Mitt
> was born with a silver spoon'. Laughing Mitt
> quipped: Obama was born with a Cocker
> Spaniel's bone in his mouth.
How many Obama jokes are there? Three. The rest are facts.
trotsky
Apr 25, 2012, 7:39:12 AM4/25/12
to
linuxgal
Apr 25, 2012, 11:04:29 PM4/25/12
to
One hundred people who don't do dick.
Sid9
Apr 25, 2012, 11:43:45 PM4/25/12
to
"linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
news:1NWdnburHOdQJgXS...@giganews.com...
Our Republican controlled congress that doesn't do dick.
They're even failing at denying President Obama a second term!
Message has been deleted
trotsky
Apr 26, 2012, 8:02:27 AM4/26/12
to
cloud dreamer
Apr 26, 2012, 8:03:55 AM4/26/12
to
On 26/04/2012 2:00 AM, Yoor...@Jurgis.net wrote:
Dick Cheney's daughter's best friends.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
> On Wed, 25 Apr 2012 20:04:29 -0700, linuxgal<linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>> What do you call 50 liberal politicians and 50 lesbians in the same room?
>
> Romney's family?
> wrote:
>
>> What do you call 50 liberal politicians and 50 lesbians in the same room?
>
Dick Cheney's daughter's best friends.
..
--
We must change the way we live
Or the climate will do it for us
Message has been deleted
RichA
Apr 26, 2012, 10:56:48 AM4/26/12
to
On Apr 25, 11:43 pm, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
It's a pretty clear choice for Obama's supporters. Support Obama, he
keeps the welfare gravy-train going. Vote for Romney, you might
actually have to find a job after 150 weeks on UI or years on welfare.
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
keeps the welfare gravy-train going. Vote for Romney, you might
actually have to find a job after 150 weeks on UI or years on welfare.
linuxgal
Apr 27, 2012, 10:05:29 AM4/27/12
to
libs. To me, it's a job well done.
Sid9
Apr 27, 2012, 10:10:58 AM4/27/12
to
news:p4ednaG1l6-kNQfS...@giganews.com...
.
.
More stupid labels.
There is no "Socialism" on Obamacare.
.
More stupid labels.
There is no "Socialism" on Obamacare.
jane
Apr 27, 2012, 10:34:28 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 10:10 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
You are right; socialized insurance was the goal but it didn't
happen. The law is far worse; it is the subjugation of US citizens.
> "linuxgal" <linux...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
happen. The law is far worse; it is the subjugation of US citizens.
jane
Apr 27, 2012, 10:38:39 AM4/27/12
to
not write an article for the Harvard Law Review, Obama has authored
his first book, "101 ways to wok your dog"
wy
Apr 27, 2012, 10:41:52 AM4/27/12
to
talking about. I guess it's not as easy as you delude yourself into
believing it is, huh?
Sid9
Apr 27, 2012, 11:04:26 AM4/27/12
to
"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:09ae43e6-9657-497d...@f27g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
.
Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
After they got what they wanted they still refused to vote for it.
Two better plans had been offered, Medicare for all or a single payer
system...they could NOT get through the Republican filibuster controlled
Senate.
So we got Romneycare, not the best, but something.
jane
Apr 27, 2012, 11:06:33 AM4/27/12
to
On Apr 27, 11:04 am, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
That is the socialized insurance that I was referring to that the
democrats wanted.
> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
democrats wanted.
jane
Apr 27, 2012, 11:18:54 AM4/27/12
to
someone who does not have the mathematical building blocks[1] is worse
than trying to argue with a drunkard.
The median household income in 2007 was $50,233[2][3] with a standard
error of $140. If you remove all of the income of those making
$1,000,000 and above, you will lower the median household income by
only $160, only $20 greater than the standard error of $140.
citations:
1. "Earnings of the wealthy always throw a huge skewed imbalance in
mean or median or average or anything you want to call it
earnings,..." Wy Apr 26, 2012, 12:41 pm
2. U.S. Census Bureau, Current Population Survey, 2008 Annual Social
and Economic Supplement.
3. IRS.gov - historical statistics
cloud dreamer
Apr 27, 2012, 11:28:18 AM4/27/12
to
cloud dreamer
Apr 27, 2012, 11:33:03 AM4/27/12
to
Oh wait...you'd rather have millions not covered even though they can
afford it....and you'd rather have paper pushers tell you that you can't
get coverage for your leukemia because it's a "pre-existing condition."
It's obvious what's evil here.
Health care for profit is obscene.
Sid9
Apr 27, 2012, 11:49:45 AM4/27/12
to
news:40333110-ea5e-4fba...@n19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
A good idea!
A good idea that prevent the siphoning off of health care resources to
insurance companies that provide NO health care.
Most modern nations have government sponsored health care systems...we lag
50 or more years behind.
Slapping your "socialized" label on anything you don't like is simply a knee
jerk reaction....unless..... you're in the health insurance business...then
it's rational behavior.
A good idea that prevent the siphoning off of health care resources to
insurance companies that provide NO health care.
Most modern nations have government sponsored health care systems...we lag
50 or more years behind.
Slapping your "socialized" label on anything you don't like is simply a knee
jerk reaction....unless..... you're in the health insurance business...then
it's rational behavior.
cloud dreamer
Apr 27, 2012, 1:07:05 PM4/27/12
to
grasp on what they think they're talking about.
Mason Barge
Apr 27, 2012, 1:18:35 PM4/27/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 07:38:39 -0700 (PDT), jane <jane....@gmail.com>
wrote:
I didn't know that.
But it isn't so terribly unusual. Often, whether a student article is
published in a law review has to do with factors outside the student's
control. Some new law or case will pop up that makes the question or case
he chose to write about (or was assigned) no longer important.
You can easily have a better-researched and better-written student article
or case note thrown in the trash, while one that is actually not as
well-written/researched is published.
wrote:
But it isn't so terribly unusual. Often, whether a student article is
published in a law review has to do with factors outside the student's
control. Some new law or case will pop up that makes the question or case
he chose to write about (or was assigned) no longer important.
You can easily have a better-researched and better-written student article
or case note thrown in the trash, while one that is actually not as
well-written/researched is published.
trotsky
Apr 27, 2012, 1:55:03 PM4/27/12
to
trotsky
Apr 27, 2012, 2:02:42 PM4/27/12
to
BTR1701
Apr 27, 2012, 7:50:59 PM4/27/12
to
In article <jnechu$tk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
wrote:
> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
Yes, because otherwise it would have been absolutely perfect, just like
everything else the government does.
wrote:
> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
everything else the government does.
linuxgal
Apr 27, 2012, 8:27:34 PM4/27/12
to
compassion of the IRS and the discretion of the TSA.
linuxgal
Apr 27, 2012, 8:38:59 PM4/27/12
to
fearsome predators on the savanna despite having no predator tooth or
claw. Your herd planet may be nice and fuzzy, but my fellow
predator-monkeys think you're all just a bunch of slackers.
Sid9
Apr 27, 2012, 11:36:59 PM4/27/12
to
news:noCdnRQ0poKbpwbS...@giganews.com...
Ooooo....St Reagan has arisen from his grave!
John Baker
Apr 28, 2012, 2:54:27 AM4/28/12
to
On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:38:59 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:
>trotsky wrote:
>> On 4/27/12 9:05 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apparently Republican obstructionism has eluded you.
>>>
>>> Yeah, standing in the way of socialized medicine is "obstructionism" to
>>> libs. To me, it's a job well done.
>>
>> What planet did you say you were from?
>
>The one where the monkeys came down from the trees and became the most
>fearsome predators on the savanna despite having no predator tooth or
>claw.
Let's put you back on that savannah naked and unarmed and see how
"fearsome" you really are. Somehow I don't think that pride of lions
lounging under that tree over there are going to be very impressed
with you. <G>
>Your herd planet may be nice and fuzzy, but my fellow
>predator-monkeys think you're all just a bunch of slackers.
The monkey may derive much amusement from taunting the leopard - until
its jaws close around his throat.
wrote:
>trotsky wrote:
>> On 4/27/12 9:05 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apparently Republican obstructionism has eluded you.
>>>
>>> Yeah, standing in the way of socialized medicine is "obstructionism" to
>>> libs. To me, it's a job well done.
>>
>> What planet did you say you were from?
>
>The one where the monkeys came down from the trees and became the most
>fearsome predators on the savanna despite having no predator tooth or
>claw.
"fearsome" you really are. Somehow I don't think that pride of lions
lounging under that tree over there are going to be very impressed
with you. <G>
>Your herd planet may be nice and fuzzy, but my fellow
>predator-monkeys think you're all just a bunch of slackers.
its jaws close around his throat.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 8:47:52 AM4/28/12
to
John Baker wrote:
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:38:59 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>> trotsky wrote:
>>> On 4/27/12 9:05 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>>> Apparently Republican obstructionism has eluded you.
>>>> Yeah, standing in the way of socialized medicine is "obstructionism" to
>>>> libs. To me, it's a job well done.
>>> What planet did you say you were from?
>> The one where the monkeys came down from the trees and became the most
>> fearsome predators on the savanna despite having no predator tooth or
>> claw.
>
> Let's put you back on that savannah naked and unarmed and see how
> "fearsome" you really are. Somehow I don't think that pride of lions
> lounging under that tree over there are going to be very impressed
> with you. <G>
Well, see, that was the trick. We came down with sharp sticks and
> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:38:59 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote:
>
>> trotsky wrote:
>>> On 4/27/12 9:05 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>>> Apparently Republican obstructionism has eluded you.
>>>> Yeah, standing in the way of socialized medicine is "obstructionism" to
>>>> libs. To me, it's a job well done.
>>> What planet did you say you were from?
>> The one where the monkeys came down from the trees and became the most
>> fearsome predators on the savanna despite having no predator tooth or
>> claw.
>
> Let's put you back on that savannah naked and unarmed and see how
> "fearsome" you really are. Somehow I don't think that pride of lions
> lounging under that tree over there are going to be very impressed
> with you. <G>
loincloths. And losing most of our fur, we developed a very efficient
way to remain cool in the heat of the African day. The critters we
dubbed "Dinner" didn't have a chance.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 9:30:35 AM4/28/12
to
Free Lunch
Apr 28, 2012, 10:03:07 AM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 06:30:35 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
Fine for you, but he started the war on knowledge that the GOP has
embraced. That is why he would be considered a radical lefty by the GOP
today.
wrote in alt.atheism:
embraced. That is why he would be considered a radical lefty by the GOP
today.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 10:09:48 AM4/28/12
to
another one in Iran, plus a battleship to Lebanon, but it was a
remarkably peaceful time.
Free Lunch
Apr 28, 2012, 10:20:17 AM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 07:09:48 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
reactionaries get to invent their 'facts' on the fly.
> Reagan had a little dustup in Grenada,
How much did the medals cost for that joke? The Pentagon should have
been embarrassed and the generals who were handing out medals to all and
sundry should have been canned.
> another one in Libya,
>another one in Iran, plus a battleship to Lebanon,
To bring our marines out of Beruit after the barracks bombing because
Reagan was willing to cut and run.
>but it was a remarkably peaceful time.
Which is why he could get away with telling people nonsense and getting
them to believe it. Reagan's anti-government nonsense really hurt our
country, particularly the military.
wrote in alt.atheism:
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 06:30:35 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> Sid9 wrote:
>>>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:noCdnRQ0poKbpwbS...@giganews.com...
>>>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <jnechu$tk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
>>>>>> Yes, because otherwise it would have been absolutely perfect, just
>>>>>> like everything else the government does.
>>>>> Obamacare combines the efficiency of the postal service with the
>>>>> compassion of the IRS and the discretion of the TSA.
>>>> Ooooo....St Reagan has arisen from his grave!
>>> I served in the Gipper's Navy. Loved the guy.
>>
>> Fine for you, but he started the war on knowledge that the GOP has
>> embraced. That is why he would be considered a radical lefty by the GOP
>> today.
>
>What war?
The "War on Knowledge" -- the idea that facts are nasty things and that
>Free Lunch wrote:
>> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 06:30:35 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>> wrote in alt.atheism:
>>
>>> Sid9 wrote:
>>>> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:noCdnRQ0poKbpwbS...@giganews.com...
>>>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>> In article <jnechu$tk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
>>>>>> Yes, because otherwise it would have been absolutely perfect, just
>>>>>> like everything else the government does.
>>>>> Obamacare combines the efficiency of the postal service with the
>>>>> compassion of the IRS and the discretion of the TSA.
>>>> Ooooo....St Reagan has arisen from his grave!
>>> I served in the Gipper's Navy. Loved the guy.
>>
>> Fine for you, but he started the war on knowledge that the GOP has
>> embraced. That is why he would be considered a radical lefty by the GOP
>> today.
>
>What war?
reactionaries get to invent their 'facts' on the fly.
> Reagan had a little dustup in Grenada,
been embarrassed and the generals who were handing out medals to all and
sundry should have been canned.
> another one in Libya,
>another one in Iran, plus a battleship to Lebanon,
Reagan was willing to cut and run.
>but it was a remarkably peaceful time.
them to believe it. Reagan's anti-government nonsense really hurt our
country, particularly the military.
John Baker
Apr 28, 2012, 11:28:45 AM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:03:07 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
I don't quite get how anyone who's *anti*-knowledge could be
considered a "lefty."
wrote:
considered a "lefty."
BTR1701
Apr 28, 2012, 12:06:04 PM4/28/12
to
John Baker wrote:
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:38:59 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> trotsky wrote:
> >>> On 4/27/12 9:05 AM, linuxgal wrote:
> >>>> trotsky wrote:
> >>>>> Apparently Republican obstructionism has eluded you.
> >>>> Yeah, standing in the way of socialized medicine is "obstructionism" to
> >>>> libs. To me, it's a job well done.
> >>> What planet did you say you were from?
> >> The one where the monkeys came down from the trees and became the most
> >> fearsome predators on the savanna despite having no predator tooth or
> >> claw.
> >
> > Let's put you back on that savannah naked and unarmed and see how
> > "fearsome" you really are. Somehow I don't think that pride of lions
> > lounging under that tree over there are going to be very impressed
> > with you. <G>
Well, that wouldn't be very fair. Why deprive only one of us of what
> > On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:38:59 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> trotsky wrote:
> >>> On 4/27/12 9:05 AM, linuxgal wrote:
> >>>> trotsky wrote:
> >>>>> Apparently Republican obstructionism has eluded you.
> >>>> Yeah, standing in the way of socialized medicine is "obstructionism" to
> >>>> libs. To me, it's a job well done.
> >>> What planet did you say you were from?
> >> The one where the monkeys came down from the trees and became the most
> >> fearsome predators on the savanna despite having no predator tooth or
> >> claw.
> >
> > Let's put you back on that savannah naked and unarmed and see how
> > "fearsome" you really are. Somehow I don't think that pride of lions
> > lounging under that tree over there are going to be very impressed
> > with you. <G>
evolution has bestowed on us? You're going to take away the tools that
my species has evolved to benefit itself, but you're going to leave the
lions with their teeth and claws. If you want a fair test, you'd have to
defang and declaw the lions as well.
Message has been deleted
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 12:38:01 PM4/28/12
to
> wrote:
>
>>> Ooooo....St Reagan has arisen from his grave!
>> I served in the Gipper's Navy. Loved the guy.
>
> Not surprising
>
>>> Ooooo....St Reagan has arisen from his grave!
>> I served in the Gipper's Navy. Loved the guy.
>
>
> A drooling moron, a liar, Perjurer (real one), greedy asshole,
> self-serving egotist, and ran "the most criminal administration in
> history"
>
Well, that explains Obama's attempts to depict himself as the second
coming of Reagan.
Dano
Apr 28, 2012, 12:48:13 PM4/28/12
to
"linuxgal" wrote in message
news:4tSdnSL_v9fkgAHS...@giganews.com...
===========================================
When and where did he do that you loon?
news:4tSdnSL_v9fkgAHS...@giganews.com...
When and where did he do that you loon?
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 12:56:54 PM4/28/12
to
pushing for the same concept. He gave a speech where he talked about a
letter he had received from a wealthy executive who paid lower tax rates
than his secretary, and wanted to come to Washington and tell Congress
why that was wrong. So this president gave another speech where he said
it was “crazy”—that’s a quote—that certain tax loopholes make it
possible for multimillionaires to pay nothing, while a bus driver was
paying 10 percent of his salary. That wild-eyed, socialist, tax-hiking
class warrior was Ronald Reagan. He thought that, in America, the
wealthiest should pay their fair share, and he said so. I know that
position might disqualify him from the Republican primaries these days,
but what Ronald Reagan was calling for then is the same thing that we’re
calling for now: a return to basic fairness and responsibility;
everybody doing their part. And if it will help convince folks in
Congress to make the right choice, we could call it the Reagan Rule
instead of the Buffett Rule." -- Barack Obama
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2012/04/shameless-liar-obama-compares-himself-to-reagan-video/
For the record, Reagan was the Great Communicator. Obama is the Great
Fabricator.
Sid9
Apr 28, 2012, 1:10:30 PM4/28/12
to
news:4tSdnSL_v9fkgAHS...@giganews.com...
Stop the mushrooms...you are hallucinating
Sid9
Apr 28, 2012, 1:11:24 PM4/28/12
to
news:FuadnQsggYZ0vAHS...@giganews.com...
Republican St Reagan....The Acting President!
BTR1701
Apr 28, 2012, 1:33:06 PM4/28/12
to
In article <4tSdnSL_v9fkgAHS...@giganews.com>,
Yeah, it's curious that he does that given any opportunity, isn't it?
Instead of reaching back into history and comparing himself to notable
Democrats like Kennedy or even Clinton, he constantly compares himself
to Republicans like Reagan and Lincoln.
Instead of reaching back into history and comparing himself to notable
Democrats like Kennedy or even Clinton, he constantly compares himself
to Republicans like Reagan and Lincoln.
John Baker
Apr 28, 2012, 1:53:55 PM4/28/12
to
both you and the lion start out with exactly what evolution has given
you. No more, no less. If you want a weapon, the rules don't prohibit
you from using the brain and hands evolution *did* give you to make
your own, just as our early ancestors did.
For now, until you can find something suitable to make a weapon from,
just quietly move away. If the lions aren't hungry, they won't chase
you. I make no guarantees regarding the leopard watching you from the
nearby acacia tree, however.... <G>
Dano
Apr 28, 2012, 2:01:27 PM4/28/12
to
"linuxgal" wrote in message
news:FuadnQsggYZ0vAHS...@giganews.com...
==============================================
WHO is fabricating? Just because he points out an area of agreement with a
guy YOU nutjobs have elevated to the level of a deity...in spite of rather
obvious differences with HIS policies that you can't even admit to...doesn't
mean Obama is shaping himself as the "second coming" of a man he differed
with in so many meaningful ways. In fact. If you AGREE with Reagan's tax
policies than it is YOU who should be a fan of Obama since you seem to be
claiming Obama has embraced Reagan so mightily. Do you now wish to say you
hate Reagan as you so obviously do Obama?
Words are tricky things. They actually have meanings. Learn a lesson from
that.
news:FuadnQsggYZ0vAHS...@giganews.com...
WHO is fabricating? Just because he points out an area of agreement with a
guy YOU nutjobs have elevated to the level of a deity...in spite of rather
obvious differences with HIS policies that you can't even admit to...doesn't
mean Obama is shaping himself as the "second coming" of a man he differed
with in so many meaningful ways. In fact. If you AGREE with Reagan's tax
policies than it is YOU who should be a fan of Obama since you seem to be
claiming Obama has embraced Reagan so mightily. Do you now wish to say you
hate Reagan as you so obviously do Obama?
Words are tricky things. They actually have meanings. Learn a lesson from
that.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 2:27:16 PM4/28/12
to
BTR1701 wrote:
>
> Yeah, it's curious that he does that given any opportunity, isn't it?
> Instead of reaching back into history and comparing himself to notable
> Democrats like Kennedy or even Clinton, he constantly compares himself
> to Republicans like Reagan and Lincoln.
Because Democrats like Kennedy and Clinton were world-class philanderers.
>
> Yeah, it's curious that he does that given any opportunity, isn't it?
> Instead of reaching back into history and comparing himself to notable
> Democrats like Kennedy or even Clinton, he constantly compares himself
> to Republicans like Reagan and Lincoln.
Sid9
Apr 28, 2012, 2:39:12 PM4/28/12
to
news:v4WdnTAN2pGLqgHS...@giganews.com...
.
.
.
Neither harmed America the way Republicans St Reagan and bush,jr did.
Republican scandal mongers did far more damage to America
.
.
Neither harmed America the way Republicans St Reagan and bush,jr did.
Republican scandal mongers did far more damage to America
John Baker
Apr 28, 2012, 2:42:27 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 05:47:52 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:
>John Baker wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:38:59 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/12 9:05 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>>>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>>>> Apparently Republican obstructionism has eluded you.
>>>>> Yeah, standing in the way of socialized medicine is "obstructionism" to
>>>>> libs. To me, it's a job well done.
>>>> What planet did you say you were from?
>>> The one where the monkeys came down from the trees and became the most
>>> fearsome predators on the savanna despite having no predator tooth or
>>> claw.
>>
>> Let's put you back on that savannah naked and unarmed and see how
>> "fearsome" you really are. Somehow I don't think that pride of lions
>> lounging under that tree over there are going to be very impressed
>> with you. <G>
>
>Well, see, that was the trick. We came down with sharp sticks and
>loincloths.
Pointed sticks are good for hunting herbivores, but we survived
alongside lions and leopards by avoiding them and by out-competing
them for the available prey, not by fighting them. It wasn't until
some bright boy (or girl) figured out how to use another stick and a
bit of twisted bark or sinew to launch that pointed stick a fair
distance with passable accuracy that we could really compete for top
position.
Point being that when we're put on a truly equal footing with the
*real* predators, armed with nothing more than evolution gave us, mama
leopard is going to be dragging our flea-bitten carcass home to feed
the kids.
>And losing most of our fur, we developed a very efficient
>way to remain cool in the heat of the African day.
Actually, though there is some variation, with some individuals (and
some subgroups) being more or less hairy than others, modern humans in
general still have as much body hair as chimps. It's just shorter and
finer.
>The critters we
>dubbed "Dinner" didn't have a chance.
Once a gazelle, a zebra or an eland decides to run, the man never
lived who could catch it, pointed stick or no pointed stick. And
elephants and rhinos? All the pointed sticks you can carry aren't
going to make that an easy kill.
The whole purpose of this is to make the point that while the
invention of tools and weapons did give our ancestors a survival
advantage, it didn't automatically make them the biggest badasses on
the planet. Even with tools and weapons, our early ancestors were
doomed to a difficult and usually short life. Had they not been social
animals capable of working together for the common good - a "herd", as
you so disparagingly put it - the human race today might very well
still be confined to central Africa, hunting game with wooden spears
and rocks.
It's that capacity for cooperation, for working together to achieve an
end, that made us successful, not pointed sticks and loincloths.
wrote:
>John Baker wrote:
>> On Fri, 27 Apr 2012 17:38:59 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>> On 4/27/12 9:05 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>>>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>>>> Apparently Republican obstructionism has eluded you.
>>>>> Yeah, standing in the way of socialized medicine is "obstructionism" to
>>>>> libs. To me, it's a job well done.
>>>> What planet did you say you were from?
>>> The one where the monkeys came down from the trees and became the most
>>> fearsome predators on the savanna despite having no predator tooth or
>>> claw.
>>
>> Let's put you back on that savannah naked and unarmed and see how
>> "fearsome" you really are. Somehow I don't think that pride of lions
>> lounging under that tree over there are going to be very impressed
>> with you. <G>
>
>Well, see, that was the trick. We came down with sharp sticks and
>loincloths.
alongside lions and leopards by avoiding them and by out-competing
them for the available prey, not by fighting them. It wasn't until
some bright boy (or girl) figured out how to use another stick and a
bit of twisted bark or sinew to launch that pointed stick a fair
distance with passable accuracy that we could really compete for top
position.
Point being that when we're put on a truly equal footing with the
*real* predators, armed with nothing more than evolution gave us, mama
leopard is going to be dragging our flea-bitten carcass home to feed
the kids.
>And losing most of our fur, we developed a very efficient
>way to remain cool in the heat of the African day.
some subgroups) being more or less hairy than others, modern humans in
general still have as much body hair as chimps. It's just shorter and
finer.
>The critters we
>dubbed "Dinner" didn't have a chance.
lived who could catch it, pointed stick or no pointed stick. And
elephants and rhinos? All the pointed sticks you can carry aren't
going to make that an easy kill.
The whole purpose of this is to make the point that while the
invention of tools and weapons did give our ancestors a survival
advantage, it didn't automatically make them the biggest badasses on
the planet. Even with tools and weapons, our early ancestors were
doomed to a difficult and usually short life. Had they not been social
animals capable of working together for the common good - a "herd", as
you so disparagingly put it - the human race today might very well
still be confined to central Africa, hunting game with wooden spears
and rocks.
It's that capacity for cooperation, for working together to achieve an
end, that made us successful, not pointed sticks and loincloths.
BTR1701
Apr 28, 2012, 3:07:19 PM4/28/12
to
In article <jnhdgl$4lf$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
wrote:
And yes, as noted, Obama will compare himself to Republicans over
Democrats when he sees an opportunity to do so.
wrote:
Democrats when he sees an opportunity to do so.
BTR1701
Apr 28, 2012, 3:11:02 PM4/28/12
to
In article <aj9op7psngukvl1ac...@4ax.com>,
Because evolution gave us the ability to do so. Otherwise the lions
would be inventing guns and swords as well.
> The rules are that both you and the lion start out with exactly what
> evolution has given you.
Nope. Your scenario deprives me of the benefits that evolution has
bestowed upon me. I have the evolved ability to make and use weapons but
your scenario says I can't use that advantage.
> If you want a weapon, the rules don't prohibit you from using the brain
> and hands evolution *did* give you to make your own, just as our early
> ancestors did.
Okay. I'll machine-tool a nice rifle, fabricate some rounds, and then we
can have our little competition.
would be inventing guns and swords as well.
> The rules are that both you and the lion start out with exactly what
> evolution has given you.
bestowed upon me. I have the evolved ability to make and use weapons but
your scenario says I can't use that advantage.
> If you want a weapon, the rules don't prohibit you from using the brain
> and hands evolution *did* give you to make your own, just as our early
> ancestors did.
can have our little competition.
BTR1701
Apr 28, 2012, 3:16:43 PM4/28/12
to
In article <ab3op7th6627ufu2l...@4ax.com>,
who invented the first weapons and cutting it off there so you can be
correct about humans not being 'the biggest badasses on the planet'.
Subsequent weapons inventions have indeed made humans 'the biggest
badasses on the planet'. There's not a lion, tiger, bear or shark that
can stand up to a mini-gun. And that's just addressing individual
man-on-beast encounters. We have the ability to wipe them (and
ourselves) out en masse on a global scale in the space of an afternoon.
John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> The whole purpose of this is to make the point that while the
> invention of tools and weapons did give our ancestors a survival
> advantage, it didn't automatically make them the biggest badasses on
> the planet.
No, but you're purposely limiting the discussion just to those ancestors
> The whole purpose of this is to make the point that while the
> invention of tools and weapons did give our ancestors a survival
> advantage, it didn't automatically make them the biggest badasses on
> the planet.
who invented the first weapons and cutting it off there so you can be
correct about humans not being 'the biggest badasses on the planet'.
Subsequent weapons inventions have indeed made humans 'the biggest
badasses on the planet'. There's not a lion, tiger, bear or shark that
can stand up to a mini-gun. And that's just addressing individual
man-on-beast encounters. We have the ability to wipe them (and
ourselves) out en masse on a global scale in the space of an afternoon.
John Baker
Apr 28, 2012, 3:27:06 PM4/28/12
to
shoo-in for the gold.
>
>> The rules are that both you and the lion start out with exactly what
>> evolution has given you.
>
>Nope. Your scenario deprives me of the benefits that evolution has
>bestowed upon me. I have the evolved ability to make and use weapons but
>your scenario says I can't use that advantage.
>
>> If you want a weapon, the rules don't prohibit you from using the brain
>> and hands evolution *did* give you to make your own, just as our early
>> ancestors did.
>
>Okay. I'll machine-tool a nice rifle, fabricate some rounds, and then we
>can have our little competition.
skills to use it, knock yourself out.
Of course, you'll also need to find brass, primers, bullets, powder
and a loading press. <G>
John Baker
Apr 28, 2012, 3:30:30 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:16:43 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>In article <ab3op7th6627ufu2l...@4ax.com>,
> John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>
>> The whole purpose of this is to make the point that while the
>> invention of tools and weapons did give our ancestors a survival
>> advantage, it didn't automatically make them the biggest badasses on
>> the planet.
>
>No, but you're purposely limiting the discussion just to those ancestors
>who invented the first weapons and cutting it off there so you can be
>correct about humans not being 'the biggest badasses on the planet'.
I'm limiting it to that because that's what linuxgal was talking
>In article <ab3op7th6627ufu2l...@4ax.com>,
> John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
>
>> The whole purpose of this is to make the point that while the
>> invention of tools and weapons did give our ancestors a survival
>> advantage, it didn't automatically make them the biggest badasses on
>> the planet.
>
>No, but you're purposely limiting the discussion just to those ancestors
>who invented the first weapons and cutting it off there so you can be
>correct about humans not being 'the biggest badasses on the planet'.
about. Do try to keep up.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 3:43:49 PM4/28/12
to
John Baker wrote:
>
> Once a gazelle, a zebra or an eland decides to run, the man never
> lived who could catch it, pointed stick or no pointed stick.
They could do short bursts of speed, but human beings are marathon
>
> Once a gazelle, a zebra or an eland decides to run, the man never
> lived who could catch it, pointed stick or no pointed stick.
runners with the most efficient cooling system in the animal kingdom.
Those big butts we have are part of the adaption for running, no other
primate has them. A hunter picked one gazelle out of the herd and kept
after it no matter where it went. He couldn't be bargained with, he
couldn't be reasoned with, and he absolutely would not stop until heat
exhaustion brought the animal down, and the hunter used his sharp stick
to kill it, then walked the 20 miles home to camp by sundown dragging
dinner behind him.
Free Lunch
Apr 28, 2012, 4:28:23 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:28:45 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote
in alt.atheism:
Ronald Reagan was not a lefty, but the Republican Party has become so
reactionary that it even thinks that people like Reagan are lefties.
in alt.atheism:
reactionary that it even thinks that people like Reagan are lefties.
Free Lunch
Apr 28, 2012, 4:31:49 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:07:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
alt.atheism:
He understands that he needs to get votes from the moderately
conservative center. The "Reagan Democrats" and their descendants are
still scared of "socialism" even though they have no idea what it is.
Obama plays the game better than Mitt Romney who has spent so much time
pandering to the reactionaries on the right of the Republican Party that
he has forgotten what a traditional Wall Street Republican looks like.
alt.atheism:
conservative center. The "Reagan Democrats" and their descendants are
still scared of "socialism" even though they have no idea what it is.
Obama plays the game better than Mitt Romney who has spent so much time
pandering to the reactionaries on the right of the Republican Party that
he has forgotten what a traditional Wall Street Republican looks like.
Dano
Apr 28, 2012, 4:40:49 PM4/28/12
to
"linuxgal" wrote in message
news:v4WdnTAN2pGLqgHS...@giganews.com...
==========================================
A more logical conclusion is he is reaching across political lines. I think
he's already very strong with Democrats. Don't you?
In fact. If Republicans were wise...they might reach across those party
lines in much the way your hero Reagan did to get elected in the first
place.
Fortunately for Obama and the Democrats, your side is pushing your own more
moderate members away. Thanks. Keep that up okay?
news:v4WdnTAN2pGLqgHS...@giganews.com...
A more logical conclusion is he is reaching across political lines. I think
he's already very strong with Democrats. Don't you?
In fact. If Republicans were wise...they might reach across those party
lines in much the way your hero Reagan did to get elected in the first
place.
Fortunately for Obama and the Democrats, your side is pushing your own more
moderate members away. Thanks. Keep that up okay?
BTR1701
Apr 28, 2012, 5:01:34 PM4/28/12
to
In article <d8hop7telmea026dl...@4ax.com>,
weapons to see how long it took for the lions to eat him/her.
You bounce back and forth between modern man and early man to suit your
argument. It's rather disingenuous.
John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:16:43 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ab3op7th6627ufu2l...@4ax.com>,
> > John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The whole purpose of this is to make the point that while the
> >> invention of tools and weapons did give our ancestors a survival
> >> advantage, it didn't automatically make them the biggest badasses on
> >> the planet.
> >
> >No, but you're purposely limiting the discussion just to those ancestors
> >who invented the first weapons and cutting it off there so you can be
> >correct about humans not being 'the biggest badasses on the planet'.
>
> I'm limiting it to that because that's what linuxgal was talking
> about. Do try to keep up.
No, you clearly suggested putting linuxgal naked on the savannah with no
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:16:43 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ab3op7th6627ufu2l...@4ax.com>,
> > John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> >
> >> The whole purpose of this is to make the point that while the
> >> invention of tools and weapons did give our ancestors a survival
> >> advantage, it didn't automatically make them the biggest badasses on
> >> the planet.
> >
> >No, but you're purposely limiting the discussion just to those ancestors
> >who invented the first weapons and cutting it off there so you can be
> >correct about humans not being 'the biggest badasses on the planet'.
>
> I'm limiting it to that because that's what linuxgal was talking
> about. Do try to keep up.
weapons to see how long it took for the lions to eat him/her.
You bounce back and forth between modern man and early man to suit your
argument. It's rather disingenuous.
BTR1701
Apr 28, 2012, 5:04:13 PM4/28/12
to
In article <nrgop75m1b0tne977...@4ax.com>,
As will you, if crafting artificial limitations on a scenario so as to
ensure you can win the debate becomes such an event.
> >> If you want a weapon, the rules don't prohibit you from using the brain
> >> and hands evolution *did* give you to make your own, just as our early
> >> ancestors did.
> >
> >Okay. I'll machine-tool a nice rifle, fabricate some rounds, and then we
> >can have our little competition.
>
> If you can find a machine shop on the African savannah, and have the
> skills to use it, knock yourself out.
Ah, more after-the-fact limitations on how I can behave vs. the lions so
as to ensure you won't be wrong. Well done!
> Of course, you'll also need to find brass, primers, bullets, powder
> and a loading press. <G>
Have all of them already.
ensure you can win the debate becomes such an event.
> >> If you want a weapon, the rules don't prohibit you from using the brain
> >> and hands evolution *did* give you to make your own, just as our early
> >> ancestors did.
> >
> >Okay. I'll machine-tool a nice rifle, fabricate some rounds, and then we
> >can have our little competition.
>
> If you can find a machine shop on the African savannah, and have the
> skills to use it, knock yourself out.
as to ensure you won't be wrong. Well done!
> Of course, you'll also need to find brass, primers, bullets, powder
> and a loading press. <G>
BTR1701
Apr 28, 2012, 5:06:54 PM4/28/12
to
In article <dokop75efiav8t0gd...@4ax.com>,
characterize myself as 'scared' of it, I certainly am no fan of it.
The assumption underlying your comment is that there is no rational
opposition to socialism and that anyone who is opposed to it must either
be irrational or just doesn't understand it.
Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us> wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:07:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >In article <jnhdgl$4lf$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> >> news:v4WdnTAN2pGLqgHS...@giganews.com...
> >> > BTR1701 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, it's curious that he does that given any opportunity, isn't it?
> >> >> Instead of reaching back into history and comparing himself to notable
> >> >> Democrats like Kennedy or even Clinton, he constantly compares himself
> >> >> to Republicans like Reagan and Lincoln.
> >> >
> >> > Because Democrats like Kennedy and Clinton were world-class
> >> > philanderers.
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:07:19 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
> alt.atheism:
>
> >In article <jnhdgl$4lf$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
> >wrote:
> >
> >> "linuxgal" <linu...@cleanposts.com> wrote in message
> >> news:v4WdnTAN2pGLqgHS...@giganews.com...
> >> > BTR1701 wrote:
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Yeah, it's curious that he does that given any opportunity, isn't it?
> >> >> Instead of reaching back into history and comparing himself to notable
> >> >> Democrats like Kennedy or even Clinton, he constantly compares himself
> >> >> to Republicans like Reagan and Lincoln.
> >> >
> >> > Because Democrats like Kennedy and Clinton were world-class
> >> > philanderers.
> >> Neither harmed America the way Republicans St Reagan and bush,jr did.
> >>
> >> Republican scandal mongers did far more damage to America
> >
> >And yes, as noted, Obama will compare himself to Republicans over
> >Democrats when he sees an opportunity to do so.
>
> He understands that he needs to get votes from the moderately
> conservative center. The "Reagan Democrats" and their descendants are
> still scared of "socialism" even though they have no idea what it is.
I have a thorough idea of what socialism is and while I wouldn't
> >>
> >> Republican scandal mongers did far more damage to America
> >
> >And yes, as noted, Obama will compare himself to Republicans over
> >Democrats when he sees an opportunity to do so.
>
> He understands that he needs to get votes from the moderately
> conservative center. The "Reagan Democrats" and their descendants are
> still scared of "socialism" even though they have no idea what it is.
characterize myself as 'scared' of it, I certainly am no fan of it.
The assumption underlying your comment is that there is no rational
opposition to socialism and that anyone who is opposed to it must either
be irrational or just doesn't understand it.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 6:01:16 PM4/28/12
to
Free Lunch wrote:
> He understands that he needs to get votes from the moderately
> conservative center. The "Reagan Democrats" and their descendants are
> still scared of "socialism" even though they have no idea what it is.
Liberalism in a nutshell right there. Americans are too stupid to vote
> He understands that he needs to get votes from the moderately
> conservative center. The "Reagan Democrats" and their descendants are
> still scared of "socialism" even though they have no idea what it is.
for their own good.
Message has been deleted
Free Lunch
Apr 28, 2012, 6:49:47 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 14:06:54 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
No, my point is that reactionaries lie when they call every single
government activity "socialism".
government activity "socialism".
Free Lunch
Apr 28, 2012, 6:50:24 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:01:16 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
It's not just Americans who are easily misled.
wrote in alt.atheism:
BTR1701
Apr 28, 2012, 7:27:56 PM4/28/12
to
In article <fvsop7ht4a6hs9cq6...@4ax.com>,
If that was your point, it wasn't reflected in anything you said up to
this point.
this point.
trotsky
Apr 28, 2012, 7:41:33 PM4/28/12
to
On 4/27/12 7:27 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> BTR1701 wrote:
>> In article <jnechu$tk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
> BTR1701 wrote:
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
>>
>> Yes, because otherwise it would have been absolutely perfect, just
>> like everything else the government does.
>
> Obamacare combines the efficiency of the postal service with the
> compassion of the IRS and the discretion of the TSA.
We could compare it to the Repug alternative:
>>
>>> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
>>
>> Yes, because otherwise it would have been absolutely perfect, just
>> like everything else the government does.
>
> Obamacare combines the efficiency of the postal service with the
> compassion of the IRS and the discretion of the TSA.
wait for it
wait for it
crickets chirping
fuck it, I guess they had no ideas in the first place
trotsky
Apr 28, 2012, 7:42:15 PM4/28/12
to
On 4/27/12 7:38 PM, linuxgal wrote:
> trotsky wrote:
>> On 4/27/12 9:05 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apparently Republican obstructionism has eluded you.
>>>
>>> Yeah, standing in the way of socialized medicine is "obstructionism" to
>>> libs. To me, it's a job well done.
>>
>> What planet did you say you were from?
>
> The one where the monkeys came down from the trees and became the most
> fearsome predators on the savanna despite having no predator tooth or
> claw. Your herd planet may be nice and fuzzy, but my fellow
> trotsky wrote:
>> On 4/27/12 9:05 AM, linuxgal wrote:
>>> trotsky wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Apparently Republican obstructionism has eluded you.
>>>
>>> Yeah, standing in the way of socialized medicine is "obstructionism" to
>>> libs. To me, it's a job well done.
>>
>> What planet did you say you were from?
>
> The one where the monkeys came down from the trees and became the most
> fearsome predators on the savanna despite having no predator tooth or
> predator-monkeys think you're all just a bunch of slackers.
If you're claiming that you have sex with monkeys I believe you!
trotsky
Apr 28, 2012, 7:54:54 PM4/28/12
to
trotsky
Apr 28, 2012, 7:56:19 PM4/28/12
to
strawmanned..."
trotsky
Apr 28, 2012, 7:57:52 PM4/28/12
to
He's never met a teabag he didn't like!
trotsky
Apr 28, 2012, 7:58:46 PM4/28/12
to
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 7:59:33 PM4/28/12
to
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 8:00:30 PM4/28/12
to
trotsky wrote:
> On 4/27/12 7:27 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <jnechu$tk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
>>>
>>> Yes, because otherwise it would have been absolutely perfect, just
>>> like everything else the government does.
>>
>> Obamacare combines the efficiency of the postal service with the
>> compassion of the IRS and the discretion of the TSA.
>
>
> We could compare it to the Repug alternative:
> . . .
> On 4/27/12 7:27 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <jnechu$tk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
>>>
>>> Yes, because otherwise it would have been absolutely perfect, just
>>> like everything else the government does.
>>
>> Obamacare combines the efficiency of the postal service with the
>> compassion of the IRS and the discretion of the TSA.
>
>
> We could compare it to the Repug alternative:
> fuck it, I guess they had no ideas in the first place
They don't want to stick their hands in my purse? That sounds like a
great idea.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 8:04:32 PM4/28/12
to
fear that you will.
John Baker
Apr 28, 2012, 8:50:38 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 12:43:49 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:
Now you're just being silly. :-P
wrote:
Free Lunch
Apr 28, 2012, 10:48:18 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:04:32 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
Paul Ryan relies on his voters not understanding that he rejects
Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular wholeheartedly as
he remains an acolyte of the religion-hating Ayn Rand. His voters call
themselves Christian and have been persuaded that he is one too.
Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular wholeheartedly as
he remains an acolyte of the religion-hating Ayn Rand. His voters call
themselves Christian and have been persuaded that he is one too.
Free Lunch
Apr 28, 2012, 10:50:23 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 18:41:33 -0500, trotsky <gms...@email.com> wrote in
alt.atheism:
>On 4/27/12 7:27 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <jnechu$tk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
>>>
>>> Yes, because otherwise it would have been absolutely perfect, just
>>> like everything else the government does.
>>
>> Obamacare combines the efficiency of the postal service with the
>> compassion of the IRS and the discretion of the TSA.
>
>
>We could compare it to the Repug alternative:
The Republicans, in the form of the Heritage Foundation, proposed the
basic law that is now derided as Obamacare by the ever rightward
shifting GOP.
...
I agree that they are just opposed to anything Obama does, no matter how
recently they proposed exactly the same thing.
alt.atheism:
>On 4/27/12 7:27 PM, linuxgal wrote:
>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>> In article <jnechu$tk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
>>>
>>> Yes, because otherwise it would have been absolutely perfect, just
>>> like everything else the government does.
>>
>> Obamacare combines the efficiency of the postal service with the
>> compassion of the IRS and the discretion of the TSA.
>
>
>We could compare it to the Repug alternative:
basic law that is now derided as Obamacare by the ever rightward
shifting GOP.
...
I agree that they are just opposed to anything Obama does, no matter how
recently they proposed exactly the same thing.
Free Lunch
Apr 28, 2012, 10:51:16 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:00:30 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
The GOP plan: The sick should suffer until they run out of money. Then
they can die.
wrote in alt.atheism:
they can die.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 10:52:00 PM4/28/12
to
Free Lunch wrote:
> Paul Ryan relies on his voters not understanding that he rejects
> Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular wholeheartedly as
> he remains an acolyte of the religion-hating Ayn Rand. His voters call
> themselves Christian and have been persuaded that he is one too.
Article VI paragraph 3: "...no religious test shall ever be required as
> Paul Ryan relies on his voters not understanding that he rejects
> Christianity in general and Catholicism in particular wholeheartedly as
> he remains an acolyte of the religion-hating Ayn Rand. His voters call
> themselves Christian and have been persuaded that he is one too.
a qualification to any office or public trust under the United States."
Free Lunch
Apr 28, 2012, 11:07:42 PM4/28/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 19:52:00 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
So lying about your religion is fine.
wrote in alt.atheism:
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 11:06:02 PM4/28/12
to
Free Lunch wrote:
>
> The Republicans, in the form of the Heritage Foundation, proposed the
> basic law that is now derided as Obamacare by the ever rightward
> shifting GOP.
The one that will either be vacated by the Supreme Court, or failing
>
> The Republicans, in the form of the Heritage Foundation, proposed the
> basic law that is now derided as Obamacare by the ever rightward
> shifting GOP.
that, defunded by the GOP House and Senate next January.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 11:12:13 PM4/28/12
to
Message has been deleted
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 11:15:27 PM4/28/12
to
people died of heat exhaustion a few years back, because all the people
that would care for them were on vacation in Greece.
BTR1701
Apr 28, 2012, 11:26:42 PM4/28/12
to
In article <rs-dnZWMa5f-MAHS...@giganews.com>,
That's a prohibition on the government imposing a religious test, not
individual citizens. Citizens are free to vote or not vote for
candidates for whatever reason they like.
individual citizens. Citizens are free to vote or not vote for
candidates for whatever reason they like.
linuxgal
Apr 28, 2012, 11:28:01 PM4/28/12
to
religion on a technicality.
BTR1701
Apr 29, 2012, 12:21:16 AM4/29/12
to
In article <YP6dnQTGWeJOKAHS...@giganews.com>,
The spirit of the Constitution is a restriction on the powers of
government combined with an elevation of the freedom of the individual
citizen. My comment is completely in line with that spirit.
government combined with an elevation of the freedom of the individual
citizen. My comment is completely in line with that spirit.
John Baker
Apr 29, 2012, 5:07:11 AM4/29/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 15:28:23 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:28:45 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote
>in alt.atheism:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:03:07 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 06:30:35 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>>>wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>> news:noCdnRQ0poKbpwbS...@giganews.com...
>>>embraced. That is why he would be considered a radical lefty by the GOP
>>>today.
>>
>>
>>I don't quite get how anyone who's *anti*-knowledge could be
>>considered a "lefty."
>>
>Ronald Reagan was not a lefty, but the Republican Party has become so
>reactionary that it even thinks that people like Reagan are lefties.
I misunderstood your post, then. I took it to mean that Reagan's
anti-knowledge stance was the reason today's "conservatives" would
consider him a lefty.
wrote:
>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 11:28:45 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote
>in alt.atheism:
>
>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 09:03:07 -0500, Free Lunch <lu...@nofreelunch.us>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 06:30:35 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
>>>wrote in alt.atheism:
>>>>> news:noCdnRQ0poKbpwbS...@giganews.com...
>>>>>> BTR1701 wrote:
>>>>>>> In article <jnechu$tk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, because otherwise it would have been absolutely perfect, just
>>>>>>> like everything else the government does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obamacare combines the efficiency of the postal service with the
>>>>>> compassion of the IRS and the discretion of the TSA.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> In article <jnechu$tk$1...@dont-email.me>, "Sid9" <sid9@ bellsouth.net>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Obamacare has flaws because it's all that Republicans would agree to.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, because otherwise it would have been absolutely perfect, just
>>>>>>> like everything else the government does.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Obamacare combines the efficiency of the postal service with the
>>>>>> compassion of the IRS and the discretion of the TSA.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ooooo....St Reagan has arisen from his grave!
>>>>
>>>>I served in the Gipper's Navy. Loved the guy.
>>>
>>>Fine for you, but he started the war on knowledge that the GOP has
>>>>
>>>>I served in the Gipper's Navy. Loved the guy.
>>>
>>>embraced. That is why he would be considered a radical lefty by the GOP
>>>today.
>>
>>
>>I don't quite get how anyone who's *anti*-knowledge could be
>>considered a "lefty."
>>
>Ronald Reagan was not a lefty, but the Republican Party has become so
>reactionary that it even thinks that people like Reagan are lefties.
I misunderstood your post, then. I took it to mean that Reagan's
anti-knowledge stance was the reason today's "conservatives" would
consider him a lefty.
John Baker
Apr 29, 2012, 5:22:00 AM4/29/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 17:04:32 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote:
Free Lunch
Apr 29, 2012, 9:54:39 AM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 05:07:11 -0400, John Baker <nu...@bizniz.net> wrote
He was the enabler. Sure, Nixon pursued the Southern Strategy to
encourage racists to abandon the Democratic Party that they had
traditionally been part of, but Reagan was the one who pandered to
ignorance and the related dishonesty of those who insist that their
wishful thinking (like cutting taxes will magically pay for government
spending) is just as good as actual facts (in this country, tax cuts cut
tax revenue).
encourage racists to abandon the Democratic Party that they had
traditionally been part of, but Reagan was the one who pandered to
ignorance and the related dishonesty of those who insist that their
wishful thinking (like cutting taxes will magically pay for government
spending) is just as good as actual facts (in this country, tax cuts cut
tax revenue).
Free Lunch
Apr 29, 2012, 9:59:06 AM4/29/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:28:01 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
Religious bigotry in the US is a 400 year old tradition.
wrote in alt.atheism:
Free Lunch
Apr 29, 2012, 9:59:37 AM4/29/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 21:21:16 -0700, BTR1701 <atr...@mac.com> wrote in
alt.atheism:
Too bad our citizens choose their freedom to indulge their bigotry.
alt.atheism:
Free Lunch
Apr 29, 2012, 10:01:26 AM4/29/12
to
On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:06:02 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
wrote in alt.atheism:
Abandoning PPACA will cost the federal government more money, but the
reactionary propaganda machine ignores that fact and says otherwise.
wrote in alt.atheism:
reactionary propaganda machine ignores that fact and says otherwise.
linuxgal
Apr 29, 2012, 10:38:31 AM4/29/12
to
Free Lunch wrote:
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:28:01 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
> On Sat, 28 Apr 2012 20:28:01 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
> wrote in alt.atheism:
>
>> So we reject the spirit of the Constitution and ping the man's lack of
>> religion on a technicality.
>
> Religious bigotry in the US is a 400 year old tradition.
Attacking those without religion is the last acceptable form of bigotry
>> religion on a technicality.
>
> Religious bigotry in the US is a 400 year old tradition.
in America.
linuxgal
Apr 29, 2012, 10:39:49 AM4/29/12
to
constitutionality of a federal law.
Message has been deleted
Free Lunch
Apr 29, 2012, 10:58:36 AM4/29/12
to
On Sun, 29 Apr 2012 07:39:49 -0700, linuxgal <linu...@cleanposts.com>
My point was that it is silly to say that the Republicans will defund
PPACA when it will force them to spend more on health care elsewhere.
I'm not persuaded that the commerce clause isn't more than adequate for
this.
PPACA when it will force them to spend more on health care elsewhere.
I'm not persuaded that the commerce clause isn't more than adequate for
this.
linuxgal
Apr 29, 2012, 10:59:16 AM4/29/12
to
Free Lunch wrote:
> I'm not persuaded that the commerce clause isn't more than adequate for
> this.
The commerce clause regulates existing commerce. ObamaCare creates
> I'm not persuaded that the commerce clause isn't more than adequate for
> this.
commerce by fiat.
Dano
Apr 29, 2012, 11:42:59 AM4/29/12
to
"linuxgal" wrote in message
news:X8KdnSE73pFnzwDS...@giganews.com...
==============================================
I don't know about that. I don't think it goes quite that far. But try to
get elected to any high office in the land without appealing to "God
fearing" Americans. Hasn't been done in my recollection. At least in my
adult life. But it hardly rises to ANY definition of bigotry I can accept.
Oddly...I think anti fat bias is pretty broadly accepted. Odd in that this
country has such a ridiculously high number of obese citizens.
news:X8KdnSE73pFnzwDS...@giganews.com...
I don't know about that. I don't think it goes quite that far. But try to
get elected to any high office in the land without appealing to "God
fearing" Americans. Hasn't been done in my recollection. At least in my
adult life. But it hardly rises to ANY definition of bigotry I can accept.
Oddly...I think anti fat bias is pretty broadly accepted. Odd in that this
country has such a ridiculously high number of obese citizens.
Dano
Apr 29, 2012, 11:45:59 AM4/29/12
to
"Free Lunch" wrote in message
news:h9iqp71esdqf09uii...@4ax.com...
=======================================
Always have. I don't know that it's different anywhere else. I suspect
it's a human condition. Only rectified through education and social
pressure. But you CAN legislate sanctions against behavior that acts out
against others. Harder to change underlying, deeply rooted attitudes.
news:h9iqp71esdqf09uii...@4ax.com...
Always have. I don't know that it's different anywhere else. I suspect
it's a human condition. Only rectified through education and social
pressure. But you CAN legislate sanctions against behavior that acts out
against others. Harder to change underlying, deeply rooted attitudes.
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages