U.N. stands on plan to shut down reporters.
JSM
Copenhagen said yesterday he is standing on his decision not to allow
a WND senior reporter to cover the event, which has been described as
a key step in the founding of a one-world government.
http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117858
SMITH29
xxxx
WND started out on the straight and narrow.
I wonder what happened.
29
dilecticon
gb
wrote:
>WND started out on the straight and narrow.
>I wonder what happened.
It decided to pander to Wingnuts.
Curt
> The media coordinator for the United Nations' global warming summit in
> Copenhagen said yesterday he is standing on his decision not to allow
> a WND senior reporter to cover the event, which has been described as
> a key step in the founding of a one-world government.
They're probably only admitting press. Otherwise, imagine the
crowding.
Curt
SMITH29
I'd like to see you qualify that statement.
WND went after the gullible to make money is my estimation.
NumbNuts and NoNuts afa-b Moonbats are an example.
They adore Fart Smell and Dick HoaXland.
> http://www.enterprisemission.com/
They believe in:
Mel's Hole
Face on Mars
Remote viewing
Rods
Y2K
Knight Templar conspiracy.
Illuminati take over of the world
Chupacabra
Visitors
Sasquatch
29
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SMITH29" <smi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:T-SdnUkeM548PofW...@supernews.com...
> gb wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:29:45 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> WND started out on the straight and narrow.
>>> I wonder what happened.
>>
>> It decided to pander to Wingnuts.
> xxxx
> I'd like to see you qualify that statement.
>
> WND went after the gullible to make money is my estimation.
> NumbNuts and NoNuts afa-b Moonbats are an example.
It's mostly rightwads like yourself that read WND. WND makes lefties puke.
SMITH29
You having trouble reading?
>
>>>>> WND started out on the straight and narrow.
>>>>> I wonder what happened.
29
MEG
I just love it when the lefties have no reasonable answer and
certainly no proof or evidence to support their position so they just
ridicule. An answer in itself.
dilecticon
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
> I decided to pander to Wingnuts.
dilecticon
> -
Baxter blurts out a plaintive call for Viagra: "At my age, I don't
need balls. I'm done with the procreation stuff."
Curt
Are you two, like, having a "thing"?
Curt
gb
wrote:
>gb wrote:
>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:29:45 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> WND started out on the straight and narrow.
>>> I wonder what happened.
>>
>> It decided to pander to Wingnuts.
>xxxx
>I'd like to see you qualify that statement.
Read it.
It doesn't pander to The Left, or even to The Middle.
it panders to the Extreme Right, i.e. The Wingnuts.
There's an audience there sufficient to pay off. All that's required.
dilecticon
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
SMITH29
> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 10:17:05 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> gb wrote:
>>> On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 00:29:45 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> WND started out on the straight and narrow.
>>>> I wonder what happened.
>>> It decided to pander to Wingnuts.
>> xxxx
>> I'd like to see you qualify that statement.
>
> Read it.
>
> It doesn't pander to The Left, or even to The Middle.
>
> it panders to the Extreme Right, i.e. The Wingnuts.
>
> There's an audience there sufficient to pay off. All that's required.
The Obama birth certificate thing is a call to the loonies.
You know, the Fart Smell followers like NumbNuts and the NoNuts...
Chucabra
Y2K
Face On Mars
You call them wingnuts?
They sure as heck are not conservative types like me.
29
gb
wrote:
>The Obama birth certificate thing is a call to the loonies.
Tell that to the loonies, many of whom are also WingNuts.
>You call them wingnuts?
I do indeed. And they get Nuttier as the day goes on.
>They sure as heck are not conservative types like me.
Their votes count Precisely the same as yours. Which is why the GOP
types want to ensure their ongoing loyalty.
And the GOP classifies them as WingNuts, though they don't use the
term. Along with your lot.
SMITH29
Conservatives are loony?
What does a loony vote have to do with anything here?
Is a loony a wingnut?
Can you define " wingnut " ?
Is anybody a wingnut if the don't believe as you do?
Fill us in here, Dondi.
29
dilecticon
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
> Tell that to the loonies, many of whom are also WingNuts.
dilecticon
Certain sidehill alert!
Curt
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:49:32 -0800, SMITH29 <smit...@comcast.net>
Remember when Ralph Reed got caught calling his donors "ignorant
hillbillies' or whatever it was, and Jack Abramoff with his Indian
client "troglodytes"..?
And yet the donations just keep comin' in.
Curt
Baxter
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free Software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"SMITH29" <smi...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:366dndwRK9YhaYbW...@supernews.com...
> gb wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 09:49:32 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>
>> And the GOP classifies them as WingNuts, though they don't use the
>> term. Along with your lot.
> xxxx
>
> Conservatives are loony?
All the true Conservatives have left the Repug party - all that's left are
wingnuts.
gb
wrote:
>Conservatives are loony?
Of late, it's more the reverse.
>What does a loony vote have to do with anything here?
Count.
>Is a loony a wingnut?
Ibid, as above.
>Can you define " wingnut " ?
Yes.
>Is anybody a wingnut if the don't believe as you do?
Can be the case. But as I have said betimes previously, I use the
term to denote the Right WingNut extremists -- not the left.
>Fill us in here, Dondi.
Just keep up, and you'll do just fine.
dilecticon
How would you know, not being a member thereof?
You're a rotten little shit baxturd, a real waste of $5 in electrolytes
and carbon.
dilecticon
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> Just keep up, and you'll do just fine.
SMITH29
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 10:15:25 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>> Conservatives are loony?
>
> Of late, it's more the reverse.
>
>> What does a loony vote have to do with anything here?
>
> Count.
>
>> Is a loony a wingnut?
>
> Ibid, as above.
>
>> Can you define " wingnut " ?
>
> Yes.
xxxx
Please do so.....
haiku jones
Heh! Trying to "demonize" WorldNetDaily
would be like trying to parody the
Weekly World News.
You quickly run up against Poe's law.
Haiku Jones
gb
wrote:
>gb wrote:
>>> Can you define " wingnut " ?
>>
>> Yes.
>
>Please do so.....
Gave that a short ponder, and for the general edification and
entertainment of all, we need to make that into a Participation Game
-- sorta like the one on teevee. You know -- You Might Be A Redneck
If....
Keeping in mind that WingNutIsm is not 100% monolithic, in that all
WingNuts don't believe exactly the same things down the line (though
with the GOP Purity Test, that's becoming problematic), still and all
there are some strong indicators that point toward WingNutIsm on any
particular individual.
(It's also worth noting that the observation holds true for other
ideological considerations as well. No one is 100% anything, though
the amUsenet tendency is ever to assert that they are. Not a real
problem, though.)
So -- I'll off one for starters, and others can fill in from there on
their own:
IF:
You believe that President Obama was Really born in Kenya...
You Might Be A Wingnut!
(I presume that the WingNuts will generate their own game in response,
which would be welcome to the overall entertainment package. It is
the amUsenet, after all. Plenty of room for this sort of thing.)
Let thea game begin!!
dilecticon
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> Let thea game begin!!
dilecticon
> On Dec 5, 10:08 am, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> SMITH29 wrote:
>>> JSM wrote:
>>>> The media coordinator for the United Nations' global warming summit in
>>>> Copenhagen said yesterday he is standing on his decision not to allow
>>>> a WND senior reporter to cover the event, which has been described as
>>>> a key step in the founding of a one-world government.
>>>> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117858
>>> xxxx
>>> WND started out on the straight and narrow.
>>> I wonder what happened.
>>> 29
>
>> Demonized by the left, same as Newsmax.
>
> Heh! Trying to "demonize" WorldNetDaily
Yes, you scumsucking spaniel-felcher, DROP DEAD!
haiku jones
> > would be like trying to parody the
> > Weekly World News.
> > You quickly run up against Poe's law.
>
> Yes, you scumsucking spaniel-felcher, DROP DEAD!
Ah, I see we have a copy-editor for WorldNetDaily on the group.
(common sense resetored)
Haiku Jones
dilecticon
> On Dec 7, 11:16 am, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> haiku jones wrote:
>>> On Dec 5, 10:08 am, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> SMITH29 wrote:
>>>>> JSM wrote:
>>>>>> The media coordinator for the United Nations' global warming summit in
>>>>>> Copenhagen said yesterday he is standing on his decision not to allow
>>>>>> a WND senior reporter to cover the event, which has been described as
>>>>>> a key step in the founding of a one-world government.
>>>>>> http://www.wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=117858
>>>>> xxxx
>>>>> WND started out on the straight and narrow.
>>>>> I wonder what happened.
>>>>> 29
>
>>>> Demonized by the left, same as Newsmax.
>
>>> Heh! Trying to "demonize" WorldNetDaily
>>> would be like trying to parody the
>>> Weekly World News.
>
>>> You quickly run up against Poe's law.
>
>> Yes, you scumsucking spaniel-felcher, DROP DEAD!
>
> Ah, I see we
-SNIP-
mr_antone
(Mary Poppins) wrote:
>g...@amusenet.com (gb) chiseled in stone for all posterity to see
><4gdqh550lsfoe9iuh...@4ax.com>:
>
>>You believe that President Obama was Really born in Kenya...
>>
>>You Might Be A Wingnut!
>>
>
>If, you beleive the earth is six thousand years old...
>
>You might be a wingnut!
If you believe President Obama is fascist socialist...
You Might Be A Wingnut!
<newsgroups restored>
--
A Libertarian society is an oxymoron.
mr_antone
dilecticon
> On Mon, 7 Dec 2009 18:29:34 +0000 (UTC), maryp...@perfection.com
> (Mary Poppins) wrote:
>
>> g...@amusenet.com (gb) chiseled in stone for all posterity to see
>> <4gdqh550lsfoe9iuh...@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> You believe that President Obama was Really born in Kenya...
>>>
>>> You Might Be A Wingnut!
>>>
>> If, you beleive the earth is six thousand years old...
>>
>> You might be a wingnut!
>
> If you believe President Obama is fascist socialist...
>
http://www.nationaljournal.com/voteratings/
Obama: Most Liberal Senator In 2007
RELATED STORIES:
By Brian Friel, Richard E. Cohen and Kirk Victor, National Journal
� National Journal Group Inc.
Thursday, Jan. 31, 2008
Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., was the most liberal senator in 2007,
according to National Journal's 27th annual vote ratings. The insurgent
presidential candidate shifted further to the left last year in the
run-up to the primaries, after ranking as the 16th- and
10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate.
Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, D-N.Y., the other front-runner in the
Democratic presidential race, also shifted to the left last year. She
ranked as the 16th-most-liberal senator in the 2007 ratings, a
computer-assisted analysis that used 99 key Senate votes, selected by NJ
reporters and editors, to place every senator on a
liberal-to-conservative scale in each of three issue categories. In
2006, Clinton was the 32nd-most-liberal senator.
In their yearlong race for the Democratic presidential nomination, Obama
and Clinton have had strikingly similar voting records. Of the 267
measures on which both senators cast votes in 2007, the two differed on
only 10. "The policy differences between Clinton and Obama are so slight
they are almost nonexistent to the average voter," said Richard Lau, a
Rutgers University political scientist.
SMITH29
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:30:43 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> gb wrote:
>
>>>> Can you define " wingnut " ?
>>> Yes.
>> Please do so.....
>
> Gave that a short ponder, and for the general edification and
> entertainment of all, we need to make that into a Participation Game
> -- sorta like the one on teevee. You know -- You Might Be A Redneck
> If....
By going side hill I get the feeling that you don't have a definition of
your own for " wingnut " that you want to disclose because your target
audience may disavow the definition as describing them and it probably
would.
Moving on............
Notroll2009
You might be a wingnut if you have a pastor who tells you how to vote.
Stile4aly
> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:30:43 -0800, SMITH29 <smit...@comcast.net>
If you believe WorldNetDaily, Newsmax, or FreeRepublic are good
objective sources, then you might be a wingnut.
If you've ever read Conservapedia for anything other than the lulz,
you might be a wingnut.
If you believe that the government is capable of orchestrating a
byzantine plan and cover up to destroy the World Trade Center, but
that it incapable of regulating the health care industry, you might be
a wingnut.
dilecticon
If you believe the MSM is objective on anything you are barking mad!
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/143lkblo.asp
THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is
over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought
the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53
percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the
Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent
conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be
self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996,
another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61
percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew
Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to
be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.
Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's
politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to
call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the
Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of
self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And
the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1
or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond
dispute.
gb
wrote:
>gb wrote:
>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:30:43 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> gb wrote:
>>
>>>>> Can you define " wingnut " ?
>>>> Yes.
>>> Please do so.....
>>
>> Gave that a short ponder, and for the general edification and
>> entertainment of all, we need to make that into a Participation Game
>> -- sorta like the one on teevee. You know -- You Might Be A Redneck
>> If....
>xxxx
>By going side hill I get the feeling that you don't have a definition of
>your own for " wingnut "
Oh, I do. I just figure this is Much more entertaining than sharing
it. This is the amUsenet. There are no Rules here, after all.
>... that you want to disclose because your target
>audience may disavow the definition as describing them and it probably
>would.
I have no Target Audience. This is a matter fit for some general
merriment, that That's what ought to be shared.
>Moving on............
Always.
Stile4aly
>
> THE ARGUMENT over whether the national press is dominated by liberals is
> over. Since 1962, there have been 11 surveys of the media that sought
> the political views of hundreds of journalists. In 1971, they were 53
> percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In a 1976 survey of the
> Washington press corps, it was 59 percent liberal, 18 percent
> conservative. A 1985 poll of 3,200 reporters found them to be
> self-identified as 55 percent liberal, 17 percent conservative. In 1996,
> another survey of Washington journalists pegged the breakdown as 61
> percent liberal, 9 percent conservative. Now, the new study by the Pew
> Research Center for the People and the Press found the national media to
> be 34 percent liberal and 7 percent conservative.
>
> Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's
> politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to
> call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the
> Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of
> self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And
> the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1
> or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond
>
> - Show quoted text -
Evolution occurs, the earth is 4.5 billion years old, and 9/11 wasn't
a government conspiracy. Reality has a well known liberal bias.
dilecticon
Yup.
> the earth is 4.5 billion years old,
Maybe even older.
> and 9/11 wasn't a government conspiracy.
Whose?
> Reality has a well known liberal bias.
Reality has no bias and liberals have no facts.
dilecticon
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> I have no Target Audience. This is a matter fit for some general
> merriment, that That's what ought to be shared.
You sick fuck.
Bill Shatzer
> Gave that a short ponder, and for the general edification and
> entertainment of all, we need to make that into a Participation Game
> -- sorta like the one on teevee. You know -- You Might Be A Redneck
> If....
>
> Keeping in mind that WingNutIsm is not 100% monolithic, in that all
> WingNuts don't believe exactly the same things down the line (though
> with the GOP Purity Test, that's becoming problematic), still and all
> there are some strong indicators that point toward WingNutIsm on any
> particular individual.
>
> (It's also worth noting that the observation holds true for other
> ideological considerations as well. No one is 100% anything, though
> the amUsenet tendency is ever to assert that they are. Not a real
> problem, though.)
>
> So -- I'll off one for starters, and others can fill in from there on
> their own:
>
> IF:
>
> You believe that President Obama was Really born in Kenya...
>
> You Might Be A Wingnut!
>
> (I presume that the WingNuts will generate their own game in response,
> which would be welcome to the overall entertainment package. It is
> the amUsenet, after all. Plenty of room for this sort of thing.)
> Let thea game begin!!
If you make a habit of telling people what they're thinking you might be
a wingnut. True, you might be a telepath, but in that case, why aren't
you rich?
If you violated Godwin's Law in a discussion on grazing fees on federal
land,
If your political views about the opposition lead you to an obviously
illogical conclusion � such as the Democrats would find Adolf Hitler to
be the ideal candidate � and you accept the obviously illogical
conclusion instead of reconsidering your views,
If you find yourself looking for the hidden meanings in every action of
your political opponents, up to and including bowel movements,
If the personal dictionary of your word processing software includes
obscene variations of the names of the opposing political party and
leaders, you might be a wingnut.
Shamelessly cribbed from:
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2004/04/you_might_be_a_.html
peace and justice,
Bob LeChevalier
>So -- I'll off one for starters, and others can fill in from there on
>their own:
>
>IF:
>
>You believe that President Obama was Really born in Kenya...
>
>You Might Be A Wingnut!
>
>(I presume that the WingNuts will generate their own game in response,
>which would be welcome to the overall entertainment package. It is
>the amUsenet, after all. Plenty of room for this sort of thing.)
>
>Let thea game begin!!
Why not use the posting that started this thread:
If you believe that
"the United Nations' global warming summit in Copenhagen" is
"a key step in the founding of a one-world government" ...
You Might Be A Wingnut!
(Actually if you use "one-world government" in ANY sentence
You Might Be A Wingnut!
)
---
Bob LeChevalier - artificial linguist; genealogist
loj...@lojban.org Lojban language www.lojban.org
dilecticon
> Shamelessly cribbed from:
RETRACT YOUR TREASON:
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Bill Shatzer wrote:
And over 4,000 Americans have paid with their lives for that little
adventure. Plus a half a trillion dollars in national treasure
You might compare that with the number of lives lost on 9-11. Or the
economic injury incurred from that event.
It would have been cheaper in both lives and money to just suffer
another 9-11 every six or seven years.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
An argument might be made that bankers have wracked more damage to this
country than all the terrorists in this century and last.
Peace and justice,
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
dilecticon
> gb <g...@amusenet.com> wrote:
>> So -- I'll off one for starters, and others can fill in from there on
>> their own:
>>
>> IF:
>>
>> You believe that President Obama was Really born in Kenya...
>>
>> You Might Be A Wingnut!
>>
>> (I presume that the WingNuts will generate their own game in response,
>> which would be welcome to the overall entertainment package. It is
>> the amUsenet, after all. Plenty of room for this sort of thing.)
>>
>> Let thea game begin!!
>
>
> Why not use the posting that started this thread:
> If you believe that
> "the United Nations' global warming summit in Copenhagen" is
> "a key step in the founding of a one-world government" ...
>
> You Might Be A Wingnut!
>
> (Actually if you use "one-world government" in ANY sentence
>
> You Might Be A Wingnut!
> )
Why?
You don't believe in the UN?
Bob LeChevalier
>> Why not use the posting that started this thread:
>> If you believe that
>> "the United Nations' global warming summit in Copenhagen" is
>> "a key step in the founding of a one-world government" ...
>>
>> You Might Be A Wingnut!
>>
>> (Actually if you use "one-world government" in ANY sentence
>>
>> You Might Be A Wingnut!
>> )
>
>Why?
>
>You don't believe in the UN?
What is to "believe in"? It exists, whether I believe it or not.
But it isn't any sort of "government". Nor are any number of
conferences that it might sponsor, "steps in the founding of" any sort
of government. It is merely one of many organizations formed by
international treaties between multiple governments. It passes
resolutions, not laws, and it cannot enforce those resolutions.
lojbab
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>> Why not use the posting that started this thread:
>>> If you believe that
>>> "the United Nations' global warming summit in Copenhagen" is
>>> "a key step in the founding of a one-world government" ...
>>>
>>> You Might Be A Wingnut!
>>>
>>> (Actually if you use "one-world government" in ANY sentence
>>>
>>> You Might Be A Wingnut!
>>> )
>> Why?
>>
>> You don't believe in the UN?
>
> What is to "believe in"? It exists, whether I believe it or not.
There's a start, good boy...
> But it isn't any sort of "government".
So why does it do governmental things, like placing troops in foreign
nations?
> Nor are any number of
> conferences that it might sponsor, "steps in the founding of" any sort
> of government.
Isn't that what happens when you usurp local autonomy and place troops?
> It is merely one of many organizations formed by
> international treaties between multiple governments.
To act as one BIG government...
> It passes resolutions, not laws, and it cannot enforce those resolutions.
So why the peacekeeping troops?
ChasNemo
Clave
news:4gdqh550lsfoe9iuh...@4ax.com...
<...>
> IF:
>
> You believe that President Obama was Really born in Kenya...
>
> You Might Be A Wingnut!
If, in the last election cycle, you found yourself repeatedly using the
phrase "in the tank",
You might be a wingnut!
Jim
Clave
news:9CDA94424Maryp...@188.40.43.213...
> d...@lect.edu (dilecticon) chiseled in stone for all posterity to see
> <hfjore
> $mf1$2...@news.eternal-september.org>:
>
>>> If you believe WorldNetDaily, Newsmax, or FreeRepublic are good
>>> objective sources, then
>>
>
> called
> "the main stream media" that controls elections when your sides loses.
If you're offended by the term "teabagger" but insist on saying "Democrat
Party",
dilecticon
> You might be
STFU, satantist dipshit.
dilecticon
COL. BILL KILGORE
"ChasNemo" <chas...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6b91b30b-6b56-47e9...@h2g2000vbd.googlegroups.com...
> You might be a WingNut if....you voted twice for Dubya.
You mean like tomaxo did? <chortle>
ChasNemo
ESAD, Wingnut. <snicker>
LDosser
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:25:59 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>>gb wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:30:43 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> gb wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Can you define " wingnut " ?
>>>>> Yes.
>>>> Please do so.....
>>>
>>> Gave that a short ponder, and for the general edification and
>>> entertainment of all, we need to make that into a Participation Game
>>> -- sorta like the one on teevee. You know -- You Might Be A Redneck
>>> If....
>>xxxx
>>By going side hill I get the feeling that you don't have a definition of
>>your own for " wingnut "
>
> Oh, I do. I just figure this is Much more entertaining
Next year will be ever so much more entertaining.
LDosser
news:hfkgfs$60b$1...@news.eternal-september.org...> You might be a wingnut!
You Are an Asshole. No might be about it.
HTH
Bob LeChevalier
>> But it isn't any sort of "government".
>
>So why does it do governmental things, like placing troops in foreign
>nations?
"It" doesn't. The countries that are members of "it" do so, at their
own discretion, in response to its requests. "It" cannot require any
country to do so.
The same is true of numerous other treaty organizations that have
existed past and present. NATO and SEATO are examples.
>> Nor are any number of
>> conferences that it might sponsor, "steps in the founding of" any sort
>> of government.
>
>Isn't that what happens when you usurp local autonomy and place troops?
What "usurpation" of what "local autonomy"?
>> It is merely one of many organizations formed by
>> international treaties between multiple governments.
>
>To act as one BIG government...
Nope. It has no power to do so.
And if it did have such power, and thus was a government, then it
already has been one for 64 years, and thus is not a "step in the
founding of" such a thing (much less would a conference be such).
>> It passes resolutions, not laws, and it cannot enforce those resolutions.
>
>So why the peacekeeping troops?
Because the countries that send those troops have chosen to support
those resolutions. Most countries do not send troops. And like I
said, NATO sends troops, but no one calls NATO a government.
Best example I can think of is to compare the Korean War and the Iraq
War under Bush I. In both cases, it was a large multinational force,
in which the US supplied the vast majority of the troops, over which
it retained full control. There was a UN resolution that made the
Korean War overtly a UN operation, whereas Iraq was fought by a
"Coalition". But the bottom line, both were effectively the same
thing - the US went to war and some allies helped out. We think, and
teach in the history classes, that *we* fought the Korean War, not
*the UN*. Indeed, we tend to think of WW II more than Korea or Iraq
as an "Allied" effort.
gb
wrote:
>Next year will be ever so much more entertaining.
It always is, idnit?
Don't get Too carried away with your wishful thinking.
dilecticon
> On Dec 7, 11:11�pm, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> ChasNemo wrote:
>>> You might be
>> STFU, satantist dipshit.
>
> E
DIE!
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>> But it isn't any sort of "government".
>> So why does it do governmental things, like placing troops in foreign
>> nations?
>
> "It" doesn't. The countries that are members of "it" do so, at their
> own discretion,
Huh?
There are no UN peacekeeping forces?
You're lying again, klingon.
>>> Nor are any number of
>>> conferences that it might sponsor, "steps in the founding of" any sort
>>> of government.
>> Isn't that what happens when you usurp local autonomy and place troops?
>
> What "usurpation" of what "local autonomy"?
UN troops on foreign soil, duh.
Are you a fucking moron?
>>> It is merely one of many organizations formed by
>>> international treaties between multiple governments.
>> To act as one BIG government...
>
> Nope. It has no power to do so.
Yet still does.
>>> It passes resolutions, not laws, and it cannot enforce those resolutions.
>> So why the peacekeeping troops?
>
> Because the countries that send those troops have chosen to support
> those resolutions.
The "countries" are acting as an arm of the UN golbal government then,
thank you.
dilecticon
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
>
SMITH29
> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:25:59 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> gb wrote:
>>> On Sun, 06 Dec 2009 13:30:43 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> gb wrote:
>>>>>> Can you define " wingnut " ?
>>>>> Yes.
>>>> Please do so.....
>>> Gave that a short ponder, and for the general edification and
>>> entertainment of all, we need to make that into a Participation Game
>>> -- sorta like the one on teevee. You know -- You Might Be A Redneck
>>> If....
>> xxxx
>> By going side hill I get the feeling that you don't have a definition of
>> your own for " wingnut "
>
> Oh, I do. I just figure this is Much more entertaining than sharing
> it. This is the amUsenet. There are no Rules here, after all.
>
I read that as no def from the Dondi.
29
dilecticon
Mmmm hmmm...
Curt
> Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's
> politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to
> call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the
> Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of
> self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And
> the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1
> or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond
> dispute.-
Centrists are dominant. Don't you remember your bell curves from
statistics class?
You're the outlier here.
Curt
Bob LeChevalier
>Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> But it isn't any sort of "government".
>>> So why does it do governmental things, like placing troops in foreign
>>> nations?
>>
>> "It" doesn't. The countries that are members of "it" do so, at their
>> own discretion,
>
>Huh?
>
>There are no UN peacekeeping forces?
Yep. And they are generally identified as Bolivian, or Czech, or
Bangla Deshi (or whatever) troops. They serve according to their
treaty obligations under the UN flag, but they are troops of tehir
country first, and the UN second.
>You're lying again, klingon.
I don't lie, loser.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_peacekeeping
<The United Nations Charter gives the United Nations Security Council
< the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain
< international peace and security. For this reason, the international
< community usually looks to the Security Council to authorize
< peacekeeping operations.
<
<Most of these operations are established and implemented by the United
< Nations itself, with troops serving under UN operational control. In
< these cases, peacekeepers remain members of their respective armed
< forces, and do not constitute an independent "UN army," as the UN
< does not have such a force. In cases where direct UN involvement is
< not considered appropriate or feasible, the Council authorizes
< regional organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
< (NATO), the Economic Community of West African States, or coalitions
< of willing countries to undertake peacekeeping or peace-enforcement
< tasks.
Key phrasing: "peacekeepers remain members of their respective armed
forces, and do not constitute an independent "UN army," as the UN does
not have such a force"
<If the Security Council approves the creation of a mission, then the
< Department of Peacekeeping Operations begins planning for the
< necessary elements. At this point, the senior leadership team is
< selected (see below). The department will then seek contributions
< from member nations. Since the UN has no standing force or supplies,
< it must form ad hoc coalitions for every task undertaken.
"seek contributions", not "require" them. It's all voluntary on the
part of the nations involved, as is their membership in the UN in the
first place.
>>>> Nor are any number of
>>>> conferences that it might sponsor, "steps in the founding of" any sort
>>>> of government.
>>> Isn't that what happens when you usurp local autonomy and place troops?
>>
>> What "usurpation" of what "local autonomy"?
>
>UN troops on foreign soil, duh.
How does that usurp autonomy?
The troops have limited roles that do not include any sort of
governing.
same source:
<Peacekeeping is anything that contributes to the furthering of a peace
< process, once established. This includes, but is not limited to, the
< monitoring of withdrawal by combatants from a former conflict area,
< the supervision of elections, and the provision of reconstruction
< aid. Peacekeepers are often soldiers, but they do not have to be.
< Similarly, while soldier-peacekeepers are sometimes armed, they do
< not have to engage in combat.
<
<Peacekeepers were not at first expected to ever fight. As a general
< rule, they were deployed when the ceasefire was in place and the
< parties to the conflict had given their consent. They were deployed
< to observe from the ground and report impartially on adherence to the
< ceasefire, troop withdrawal or other elements of the peace agreement.
< This gave time and breathing space for diplomatic efforts to address
< the underlying causes of conflict.
>>>> It is merely one of many organizations formed by
>>>> international treaties between multiple governments.
>>> To act as one BIG government...
>>
>> Nope. It has no power to do so.
>
>Yet still does.
Your evidence is lacking, and indeed, nonexistent.
>>>> It passes resolutions, not laws, and it cannot enforce those resolutions.
>>> So why the peacekeeping troops?
>>
>> Because the countries that send those troops have chosen to support
>> those resolutions.
>
>The "countries" are acting as an arm of the UN golbal government then,
>thank you.
No they aren't, since there is no "UN global government".
Meanwhile, all this is irrelevant to the original point, which was my
claim that using the phrase "one-world government" was a trademark
sign of a wingnut. To counter that, you need multiple examples of
people who clearly are NON-wingnuts using that phrase.
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Bob LeChevalier wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>>> But it isn't any sort of "government".
>>>> So why does it do governmental things, like placing troops in foreign
>>>> nations?
>>> "It" doesn't. The countries that are members of "it" do so, at their
>>> own discretion,
>> Huh?
>>
>> There are no UN peacekeeping forces?
>
> Yep. And they are generally identified as
UN, blue helmets and all.
In UN vehicles...
Labled as UN....
>> You're lying again, klingon.
>
> I don't lie, loser.
Sure ya do.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/UN_peacekeeping
> <The United Nations Charter gives the United Nations Security Council
> < the power and responsibility to take collective action to maintain
> < international peace and security. For this reason, the international
> < community usually looks to the Security Council to authorize
> < peacekeeping operations.
> <
> <Most of these operations are established and implemented by the United
> < Nations itself, with troops serving under UN operational control. In
> < these cases, peacekeepers remain members of their respective armed
> < forces, and do not constitute an independent "UN army," as the UN
> < does not have such a force. In cases where direct UN involvement is
> < not considered appropriate or feasible, the Council authorizes
> < regional organizations such as the North Atlantic Treaty Organization
> < (NATO), the Economic Community of West African States, or coalitions
> < of willing countries to undertake peacekeeping or peace-enforcement
> < tasks.
>
> Key phrasing: "peacekeepers remain members of their respective armed
> forces, and do not constitute an independent "UN army," as the UN does
> not have such a force"
So they would like us to believe...a very convenient way to hide an army
says I...
>
> <If the Security Council approves the creation of a mission, then the
> < Department of Peacekeeping Operations begins planning for the
> < necessary elements. At this point, the senior leadership team is
> < selected (see below). The department will then seek contributions
> < from member nations. Since the UN has no standing force or supplies,
> < it must form ad hoc coalitions for every task undertaken.
>
> "seek contributions", not "require" them. It's all voluntary on the
> part of the nations involved, as is their membership in the UN in the
> first place.
Is that why we subsidize the UN so much?
>>>>> Nor are any number of
>>>>> conferences that it might sponsor, "steps in the founding of" any sort
>>>>> of government.
>>>> Isn't that what happens when you usurp local autonomy and place troops?
>>> What "usurpation" of what "local autonomy"?
>> UN troops on foreign soil, duh.
>
> How does that usurp autonomy?
>
> The troops have limited roles that do not include any sort of
> governing.
So they had a limited role in Kosovo?
Really?
Do tell....
> same source:
> <Peacekeeping is anything that contributes to the furthering of a peace
> < process, once established. This includes, but is not limited to, the
> < monitoring of withdrawal by combatants from a former conflict area,
> < the supervision of elections, and the provision of reconstruction
> < aid. Peacekeepers are often soldiers, but they do not have to be.
> < Similarly, while soldier-peacekeepers are sometimes armed, they do
> < not have to engage in combat.
> <
> <Peacekeepers were not at first expected to ever fight. As a general
> < rule, they were deployed when the ceasefire was in place and the
> < parties to the conflict had given their consent. They were deployed
> < to observe from the ground and report impartially on adherence to the
> < ceasefire, troop withdrawal or other elements of the peace agreement.
> < This gave time and breathing space for diplomatic efforts to address
> < the underlying causes of conflict.
>
>
>>>>> It is merely one of many organizations formed by
>>>>> international treaties between multiple governments.
>>>> To act as one BIG government...
>>> Nope. It has no power to do so.
>> Yet still does.
>
> Your evidence is lacking, and indeed, nonexistent.
Lucist Trust, Luciferian too they are...
>
>>>>> It passes resolutions, not laws, and it cannot enforce those resolutions.
>>>> So why the peacekeeping troops?
>>> Because the countries that send those troops have chosen to support
>>> those resolutions.
>> The "countries" are acting as an arm of the UN golbal government then,
>> thank you.
>
> No they aren't, since there is no "UN global government".
Keep telling yourself that if it helps...
> Meanwhile, all this is irrelevant to the original point, which was my
> claim that using the phrase "one-world government" was a trademark
> sign of a wingnut.
Why do you feel the need to label and demean, klingon, some sort of
personality flaw of yours?
> To counter that, you need multiple examples of
> people who clearly are NON-wingnuts using that phrase.
I don;t need much of anything to counter you klingon, you're a useless
lefty assbag.
Bugger off.
dilecticon
> On Dec 7, 12:33 pm, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
>> Over 40-plus years, the only thing that's changed in the media's
>> politics is that many national journalists have now cleverly decided to
>> call themselves moderates. But their actual views haven't changed, the
>> Pew survey showed. Their political beliefs are close to those of
>> self-identified liberals and nowhere near those of conservatives. And
>> the proportion of liberals to conservatives in the press, either 3-to-1
>> or 4-to-1, has stayed the same. That liberals are dominant is now beyond
>> dispute.-
>
> Centrists are dominant.
No, they're not.
> Don't you remember your bell curves from
> statistics class?
I can see which end you're at, lefty.
> You're the outlier here.
Far from it:
http://newsroom.ucla.edu/portal/ucla/Media-Bias-Is-Real-Finds-UCLA-6664.aspx?RelNum=6664
While the editorial page of The Wall Street Journal is conservative, the
newspaper's news pages are liberal, even more liberal than The New York
Times. The Drudge Report may have a right-wing reputation, but it leans
left. Coverage by public television and radio is conservative compared
to the rest of the mainstream media. Meanwhile, almost all major media
outlets tilt to the left.
These are just a few of the surprising findings from a UCLA-led study,
which is believed to be the first successful attempt at objectively
quantifying bias in a range of media outlets and ranking them accordingly.
"I suspected that many media outlets would tilt to the left because
surveys have shown that reporters tend to vote more Democrat than
Republican," said Tim Groseclose, a UCLA political scientist and the
study's lead author. "But I was surprised at just how pronounced the
distinctions are."
"Overall, the major media outlets are quite moderate compared to members
of Congress, but even so, there is a quantifiable and significant bias
in that nearly all of them lean to the left," said co-author Jeffrey
Milyo, University of Missouri economist and public policy scholar.
The results appear in the latest issue of the Quarterly Journal of
Economics, which will become available in mid-December.
Groseclose and Milyo based their research on a standard gauge of a
lawmaker's support for liberal causes. Americans for Democratic Action
(ADA) tracks the percentage of times that each lawmaker votes on the
liberal side of an issue. Based on these votes, the ADA assigns a
numerical score to each lawmaker, where "100" is the most liberal and
"0" is the most conservative. After adjustments to compensate for
disproportionate representation that the Senate gives to low-population
states and the lack of representation for the District of Columbia, the
average ADA score in Congress (50.1) was assumed to represent the
political position of the average U.S. voter.
Groseclose and Milyo then directed 21 research assistants � most of them
college students � to scour U.S. media coverage of the past 10 years.
They tallied the number of times each media outlet referred to think
tanks and policy groups, such as the left-leaning NAACP or the
right-leaning Heritage Foundation.
Next, they did the same exercise with speeches of U.S. lawmakers. If a
media outlet displayed a citation pattern similar to that of a lawmaker,
then Groseclose and Milyo's method assigned both a similar ADA score.
"A media person would have never done this study," said Groseclose, a
UCLA political science professor, whose research and teaching focuses on
the U.S. Congress. "It takes a Congress scholar even to think of using
ADA scores as a measure. And I don't think many media scholars would
have considered comparing news stories to congressional speeches."
Of the 20 major media outlets studied, 18 scored left of center, with
CBS' "Evening News," The New York Times and the Los Angeles Times
ranking second, third and fourth most liberal behind the news pages of
The Wall Street Journal.
Only Fox News' "Special Report With Brit Hume" and The Washington Times
scored right of the average U.S. voter.
The most centrist outlet proved to be the "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer."
CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown" and ABC's "Good Morning America" were
a close second and third.
"Our estimates for these outlets, we feel, give particular credibility
to our efforts, as three of the four moderators for the 2004
presidential and vice-presidential debates came from these three news
outlets � Jim Lehrer, Charlie Gibson and Gwen Ifill," Groseclose said.
"If these newscasters weren't centrist, staffers for one of the campaign
teams would have objected and insisted on other moderators."
The fourth most centrist outlet was "Special Report With Brit Hume" on
Fox News, which often is cited by liberals as an egregious example of a
right-wing outlet. While this news program proved to be right of center,
the study found ABC's "World News Tonight" and NBC's "Nightly News" to
be left of center. All three outlets were approximately equidistant from
the center, the report found.
"If viewers spent an equal amount of time watching Fox's 'Special
Report' as ABC's 'World News' and NBC's 'Nightly News,' then they would
receive a nearly perfectly balanced version of the news," said Milyo, an
associate professor of economics and public affairs at the University of
Missouri at Columbia.
Five news outlets � "NewsHour With Jim Lehrer," ABC's "Good Morning
America," CNN's "NewsNight With Aaron Brown," Fox News' "Special Report
With Brit Hume" and the Drudge Report � were in a statistical dead heat
in the race for the most centrist news outlet. Of the print media, USA
Today was the most centrist.
An additional feature of the study shows how each outlet compares in
political orientation with actual lawmakers. The news pages of The Wall
Street Journal scored a little to the left of the average American
Democrat, as determined by the average ADA score of all Democrats in
Congress (85 versus 84). With scores in the mid-70s, CBS' "Evening News"
and The New York Times looked similar to Sen. Joe Lieberman, D-Conn.,
who has an ADA score of 74.
Most of the outlets were less liberal than Lieberman but more liberal
than former Sen. John Breaux, D-La. Those media outlets included the
Drudge Report, ABC's "World News Tonight," NBC's "Nightly News," USA
Today, NBC's "Today Show," Time magazine, U.S. News & World Report,
Newsweek, NPR's "Morning Edition," CBS' "Early Show" and The Washington
Post.
Since Groseclose and Milyo were more concerned with bias in news
reporting than opinion pieces, which are designed to stake a political
position, they omitted editorials and Op-Eds from their tallies. This is
one reason their study finds The Wall Street Journal more liberal than
conventional wisdom asserts.
Another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom was that the
Drudge Report was slightly left of center.
"One thing people should keep in mind is that our data for the Drudge
Report was based almost entirely on the articles that the Drudge Report
lists on other Web sites," said Groseclose. "Very little was based on
the stories that Matt Drudge himself wrote. The fact that the Drudge
Report appears left of center is merely a reflection of the overall bias
of the media."
Yet another finding that contradicted conventional wisdom relates to
National Public Radio, often cited by conservatives as an egregious
example of a liberal news outlet. But according to the UCLA-University
of Missouri study, it ranked eighth most liberal of the 20 that the
study examined.
"By our estimate, NPR hardly differs from the average mainstream news
outlet," Groseclose said. "Its score is approximately equal to those of
Time, Newsweek and U.S. News & World Report and its score is slightly
more conservative than The Washington Post's. If anything,
government-funded outlets in our sample have a slightly lower average
ADA score (61), than the private outlets in our sample (62.8)."
The researchers took numerous steps to safeguard against bias � or the
appearance of same � in the work, which took close to three years to
complete. They went to great lengths to ensure that as many research
assistants supported Democratic candidate Al Gore in the 2000 election
as supported President George Bush. They also sought no outside funding,
a rarity in scholarly research.
"No matter the results, we feared our findings would've been suspect if
we'd received support from any group that could be perceived as right-
or left-leaning, so we consciously decided to fund this project only
with our own salaries and research funds that our own universities
provided," Groseclose said.
The results break new ground.
LDosser
Ala
Are they the ones with waistlines like oil drums?
ChasNemo
> ChasNemo wrote:
> > On Dec 7, 11:11 pm, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
> >> ChasNemo wrote:
> >>> You might be
> >> STFU, satantist dipshit.
>
> > E
>
> DIE!
Pack yer lunch, shorty. <snicker>
gb
wrote:
You may read whatever you wish, as you wish.
Dealing with the operational characteristics of WingNuts and
WingNutIsm is Lots more fun than arguing endlessly about the fine
points of a single definition.
gb
wrote:
Some are, no question. But you'll find extended waistlines on persons
of all political persuasions.
SMITH29
> On Tue, 08 Dec 2009 11:37:03 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
> wrote:
>
>> gb wrote:
>>> On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 11:25:59 -0800, SMITH29 <smi...@comcast.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>
>>>> By going side hill I get the feeling that you don't have a definition of
>>>> your own for " wingnut "
>>> Oh, I do. I just figure this is Much more entertaining than sharing
>>> it. This is the amUsenet. There are no Rules here, after all.
>>>
>> xxxx
>> I read that as no def from the Dondi.
>
> You may read whatever you wish, as you wish.
I case you didn't notice, I already did.
29
Bob LeChevalier
>>>>>> Nor are any number of
>>>>>> conferences that it might sponsor, "steps in the founding of" any sort
>>>>>> of government.
>>>>> Isn't that what happens when you usurp local autonomy and place troops?
>>>> What "usurpation" of what "local autonomy"?
>>> UN troops on foreign soil, duh.
>>
>> How does that usurp autonomy?
>>
>> The troops have limited roles that do not include any sort of
>> governing.
>
>So they had a limited role in Kosovo?
I believe that the cited article specifically addressed Kosovo. They
weren't "peacekeeping forces" and they weren't UN (they were NATO).
>> Meanwhile, all this is irrelevant to the original point, which was my
>> claim that using the phrase "one-world government" was a trademark
>> sign of a wingnut.
>
>Why do you feel the need to label and demean, klingon, some sort of
>personality flaw of yours?
Merely joining in the thread that *someone else* started. If you have
a problem with it, why don't you ask the other guy.
And I rarely demean, except 1) someone who has already evidenced that
they want to be demeaned according to my understanding of the golden
rule, by their demonstrated behavior towards others (I merely give
them what they do unto others), and 2) someone who abuses Usenet in
certain ways that are pretty universally condemned.
>I don;t need much of anything to counter you klingon, you're a useless
>lefty assbag.
>
>Bugger off.
You are an example of 1), loser.
dilecticon
> On Dec 8, 12:25�pm, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> ChasNemo wrote:
>>> On Dec 7, 11:11 pm, dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> ChasNemo wrote:
>>>>> You might be
>>>> STFU, satantist dipshit.
>>> E
>> DIE!
>
> Pack
DIE!
dilecticon
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> You should really find another set of friends. ;)
"Not my friends, clearly. Never used one, and wouldn't. Have
considered, once I'm well into my dotage, taking one of the target
rifles and a Gillie Suit into the woods, and simply offing a bunch of
them as far from anything as is possible.
Society would suffer no great loss thereby, seems to me."
=================================================================================
dilecticon
===================================================================================
gb wrote:
dated: 10/8/2009
Sender: g...@amusenet.com
<ubisc5h6ti7g43kg0...@4ax.com>
> Some are, no question.
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>> Nor are any number of
>>>>>>> conferences that it might sponsor, "steps in the founding of" any sort
>>>>>>> of government.
>>>>>> Isn't that what happens when you usurp local autonomy and place troops?
>>>>> What "usurpation" of what "local autonomy"?
>>>> UN troops on foreign soil, duh.
>>> How does that usurp autonomy?
>>>
>>> The troops have limited roles that do not include any sort of
>>> governing.
>> So they had a limited role in Kosovo?
>
> I believe that
Fuck you, no one here cares what you "believe" you spleeny cunt.
Drop damned dead.
Hawkster
september.org:
> DIE!
The die is cast and as usual -- you lose.
Clave
news:Xns9CDC140BE1...@SayWhat.org...
Jeffy's having a bad decade.
Jim
haiku jones
> personality flaw of yours? ,
Ah, don't you just love a good self-referrential
post?
Haiku Jones
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote in news:hfndek$iji$6...@news.eternal-
> september.org:
>
>> DIE!
>
> The die
Now, scumsucker.
dilecticon
evil clam fart #221,998
dilecticon
It beats a bad haiku any day.
Hawkster
>>> DIE!
>> The die <troll snip>
> Now, scumsucker.
Shotgunning impotent threats live & direct from Mom's basement will never
get you laid, my man.
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>> Hawkster wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
>>>> DIE!
>
>>> The die <troll snip>
>
>> Now, scumsucker.
>
> Shotgunning impotent threats live & direct from Mom's basement will never
> get you laid, my man.
Pay attention or the bunny gets it.
Hawkster
news:hfp8d9$ov$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
You're now only one step away from permanent unconscious serial pressured
"heh heh" verbalizing.
Welcome to your pitiful future.
and Sniff
Spammy gets his butt handed to him. LOL
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote in
> news:hfp8d9$ov$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
>> Hawkster wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>> Hawkster wrote:
>>>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> DIE!
>>>
>>>>> The die <troll snip>
>>>
>>>> Now, scumsucker.
>>> Shotgunning impotent threats live & direct from Mom's basement will
>>> never get you laid, my man.
>> Pay attention or the bunny gets it.
>
> You're now only one step
STFU , cunt.
dilecticon
By a klingon?
It is to laugh!
Hawkster
> Hawkster wrote:
>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:>>
>>> Hawkster wrote:
>>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>>> Hawkster wrote:
>>>>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>> DIE!
>>>>
>>>>>> The die <troll snip>
>>>>
>>>>> Now, scumsucker.
>>>> Shotgunning impotent threats live & direct from Mom's basement will
>>>> never get you laid, my man.
>>> Pay attention or the bunny gets it.
>> You're now only one step <another troll snip>
> STFU, cunt.
Well, now you've taken that last step.
Welcome to Viper-ville -- Village of the Doomed.
Heh heh.
dilecticon
> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
>> Hawkster wrote:
>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:>>
>>>> Hawkster wrote:
>>>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>>>> Hawkster wrote:
>>>>>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DIE!
>>>>>
>>>>>>> The die <troll snip>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Now, scumsucker.
>>>>> Shotgunning impotent threats live & direct from Mom's basement will
>>>>> never get you laid, my man.
>
>>>> Pay attention or the bunny gets it.
>
>>> You're now only one step <another troll snip>
>
>> STFU, cunt.
>
> Well, now you've taken that last step.
Which is but the FIRST step...
> Welcome to Viper-ville -- Village of the Doomed.
>
> Heh heh.
Big 'ol yaaaaaaaaaawn...
ChasNemo
> Hawkster wrote:
> > dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote in
> >news:hfp8d9$ov$2...@news.eternal-september.org:
>
> >> Hawkster wrote:
> >>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
> >>>> Hawkster wrote:
> >>>>> dilecticon <d...@lect.edu> wrote:
>
> >>>>>> DIE!
>
> >>>>> The die <troll snip>
>
> >>>> Now, scumsucker.
> >>> Shotgunning impotent threats live & direct from Mom's basement will
> >>> never get you laid, my man.
> >> Pay attention or the bunny gets it.
>
> > You're now only one step
>
>
> - Show quoted text -
Please leave your mother's appellation out of debate. Thanks awfully.
Ala
i have no idea what Viper-ville is.
i just got the best spam ever for male enhancement products, it
starts out: look you, drop dead
Hawkster
> i have no idea what Viper-ville is.
Read (heh heh) any of (heh heh) Viper_Spit's posts for (heh heh) style and
(heh heh) content.
> i just got the best spam ever for male enhancement products, it
> starts out: look you, drop dead
That's the basic flaw in wingnut thinking. It's always, "look (at) you
(spawn-of-the-devil), drop dead"...
Even the most fleeting self-doubt (heh heh) terrifies them because they
lack any logical construct for their world view.
dilecticon
Hawkster
> Hawkster felches spaniels.
Another whimpering self-immolation on Usenet. You lack even a nodding
acquaintance with self-respect.
Clave
That's the height of wit for Jeffy.
Seriously.
Bark for the people, Jeffy
-->
Jim