Received: by 10.180.98.138 with SMTP id ei10mr878422wib.4.1353058817354;
        Fri, 16 Nov 2012 01:40:17 -0800 (PST)
Path: q13ni313055wii.0!nntp.google.com!feeder3.cambriumusenet.nl!82.197.223.108.MISMATCH!feeder2.cambriumusenet.nl!feed.tweaknews.nl!85.12.40.130.MISMATCH!xlned.com!feeder1.xlned.com!npeer.de.kpn-eurorings.net!npeer-ng0.de.kpn-eurorings.net!border2.nntp.ams2.giganews.com!border4.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.ams.giganews.com!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!novia!news-hub.siol.net!news1.t-com.hr!newsfeed.CARNet.hr!feeder.erje.net!eu.feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: "Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net>
Newsgroups: alt.politics,alt.politics.economics,alt.politics.immigration,soc.retirement,talk.politics.guns
Subject: Re: Hispanics now enemies of the White race.
Date: Sat, 10 Nov 2012 18:07:38 -0800
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 140
Message-ID: <k7n19b$tna$1@dont-email.me>
References: <12c050e7-7632-4d15-9cab-059c8ff04912@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com> <k7j9sr$q3q$1@dont-email.me> <k7jcvq$fh3$1@dont-email.me> <k7jia8$iap$1@dont-email.me> <k7k6a8$m82$3@dont-email.me> <k7k8lk$239$1@dont-email.me> <k7l3ke$nrk$4@dont-email.me> <k7l9dh$kos$1@dont-email.me> <k7n011$nq3$1@dont-email.me>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Injection-Date: Sun, 11 Nov 2012 02:07:39 +0000 (UTC)
Injection-Info: mx04.eternal-september.org; posting-host="b1b62bed4638a3143394aeb2bd5ab90e";
	logging-data="30442"; mail-complaints-to="ab...@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/m2Y16KizR5OqFwG+2goc7"
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V15.4.3555.308
In-Reply-To: <k7n011$nq3$1@dont-email.me>
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Windows Live Mail 15.4.3555.308
Importance: Normal
Cancel-Lock: sha1:C/0Q9AUruhGOMKrpz0SkRsdSf60=
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
Bytes: 7558
X-Original-Lines: 7
Content-Type: text/plain;
	format=flowed;
	charset="iso-8859-1";
	reply-type=response
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

"max headroom"  wrote in message news:k7n011$nq3$1@dont-email.me...

Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in 
news:k7l9dh$kos$1@dont-email.me:

> "max headroom"  wrote in message news:k7l3ke$nrk$4@dont-email.me...

>> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:k7k8lk$239$1@dont-email.me:

> /snip - follow the thread/

>>> So you do get my point.  Great!  As you yourself see, Romney's 100% is
>>> definitely exclusionary...not inclusionary.   His use of "100%" is 
>>> straight
>>> out of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's *Through the Looking Glass* -
>>> from http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php

>>> 'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it
>>> means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less.'

>> HD must have been a Democrat. For thousands of years, marriage has meant 
>> the union of male and
>> female... until Democrats decided it meant what they chose it to mean, in 
>> rather a scornful tone.

>>> In other words, when does "100%" not mean "all"?  When, of course, it is
>>> Romney's 100%.

>> In your biased world. It seems you define words as the mood strikes you.

>>> Disagree?  Then make a case for Romney - and the Republicans - caring 
>>> about
>>> and concerned over the well being of the people at PBS, NPR, and Planned
>>> Parenthood....

>> Those people are doing quite well, thank you, assisted by taxpayers' 
>> money.

>>> ...  And I do note that you have provided not one documented
>>> instance at all of Romney's explicit inclusion of any minority group or 
>>> of
>>> folks in Republican targets when he made mention of his 100%.  Now why
>>> exactly is that?  Maybe...perhaps...quite possibly no such instance 
>>> exists?

>> Who knows? I am neither Romney's press secretary nor his archivist, nor 
>> do I play either on TV.
>> However, as noted above, 100% means all. It would take a Democrat to 
>> declare that "when I use a
>> word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less," 
>> and 100% is NOT all.

> tsk, tsk, tsk.  Clearly you missed the presidential debates....

Wrong again.

> ...  Too bad.  No wonder you seem not to be up on Romney and his 
> exclusions as per his 100%.
> Allow me to enlighten you at least in one instance - from
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/offbeat/story/2012/10/04/big-bird-mitt-romney-debate-funding-cut.html

> "I'm sorry, Jim, I'm going to stop the subsidy to PBS .."

> So clearly the folks at PBS and at probably NPR are not part of Romney's
> 100% about whom he is concerned.  You can spin it any which way you want,
> but to most folks who understand English, Romney's 100% here is obviously
> exclusive...he neither cares about or is concerned about the people at PBS
> and (probably) NPR - long favorite targets of the Republicans.

No need; they're all doing quite well, assisted by taxpayers' money.

> And I for one would think that you would know how to use Google, Bing, or
> Ask to search for documented instances of Romney including any minority
> group or folks long in Republican targets when he made mention of 100%.
> Clearly I am mistaken.   Allow me to point out that you really don't have 
> to
> be Romney's press secretary nor his archivist - nor do you have to play
> either on TV - to conduct this research on the internet....

If I gave a rip, I would.

> ... Given that you really don't know how to use these internet search 
> tools, I recommend that
> you do learn how to use these tools so that you don't be as far behind the
> eight ball as you clearly are.

Wrong again.

> Furthermore, the point is not whether the people at PBS, NPR, and Planned
> Parenthood are doing well....

Wrong again. That is exactly the point. Why should the United States 
Treasury borrow money from the
Chinese and others to support CPB and its subsidiaries when they are doing 
quite well? When the
Treasury is hemoraging, borrowing money for non-essentials is foolish. 
Romney recognises this fact;
why can't pinkies?

> ... The point is whether Romney - and the
> Republicans - consider these people to be part of Romney's 100%.   You do
> understand English, do you not?  If you indeed do understand English, then
> once again - "make a case for Romney - and the Republicans - caring about
> and concerned over the well being of the people at PBS, NPR, and Planned
> Parenthood."

100% means all, right? Can you make a case for Obama - and the Democrats - 
caring about
and concerned over the well being of the miners at Peabody Energy, Arch 
Coal, or Cloud Peak Energy?

> By the way...you are not at all implying that Lewis Carroll who lived all
> the way over there in England was a Democrat, are you?  Or are you?

No more than you were implying that he was a Republican.

***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]

Well...to most folks, 100% does mean all.  That would mean - to most folks - 
inclusion of the people at PBS.  But Romney explicitly denies support of 
PBS...and by logic, the PBS people - as for example, Jim Lehrer to whom 
Romney apologized.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/onpolitics/2012/10/03/big-birg-romney-debate-pbs/1612171/
So explain, please, how when Romney means all when he says 100% when he 
explicitly excludes the PBS people.  I for one look forward to your 
explanation.

And I do note that you still have not provided any 
citations/links/references as to Romney himself explicitly including any 
minority group when he talks about his 100%.  All you do is flap your gums, 
as you've again done here.