Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
Hispanics now enemies of the White race.
217 views
Skip to first unread message
walt tonne
Nov 9, 2012, 9:45:11 AM11/9/12
to
By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 9, 2012, 9:47:19 AM11/9/12
to
>walt tonne <tonnew...@gmail.com> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
>voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
>Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
Which you will do by continuing to smoke meth until your gums
disintegrate.
GOOD PLAN, WALT!
[chuckle]
>By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
>voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
>Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
disintegrate.
GOOD PLAN, WALT!
[chuckle]
walt tonne
Nov 9, 2012, 10:20:25 AM11/9/12
to
And your proposal re: cultural identification of hispanics?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 9, 2012, 10:25:41 AM11/9/12
to
>And your proposal re: cultural identification of hispanics?
What proposal of mine are you referring to, Walt? Maybe you ought to
let your head clear a bit before you try to respond to posts, eh?
Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
Nov 9, 2012, 10:26:31 AM11/9/12
to
foxin...@gmail.com
Nov 9, 2012, 10:35:29 AM11/9/12
to
Obama said all the right things to the Hispanics, Women and Minorties groups whereas Mitt Romney's Campaign alienated them. Had he not, the outcome might have been very different.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 9, 2012, 11:10:02 AM11/9/12
to
"walt tonne" wrote in message
news:12c050e7-7632-4d15...@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
***********************
[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]
You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
election. The GOP has over recent years become more and more exclusionary.
The best example of the GOP's problem today is probably California. The GOP
in California has become so exclusionary that less than 30% of the
electorate register as Republicans. There are almost as many independents -
21% - as there are Republicans.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/GOP-registration-dips-below-30-percent-in-Calif-4003899.php
The result is that the GOP has but a token presence in today's California
legislature as the result of Tuesday. The Democrats have supermajorities in
both houses and can pass any darn bill they want.
To me, the hispanics clearly saw themselves excluded from Romney's 100% and
voted according. I note that whenever Romney talked about his 100%, he
never ever at all even mentioned the hispanics, the asians, and the blacks.
The huge - and I mean huge - challenge before the GOP is not to attract the
diverse electorate or to be attractive to it, but to embrace it honestly and
wholeheartedly. And - of course - in becoming thus relevant to the American
electorate once again, the GOP no longer will be the GOP as we know it
today.
news:12c050e7-7632-4d15...@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
[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]
You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
election. The GOP has over recent years become more and more exclusionary.
The best example of the GOP's problem today is probably California. The GOP
in California has become so exclusionary that less than 30% of the
electorate register as Republicans. There are almost as many independents -
21% - as there are Republicans.
http://www.sfgate.com/news/article/GOP-registration-dips-below-30-percent-in-Calif-4003899.php
The result is that the GOP has but a token presence in today's California
legislature as the result of Tuesday. The Democrats have supermajorities in
both houses and can pass any darn bill they want.
To me, the hispanics clearly saw themselves excluded from Romney's 100% and
voted according. I note that whenever Romney talked about his 100%, he
never ever at all even mentioned the hispanics, the asians, and the blacks.
The huge - and I mean huge - challenge before the GOP is not to attract the
diverse electorate or to be attractive to it, but to embrace it honestly and
wholeheartedly. And - of course - in becoming thus relevant to the American
electorate once again, the GOP no longer will be the GOP as we know it
today.
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 9, 2012, 11:40:43 AM11/9/12
to
>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>"walt tonne" wrote in message
>news:12c050e7-7632-4d15...@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
>voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
>Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
>
>***********************
>[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]
>
>You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
>election.
This has nothing to do with Republican Party. Walt's a nazi, plain and
simple.
http://klaus.webege.com/nazi/dead_nazis.html
>"walt tonne" wrote in message
>news:12c050e7-7632-4d15...@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
>By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
>voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
>Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
>
>***********************
>[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]
>
>You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
>election.
simple.
http://klaus.webege.com/nazi/dead_nazis.html
Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
Nov 9, 2012, 11:42:31 AM11/9/12
to
Of course saying and doing are two completely different things with
Obama, or haven't you noticed?
max headroom
Nov 9, 2012, 11:46:22 AM11/9/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7j9sr$q3q$1...@dont-email.me:
> You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
> election. The GOP has over recent years become more and more exclusionary....
Bull. Perhaps you missed the GOP convention a few months ago, and missed some of the featured,
prime-time speakers such as Mia Love and Susan Martinez. Have you heard of Herman Cain, Condy Rice,
or Michael Steele? How about Clarence Thomas?
There are more Hispanic elected Republicans than Hispanic elected Democrats.
The press tells the public that the GOP is evil old white guys and the ignorant believe it.
> You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
Bull. Perhaps you missed the GOP convention a few months ago, and missed some of the featured,
prime-time speakers such as Mia Love and Susan Martinez. Have you heard of Herman Cain, Condy Rice,
or Michael Steele? How about Clarence Thomas?
There are more Hispanic elected Republicans than Hispanic elected Democrats.
The press tells the public that the GOP is evil old white guys and the ignorant believe it.
Ramon F. Herrera
Nov 9, 2012, 12:43:06 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 8:45 am, walt tonne <tonnewalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
Do I look to you as a self-loathing person?? I doubt that there is on
the Internet anyone who is more self-loving and arrogant than yours
truly: Hey, that is my one and only defect, if I were humble I would
be perfect, and nobody likes a perfect show-off and A-hole.
Anyhooo...
How can you possibly reconcile me and million other Latinos which
happen to be white?
-Ramon Non-Whitey White
Ramon F. Herrera
Nov 9, 2012, 12:49:59 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 9:26 am, "Phantom The Clueless" <burtonu...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Whaddya mean "now"?? You think this happened overnight?
To many, it happened overnight: they are still shocked. Many others
have been forewarned but they thought we were bluffing, took it as
another display of well-known Latino braggadocio (of which Yours Truly
is campeon).
A few fortunate like you have the benefit of being kept you abreast of
Demographics and developments such as voter registrations in barrios:
That is my one and only rule in Usenet and other Internet fora.
De nada,
-Ramon
"Every month for the next two decades, 50,000 Hispanics will turn 18."
http://www.hispanicvoters2012.com/
wrote:
> Whaddya mean "now"?? You think this happened overnight?
have been forewarned but they thought we were bluffing, took it as
another display of well-known Latino braggadocio (of which Yours Truly
is campeon).
A few fortunate like you have the benefit of being kept you abreast of
Demographics and developments such as voter registrations in barrios:
That is my one and only rule in Usenet and other Internet fora.
De nada,
-Ramon
"Every month for the next two decades, 50,000 Hispanics will turn 18."
http://www.hispanicvoters2012.com/
Ramon F. Herrera
Nov 9, 2012, 12:52:27 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 11:50 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:26 am, "Phantom The Clueless" <burtonu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Whaddya mean "now"?? You think this happened overnight?
>
> To many, it happened overnight: they are still shocked. Many others
> have been forewarned but they thought we were bluffing, took it as
> another display of well-known Latino braggadocio (of which Yours Truly
> is campeon).
>
> A few fortunate like you have had the benefit of being kept you abreast of
> On Nov 9, 9:26 am, "Phantom The Clueless" <burtonu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > Whaddya mean "now"?? You think this happened overnight?
>
> To many, it happened overnight: they are still shocked. Many others
> have been forewarned but they thought we were bluffing, took it as
> another display of well-known Latino braggadocio (of which Yours Truly
> is campeon).
>
> Demographics and other developments such as voter registrations in barrios:
> That is my one and only rule in Usenet and other Internet fora.
>
> De nada,
>
> -Ramon
>
> "Every month for the next two decades, 50,000 Hispanics will turn 18."
>
> http://www.hispanicvoters2012.com/
ed: my only role.
>
> De nada,
>
> -Ramon
>
> "Every month for the next two decades, 50,000 Hispanics will turn 18."
>
> http://www.hispanicvoters2012.com/
-RFH
Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E
Nov 9, 2012, 1:06:58 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 11:50 am, "Ramon F. Herrera" <ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
MSNBC and worships Rachel Madcow. Btw, 60,000 18 year old mexxkins
will die in gang related violence in the next two decades. I do all I
can to incite violence between black and brown ganbangers.
Ramon F. Herrera
Nov 9, 2012, 1:07:14 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 11:02 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> The press tells the public that the GOP is evil
> old white guys and the ignorant believe it.
The "evil" part is yours, but the rest is true. Just read the
> The press tells the public that the GOP is evil
> old white guys and the ignorant believe it.
demographics.
Wait a minute.... Did my eyes deceive me or you just called me and my
52 million amigos "ignorant"?? (tsk, tsk, not your wises move...).
-Ramon
ps: Do these fellows below look like "The press" to you?
pps: These days, "the press" is known as "The Media".
--------------------------------------------------------------
“The demographics race we’re losing badly,” said Sen. Lindsey O.
Graham (SC). “We’re not generating enough angry white guys to stay in
business for the long term.”
http://tinyurl.com/8knh2ul
--------------------------------------------------------------
You may want to ask Dick Armey, Founder and Funder of the Tea Party:
"With Latinos forming the fastest-growing electoral bloc in the
nation, Armey says the GOP seems to be saying, “Let’s go out and
alienate them.” Armey said socially conservative Latino and African
American voters are natural constituents for the GOP ... if
Republicans don’t push them away. “The party was born with the
Emancipation Proclamation,” he said. But today, he added, “it can’t
get a black [or Hispanic] vote to save its life.” (**)
http://tinyurl.com/6bb6tes
Dick Armey, Founder and Funder of the Tea Party.
(**) I am sure you folks wonder what happened after Mr. Armey made
those sensible statements. The likes of Michelle Bachmann and Glenn
Beck told him to shut TFU, and he obliged: the angry bagger mobs
drowned his calls for rationality.
--------------------------------------------------------------
(4) Check with Jeb Bush:
http://tinyurl.com/6drgb6h
http://tinyurl.com/73joubu
http://tinyurl.com/7d3l9cr
http://swampland.time.com/2012/02/24/did-jeb-bush-actually-say-that/
Jeb married a Mexican lady, and they lived here in Houston. After she
was ostracized in the country clubs, they decided to move to a city
where Hispanics rule: Miami. He has been one of the most popular
politicians in Florida's history. Founded some Hispanic group (not for
the poor!!).
--------------------------------------------------------------
Real Americans sent the Mexican Polygamist home
Nov 9, 2012, 1:09:16 PM11/9/12
to
On Friday, November 9, 2012 6:45:15 AM UTC-8, walt tonne wrote:
> By giving Obama 73%
If a BLACK MUSLIM SOCIALIST can win with +330 electoral votes the Loon party has to be approaching the end .. they don't stand a chance against a average moderate white guy: Joe Biden!
> By giving Obama 73%
Nickname unavailable
Nov 9, 2012, 1:16:30 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 12:07 pm, "Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E"
has fox told you yet that the black man won:))))))))))
Nickname unavailable
Nov 9, 2012, 1:20:29 PM11/9/12
to
>
> Jeb married a Mexican lady, and they lived here in Houston. After she
> was ostracized in the country clubs, they decided to move to a city
> where Hispanics rule: Miami. He has been one of the most popular
> politicians in Florida's history. Founded some Hispanic group (not for
> the poor!!).
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
i read that more asian americans voted for liberals also. it seems
> Jeb married a Mexican lady, and they lived here in Houston. After she
> was ostracized in the country clubs, they decided to move to a city
> where Hispanics rule: Miami. He has been one of the most popular
> politicians in Florida's history. Founded some Hispanic group (not for
> the poor!!).
>
> --------------------------------------------------------------
they understand the old saying,
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came…
First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.
Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.
Wayne
Nov 9, 2012, 1:20:49 PM11/9/12
to
"walt tonne" wrote in message
news:12c050e7-7632-4d15...@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
# voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
# Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
It is strange indeed to see the Hispanic voting block. Assuming that legal
voters are involved, why would immigration sway their vote when there are so
many other issues that are critical to the country.
One would think they might vote for what is best for the US, rather than
what is best for Hispanics (and not necessarily themselves or the country).
Among my closest friends is a US citizen who was born in Cuba, and is just
about the most anti-Obama person on the face of the earth. And apparently
in Florida, that is not uncommon.
Ramon F. Herrera
Nov 9, 2012, 1:23:42 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 12:20 pm, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
> "walt tonne" wrote in message
>
> news:12c050e7-7632-4d15...@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> # By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
> # voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
> # Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
>
> It is strange indeed to see the Hispanic voting block.
Strange?
> "walt tonne" wrote in message
>
> news:12c050e7-7632-4d15...@h15g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> # By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
> # voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
> # Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
>
> It is strange indeed to see the Hispanic voting block.
So the hundreds of posts in which you and I have argued, just went
through one ear and out the other end? Do you know how many links to
credible and relevant evidence I have posted, through the better part
of a decade???
Sigh... Geesh Louise...
-Ramon
Ramon F. Herrera
Nov 9, 2012, 1:28:43 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 12:20 pm, "Wayne" <mygarbage...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Assuming that legal voters are involved
That assumption is fully guaranteed to hold.
Just place yourself (I am fully aware that for you conservs the
exercise is like Indians and alcohol) on the immigrants' moccasins:
Were you illegally in some other country, were you ignorant of the
rules and customs, were you coming from authoritarian regimes...
Would YOU attempt to vote ILLEGALLY?
Or would you rather keep your nose clean, stay out of trouble and as
low a profile as possible?
-Ramon
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 9, 2012, 1:33:43 PM11/9/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7jcvq$fh3$1...@dont-email.me...
But it was not Mia Love who ran as the Republican presidential candidate.
Nor was it Susan Martinez. As far as I know, nor was it Herman Cain, Condy
Rice, or Michael Steele. The Republicans would certainly not have nominated
Clarence Thomas for president. It was Mitt Romney that the Republicans in
their great wisdom decided as their presidential nominee.
Now that we've settled that, cite - pretty please with sugar on top -
one...just one, solitary...speech (with links, of course) by Romney where he
explicitly stated that the 100% with whom he was concerned
included...ummm...hispanics. Ok, how about asians? Ok...how about
single mothers? Blacks? Gays? NPR? PBS? Big Bird? Planned
Parenthood?
Get my point?
***********************
[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]
[major chuckle]
[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]
But it was not Mia Love who ran as the Republican presidential candidate.
Nor was it Susan Martinez. As far as I know, nor was it Herman Cain, Condy
Rice, or Michael Steele. The Republicans would certainly not have nominated
Clarence Thomas for president. It was Mitt Romney that the Republicans in
their great wisdom decided as their presidential nominee.
Now that we've settled that, cite - pretty please with sugar on top -
one...just one, solitary...speech (with links, of course) by Romney where he
explicitly stated that the 100% with whom he was concerned
included...ummm...hispanics. Ok, how about asians? Ok...how about
single mothers? Blacks? Gays? NPR? PBS? Big Bird? Planned
Parenthood?
Get my point?
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 9, 2012, 1:38:47 PM11/9/12
to
"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message
news:d6d74ac2-eba5-4638...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
/snip - follow the thread/
has fox told you yet that the black man won:))))))))))
black father, a statement like this can also correctly be interpreted:
"has fox told you yet that the white man won:))))))))))"
news:d6d74ac2-eba5-4638...@m4g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
/snip - follow the thread/
has fox told you yet that the black man won:))))))))))
***********************
[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]
Because Obama is as much white as he is black - having a white mother and a
[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]
black father, a statement like this can also correctly be interpreted:
"has fox told you yet that the white man won:))))))))))"
max headroom
Nov 9, 2012, 7:14:20 PM11/9/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7jia8$iap$1...@dont-email.me:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7jcvq$fh3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:k7j9sr$q3q$1...@dont-email.me:
>>> You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
>>> election. The GOP has over recent years become more and more
>>> exclusionary....
>> Bull. Perhaps you missed the GOP convention a few months ago, and missed some of the featured,
>> prime-time speakers such as Mia Love and Susan Martinez. Have you heard of Herman Cain, Condy
>> Rice, or Michael Steele? How about Clarence Thomas?
>> There are more Hispanic elected Republicans than Hispanic elected Democrats.
[crickets.wav]
>> The press tells the public that the GOP is evil old white guys and the ignorant believe it.
> [major chuckle]
> But it was not Mia Love who ran as the Republican presidential candidate....
No, she stood for a House seat.
> ...Nor was it Susan Martinez....
No, she is the governor of New Mexico.
> ... As far as I know, nor was it Herman Cain, Condy Rice, or Michael Steele. The Republicans
> would certainly not have nominated Clarence Thomas for president....
Have you heard of a political party ever nominating a Supreme Court justice for president?
> ... It was Mitt Romney that the Republicans in their great wisdom decided as their presidential
> nominee.
Yeah, a choice as crappy as John Kerry.
> Now that we've settled that, cite - pretty please with sugar on top -
> one...just one, solitary...speech (with links, of course) by Romney where he
> explicitly stated that the 100% with whom he was concerned
> included...ummm...hispanics. Ok, how about asians? Ok...how about
> single mothers? Blacks? Gays?...
Umm, 100% means all, right?
> ... NPR? PBS? Big Bird? Planned Parenthood?
[general guffaw]
He should have said he would represent those businesses?!?
> Get my point?
Yeah, straight from TalkingPointsMemo.com.
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7jcvq$fh3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:k7j9sr$q3q$1...@dont-email.me:
>>> You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
>>> election. The GOP has over recent years become more and more
>>> exclusionary....
>> Bull. Perhaps you missed the GOP convention a few months ago, and missed some of the featured,
>> prime-time speakers such as Mia Love and Susan Martinez. Have you heard of Herman Cain, Condy
>> Rice, or Michael Steele? How about Clarence Thomas?
>> There are more Hispanic elected Republicans than Hispanic elected Democrats.
>> The press tells the public that the GOP is evil old white guys and the ignorant believe it.
> But it was not Mia Love who ran as the Republican presidential candidate....
No, she stood for a House seat.
> ...Nor was it Susan Martinez....
No, she is the governor of New Mexico.
> ... As far as I know, nor was it Herman Cain, Condy Rice, or Michael Steele. The Republicans
> would certainly not have nominated Clarence Thomas for president....
Have you heard of a political party ever nominating a Supreme Court justice for president?
> ... It was Mitt Romney that the Republicans in their great wisdom decided as their presidential
> nominee.
Yeah, a choice as crappy as John Kerry.
> Now that we've settled that, cite - pretty please with sugar on top -
> one...just one, solitary...speech (with links, of course) by Romney where he
> explicitly stated that the 100% with whom he was concerned
> included...ummm...hispanics. Ok, how about asians? Ok...how about
Umm, 100% means all, right?
> ... NPR? PBS? Big Bird? Planned Parenthood?
[general guffaw]
He should have said he would represent those businesses?!?
> Get my point?
Yeah, straight from TalkingPointsMemo.com.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 9, 2012, 7:55:16 PM11/9/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7k6a8$m82$3...@dont-email.me...
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:k7jia8$iap$1...@dont-email.me:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7jcvq$fh3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:k7j9sr$q3q$1...@dont-email.me:
>>> You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans
>>> the
>>> election. The GOP has over recent years become more and more
>>> exclusionary....
>> Bull. Perhaps you missed the GOP convention a few months ago, and missed
>> some of the featured,
>> prime-time speakers such as Mia Love and Susan Martinez. Have you heard
>> of Herman Cain, Condy
>> Rice, or Michael Steele? How about Clarence Thomas?
>> There are more Hispanic elected Republicans than Hispanic elected
>> Democrats.
definitely exclusionary...not inclusionary. His use of "100%" is straight
out of Humpty Dumpty in Lewis Carroll's *Through the Looking Glass* -
from http://sabian.org/looking_glass6.php
'When I use a word,' Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, 'it
means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less.'
In other words, when does "100%" not mean "all"? When, of course, it is
Romney's 100%.
Disagree? Then make a case for Romney - and the Republicans - caring about
and concerned over the well being of the people at PBS, NPR, and Planned
Parenthood. And I do note that you have provided not one documented
instance at all of Romney's explicit inclusion of any minority group or of
folks in Republican targets when he made mention of his 100%. Now why
exactly is that? Maybe...perhaps...quite possibly no such instance exists?
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
news:k7jia8$iap$1...@dont-email.me:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7jcvq$fh3$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:k7j9sr$q3q$1...@dont-email.me:
>>> You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans
>>> the
>>> election. The GOP has over recent years become more and more
>>> exclusionary....
>> Bull. Perhaps you missed the GOP convention a few months ago, and missed
>> some of the featured,
>> prime-time speakers such as Mia Love and Susan Martinez. Have you heard
>> of Herman Cain, Condy
>> Rice, or Michael Steele? How about Clarence Thomas?
>> There are more Hispanic elected Republicans than Hispanic elected
>> Democrats.
***********************
[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]
So you do get my point. Great! As you yourself see, Romney's 100% is
[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]
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.'
In other words, when does "100%" not mean "all"? When, of course, it is
Romney's 100%.
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. 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?
Earle Lockhart
Nov 9, 2012, 6:34:08 PM11/9/12
to
Ramon is a foreign transplant originally from Venezuela, probably a
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.
Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:26:43 -0800 (PST), Ramon F Herrera
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>"Earlier this year, the Vatican sponsored a conference on evolution to
>mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of
>Species." The event snubbed proponents of alternative theories, like
>creationism and intelligent design, which see a higher being rather
>than the undirected process of natural selection behind the evolution
>of species."
>[...]
>http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/11/vatican_looks_to_heavens_for_s.html
Oops! Beaner Ramon CAUGHT LYING, again:
Vatican to discuss intelligent design
2/11/2009
VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican will include discussion of intelligent
design in a conference marking the 150th anniversary of Charles
Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," officials said Tuesday.
The announcement reverses a decision to exclude such discussion but
officials said intelligent design would be treated only as a cultural
phenomenon - not as science or theology.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-02-11-vatican-evolution_N.htm?csp=34
Go finish mowing my lawn, Ramon.
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.
Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
On Fri, 13 Nov 2009 13:26:43 -0800 (PST), Ramon F Herrera
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>"Earlier this year, the Vatican sponsored a conference on evolution to
>mark the 150th anniversary of Charles Darwin's "The Origin of
>Species." The event snubbed proponents of alternative theories, like
>creationism and intelligent design, which see a higher being rather
>than the undirected process of natural selection behind the evolution
>of species."
>[...]
>http://www.pennlive.com/midstate/index.ssf/2009/11/vatican_looks_to_heavens_for_s.html
Oops! Beaner Ramon CAUGHT LYING, again:
Vatican to discuss intelligent design
2/11/2009
VATICAN CITY (AP) — The Vatican will include discussion of intelligent
design in a conference marking the 150th anniversary of Charles
Darwin's "On the Origin of Species," officials said Tuesday.
The announcement reverses a decision to exclude such discussion but
officials said intelligent design would be treated only as a cultural
phenomenon - not as science or theology.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/religion/2009-02-11-vatican-evolution_N.htm?csp=34
Go finish mowing my lawn, Ramon.
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
D L Bloom
Nov 9, 2012, 6:34:16 PM11/9/12
to
Ramon is a foreign transplant originally from Venezuela, probably a
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.
Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 01:52:08 -0800 (PST), Ramon F Herrera
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.
Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>On Feb 27, 3:29 pm, Gogarty <Goga...@Clongowes.edu.ie> wrote:
>Granted that Lindsey is the hottest thing on two legs, the hottest
>German product since the Mercedes, she is white hot, indeed...
Oops! Caught Lying, again...
"Lindsey Vonn (born October 18, 1984) is an American alpine ski racer,
was born in Saint Paul, Minnesota, as Lindsey Caroline Kildow and
raised in the Twin Cities metro area, in Burnsville."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindsey_Vonn
Go finish mowing my lawn, Beaner.
Marquita Elam
Nov 9, 2012, 6:34:40 PM11/9/12
to
Ramon is a foreign transplant originally from Venezuela, probably a
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.
Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
Courtesy of Buster Norris:
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.
Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
On Sun, 6 Jun 2010 13:34:56 -0700 (PDT), Ramon F Herrera
<gopo...@jonjay.com> wrote:
>Message-ID: <72024af4-eaca-4fc0...@i31g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
>On Jun 6, 12:11 pm, brad herschel <bradhersc...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > They would be held on site until Border Patrol
> > hauls the catch away.
>
>Attorney General Eric Holder and ICE Chief John Morton have declared
>that ICE will not be accepting illegal immigrants sent to them by the
>State of Arizona.
LIAR!!!
"Morton said his agency will not necessarily process illegal
immigrants referred to them by Arizona officials."
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/ct-met-immigration-laws-chicago-20100519,0,6582417.story
HAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Kristin Stanford
Nov 9, 2012, 6:34:50 PM11/9/12
to
Ramon is a foreign transplant originally from Venezuela, probably a
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.
Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
Courtesy of Buster Norris:
On Sun, 19 Sep 2010 09:51:48 -0700 (PDT), Ramon F Herrera
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.
Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
Courtesy of Buster Norris:
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>> Immigration was a key topic in the debate
>The more interesting news is that 3 out of 3 candidates support
>Comprehensive Immigration Reform, which necessarily implies a Path to
>Citizenship.
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
"Crist and Meek voiced support for a "path to citizenship" for the
estimated 11 million or more people in the country illegally, but
Rubio said the U.S. must first secure its borders and beef up
employment verification before attempting "modernization" of its
immigration laws."
Sep 17, 2010
Rubio breaks with Meek, Crist on immigration,
English-as-official-language in Univision debate
http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/state/rubio-breaks-with-meek-crist-on-immigration-english-922622.html
Rubio, "...I think the only way you should have a path to citizenship
is if you enter this country legally via the legal immigration
process..."
Jun 28, 2010
http://www.examiner.com/hillsborough-county-conservative-in-tampa-bay/marco-rubio-on-tampa-s-am-970-wfla-this-morning
"Marco Rubio has changed his mind about the Arizona immigration law,
which he now supports whole-heartedly, to the point of actually
advocating the deportation of children to Latin American countries
where he admits the culture would be alien to them."
May 7, 2010
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/2010/05/07/marco_rubio_arizona_immigration_open2010
Tiara Lola Milner
Nov 9, 2012, 6:35:00 PM11/9/12
to
Ramon is a foreign transplant originally from Venezuela, probably a
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.
Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
On Fri, 29 Oct 2010 04:24:51 -0700 (PDT), Ramon F Herrera
beaner terrorist, and definitely a Fraud. Ramon F Herrera also goes by
"Cambridge Ray," "Google Poster," "Lucius Sanctimonious," and
"Hadron." An ultra-left, open-borders pretend-American. He lives and
works in Houston, TX. Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you
encourage them to continue lying.
Ramon F Herrera
13313 Cutten Rd, Apt 7102
Houston, TX 77069-2374
[][][][][][]
The DemocRAT Hall Of Shame http://www.democrathallofshame.com/ asks
"Why do you always LIE?"
<ra...@conexus.net> wrote:
>The worst fears of the anti-immigrant crowd have materialized.
>Federal Judge Carlos Bea:
Oops! Caught LYING, again:
Carlos Tiburcio Bea (born April 18, 1934 in San Sebastian, Spain) is a
federal judge on the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth
Circuit. He was appointed to that court by President George W. Bush in
2003 to replace Judge Charles Edward Wiggins.
Bea was born in Spain, but emigrated with his family in 1939 to Cuba.
In 1952, Bea represented Cuba as a member of the country's basketball
team in the Helsinki Olympics. Bea then emigrated to the United States
and became a naturalized citizen in 1959.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carlos_Bea
Nickname unavailable
Nov 9, 2012, 11:24:58 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 11:02 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:k7j9sr$q3q$1...@dont-email.me:
the nazi's, so whats your point?
Nickname unavailable
Nov 9, 2012, 11:30:54 PM11/9/12
to
On Nov 9, 12:38 pm, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
to the "CONSERVATIVES" he is black, muslim, commie, socialist,
kenyan, fascist, just to many to list.
wrote:
kenyan, fascist, just to many to list.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 10, 2012, 12:19:43 AM11/10/12
to
"Nickname unavailable" wrote in message
news:9732ba7e-5b1e-4b60...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
reality that objectively and actually exists? Now that is a dangerous and
foolhardy way to see and live one's reality.
max headroom
Nov 10, 2012, 1:53:20 AM11/10/12
to
Nickname unavailable <video6...@gtempaccount.com> wrote in
news:86298652-87f2-4d8d...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
> so, there were blacks in the KKK,...
Cite, please?
> ... there were jewish sympathizers of the nazi's...
Of the Nazi what? Which Nazi?
> ... so whats your point?
Ummm, that's my line.
news:86298652-87f2-4d8d...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
Cite, please?
> ... there were jewish sympathizers of the nazi's...
Of the Nazi what? Which Nazi?
> ... so whats your point?
Ummm, that's my line.
max headroom
Nov 10, 2012, 3:14:46 AM11/10/12
to
Ramon F. Herrera <ra...@conexus.net> wrote in
news:fddfda53-ce15-4790...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 9, 11:02 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > The press tells the public that the GOP is evil
> > old white guys and the ignorant believe it.
> The "evil" part is yours, but the rest is true. Just read the demographics.
I did. That's why I wrote it.
> Wait a minute.... Did my eyes deceive me or you just called me and my
> 52 million amigos "ignorant"?? (tsk, tsk, not your wises move...).
Few have seen my wises move, but it IS awesome.
> -Ramon
> ps: Do these fellows below look like "The press" to you?
> pps: These days, "the press" is known as "The Media".
I try to be more precise when I write. "The Media" is just so vague... it can include any
communication medium, even that guy motor-mouthing on the CB radio. Ed Schultz is a member of the
media; Edward R Murrow was a member of the press. Capisce?
news:fddfda53-ce15-4790...@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com:
> On Nov 9, 11:02 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > The press tells the public that the GOP is evil
> > old white guys and the ignorant believe it.
> The "evil" part is yours, but the rest is true. Just read the demographics.
> Wait a minute.... Did my eyes deceive me or you just called me and my
> 52 million amigos "ignorant"?? (tsk, tsk, not your wises move...).
> -Ramon
> ps: Do these fellows below look like "The press" to you?
> pps: These days, "the press" is known as "The Media".
communication medium, even that guy motor-mouthing on the CB radio. Ed Schultz is a member of the
media; Edward R Murrow was a member of the press. Capisce?
max headroom
Nov 10, 2012, 3:33:52 AM11/10/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7k8lk$239$1...@dont-email.me:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7k6a8$m82$3...@dont-email.me...
>> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:k7jia8$iap$1...@dont-email.me:
>>> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7jcvq$fh3$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>>> news:k7j9sr$q3q$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>> You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
>>>>> election. The GOP has over recent years become more and more
>>>>> exclusionary....
>>>> Bull. Perhaps you missed the GOP convention a few months ago, and missed
>>>> some of the featured,
>>>> prime-time speakers such as Mia Love and Susan Martinez. Have you heard
>>>> of Herman Cain, Condy
>>>> Rice, or Michael Steele? How about Clarence Thomas?
>>>> There are more Hispanic elected Republicans than Hispanic elected
>>>> Democrats.
[crickets.wav]
HD must have been a Democrat. For thousands of years, marriage has meant the union of male and
female... until Democrats decided it meant what they chose it to mean, in rather a scornful tone.
> In other words, when does "100%" not mean "all"? When, of course, it is
> Romney's 100%.
In your biased world. It seems you define words as the mood strikes you.
> Disagree? Then make a case for Romney - and the Republicans - caring about
> and concerned over the well being of the people at PBS, NPR, and Planned
> Parenthood....
Those people are doing quite well, thank you, assisted by taxpayers' money.
> ... And I do note that you have provided not one documented
However, as noted above, 100% means all. It would take a Democrat to declare that "when I use a
word, it means just what I choose it to mean - neither more nor less," and 100% is NOT all.
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7k6a8$m82$3...@dont-email.me...
>> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:k7jia8$iap$1...@dont-email.me:
>>> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7jcvq$fh3$1...@dont-email.me...
>>>> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>>>> news:k7j9sr$q3q$1...@dont-email.me:
>>>>> You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
>>>>> election. The GOP has over recent years become more and more
>>>>> exclusionary....
>>>> Bull. Perhaps you missed the GOP convention a few months ago, and missed
>>>> some of the featured,
>>>> prime-time speakers such as Mia Love and Susan Martinez. Have you heard
>>>> of Herman Cain, Condy
>>>> Rice, or Michael Steele? How about Clarence Thomas?
>>>> There are more Hispanic elected Republicans than Hispanic elected
>>>> Democrats.
> 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.'
> 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
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%.
> 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
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.
> folks in Republican targets when he made mention of his 100%. Now why
> exactly is that? Maybe...perhaps...quite possibly no such instance exists?
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.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 10, 2012, 5:14:08 AM11/10/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7l3ke$nrk$4...@dont-email.me...
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.
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. 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.
Furthermore, the point is not whether the people at PBS, NPR, and Planned
Parenthood are doing well. 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
the way over there in England was a Democrat, are you? Or are you?
/snip - follow the thread/
***********************
[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]
tsk, tsk, tsk. Clearly you missed the presidential debates. Too bad. No
[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]
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.
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. 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.
Furthermore, the point is not whether the people at PBS, NPR, and Planned
Parenthood are doing well. 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."
By the way...you are not at all implying that Lewis Carroll who lived all
Parenthood."
the way over there in England was a Democrat, are you? Or are you?
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 10, 2012, 10:44:11 AM11/10/12
to
On 11/10/2012 5:14 AM, Lawrence T. Akutagawa wrote:
>
> Those people are doing quite well, thank you, assisted by taxpayers'
> money.
>
Hispanics and blacks voted overwhelmingly for The Socialists....
>
> Those people are doing quite well, thank you, assisted by taxpayers'
> money.
>
That means that Socialism which is the real problem, will be
championed by them and they are a problem in only as much as, they vote
for Socialism as a voting block....
The question is why do they let themselves be manipulated to vote for
Socialism?
Whites do it too so it's really NOT a racial thing it's a manipulation
thing..... maybe the question is why are fewer whites manipulated to
vote for Socialism, or even why are fewer Chinese likely to vote for the
Socialists than whites do?
The problem isn't color it's why and how Socialists are able to split
people apart by race and use that to manipulate them to vote Socialist,
it fails with Chinese and with whites to a lesser degree.
*Rumination*
#1 - Liberalism is based on race and is inherently racist because in
Liberalism, race is the one thing from which all else is derived.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 10, 2012, 10:56:58 AM11/10/12
to
"BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
news:bDuns.466433$iq1....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
On 11/10/2012 5:14 AM, Lawrence T. Akutagawa wrote:
>
> Those people are doing quite well, thank you, assisted by taxpayers'
> money.
>
Hispanics and blacks voted overwhelmingly for The Socialists....
headroom" to me? If you contend that those words are indeed mine, then
please quote my entire post - including the header and my standard
disclaimer - in which I purportedly said those words.
Thank you.
news:bDuns.466433$iq1....@en-nntp-12.dc1.easynews.com...
On 11/10/2012 5:14 AM, Lawrence T. Akutagawa wrote:
>
> Those people are doing quite well, thank you, assisted by taxpayers'
> money.
>
Hispanics and blacks voted overwhelmingly for The Socialists....
/snip - follow the thread/
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
Hey "BeamMeUpScotty" - so why are you attributing those words of "max
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
headroom" to me? If you contend that those words are indeed mine, then
please quote my entire post - including the header and my standard
disclaimer - in which I purportedly said those words.
Thank you.
Josh
Nov 10, 2012, 10:59:42 AM11/10/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 10, 2012, 11:01:57 AM11/10/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7l3k8$nrk$1...@dont-email.me...
by challenging someone for cites when he himself refuses to do the exact
same thing when similarly challenged. "max headroom" clearly - clearly -
falls into the Jerry Okamura school of "do as I say, not as I do."
***********************
[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]
I just love when someone like "max headroom" here makes like Jerry Okamura
[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]
by challenging someone for cites when he himself refuses to do the exact
same thing when similarly challenged. "max headroom" clearly - clearly -
falls into the Jerry Okamura school of "do as I say, not as I do."
Bert
Nov 10, 2012, 11:11:37 AM11/10/12
to
In news:k7ltgb$5sq$1...@dont-email.me "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
Microsoft Windows Live Mail produces improperly formatted messages.
As long as you use Microsoft Windows Live Mail, you'll have to live with
people not being able to unscramble your posts.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
<lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> Hey "BeamMeUpScotty" - so why are you attributing those words of "max
> headroom" to me?
Because "Microsoft Windows Live Mail" is not a proper news client.
> Hey "BeamMeUpScotty" - so why are you attributing those words of "max
> headroom" to me?
Microsoft Windows Live Mail produces improperly formatted messages.
As long as you use Microsoft Windows Live Mail, you'll have to live with
people not being able to unscramble your posts.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 10, 2012, 11:38:31 AM11/10/12
to
post.... either that or I fucked up and you can just type in that it
was NOT you and move on.
Either way it's NOT going to ruin my day.
So fix it or get over it.
Nickname unavailable
Nov 10, 2012, 11:49:32 AM11/10/12
to
On Nov 9, 11:19 pm, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net>
here is the reality that "CONSERVATIVES" live in.
but upon careful examination "THE CONSERVATIVES" feeble attempts at
confusion and dishonesty does not stand up to the light. they live in
a counter-factual universe, the product of the hermetically sealed
"CONSERVATIVE" subculture. Trying to see the world through the lens
of
"THE CONSERVATIVE", is like looking at a fun-house mirror;
everything’s backwards and distorted.
"THE CONSERVATIVES" world view is flawed because its based upon a
small and particularly rosy sliver of reality. To preserve that world
view, "THE CONSERVATIVES" believe that people had morally earned their
“just” desserts, and had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to
point out that the world didn’t actually work that way. I think this
shows why "THE CONSERVATIVES" put so much effort into “creat[ing]
their own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts,
scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be
dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it). It explains
why study after study shows that avid consumers of "THE CONSERVATIVE"-
oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news
sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.
but upon careful examination "THE CONSERVATIVES" feeble attempts at
confusion and dishonesty does not stand up to the light. they live in
a counter-factual universe, the product of the hermetically sealed
"CONSERVATIVE" subculture. Trying to see the world through the lens
of
"THE CONSERVATIVE", is like looking at a fun-house mirror;
everything’s backwards and distorted.
"THE CONSERVATIVES" world view is flawed because its based upon a
small and particularly rosy sliver of reality. To preserve that world
view, "THE CONSERVATIVES" believe that people had morally earned their
“just” desserts, and had to ignore those whining liberals who tried to
point out that the world didn’t actually work that way. I think this
shows why "THE CONSERVATIVES" put so much effort into “creat[ing]
their own reality,” into fostering distrust of liberals, experts,
scientists, and academics, and why they won’t let a campaign “be
dictated by fact-checkers” (as a Romney pollster put it). It explains
why study after study shows that avid consumers of "THE CONSERVATIVE"-
oriented media are more poorly informed than people who use other news
sources or don’t bother to follow the news at all.
Nickname unavailable
Nov 10, 2012, 12:06:28 PM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 12:53 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> > ... there were jewish sympathizers of the nazi's...
>
> Of the Nazi what? Which Nazi?
>
leo strauss and murry rothbard.
> > ... so whats your point?
>
> Ummm, that's my line.
nope, its mine. if you belong to a party that hates your people, it
must be some sort of insanity.
> Nickname unavailable <video61cq....@gtempaccount.com> wrote innews:86298652-87f2-4d8d...@g18g2000vbf.googlegroups.com:
>
> > On Nov 9, 11:02 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:k7j9sr$q3q$1...@dont-email.me:
> >>> You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
> >>> election. The GOP has over recent years become more and more exclusionary....
> >> Bull. Perhaps you missed the GOP convention a few months ago, and missed some of the featured,
> >> prime-time speakers such as Mia Love and Susan Martinez. Have you heard of Herman Cain, Condy
> >> Rice, or Michael Steele? How about Clarence Thomas?
> >> There are more Hispanic elected Republicans than Hispanic elected Democrats.
> >> The press tells the public that the GOP is evil old white guys and the ignorant believe it.
> > so, there were blacks in the KKK,...
>
> Cite, please?
>
http://www.kkklan.com/negroklan.htm
>
> > On Nov 9, 11:02 am, "max headroom" <maxheadr...@localnet.com> wrote:
> >> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote innews:k7j9sr$q3q$1...@dont-email.me:
> >>> You know, it's exactly this kind of thinking that lost the Republicans the
> >>> election. The GOP has over recent years become more and more exclusionary....
> >> Bull. Perhaps you missed the GOP convention a few months ago, and missed some of the featured,
> >> prime-time speakers such as Mia Love and Susan Martinez. Have you heard of Herman Cain, Condy
> >> Rice, or Michael Steele? How about Clarence Thomas?
> >> There are more Hispanic elected Republicans than Hispanic elected Democrats.
> >> The press tells the public that the GOP is evil old white guys and the ignorant believe it.
> > so, there were blacks in the KKK,...
>
> Cite, please?
>
> > ... there were jewish sympathizers of the nazi's...
>
> Of the Nazi what? Which Nazi?
>
> > ... so whats your point?
>
> Ummm, that's my line.
must be some sort of insanity.
Nickname unavailable
Nov 10, 2012, 12:08:59 PM11/10/12
to
On Nov 10, 10:01 am, "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
<lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "max headroom" wrote in messagenews:k7l3k8$nrk$1...@dont-email.me...
i still cite, because i know that crank "CONSERVATIVES" will never
accept reality, its for other readers.
<lakuNOS...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "max headroom" wrote in messagenews:k7l3k8$nrk$1...@dont-email.me...
accept reality, its for other readers.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 10, 2012, 12:19:28 PM11/10/12
to
"BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
news:509e8305$0$18797$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
tsk, tsk, tsk...temper, temper, temper.
Note well your utter failure to quote in its entirety - including header and
disclaimer - my post in which those words were purportedly said by me. You
seem to be another here who just can't understand English. Oh well, so be
it.
news:509e8305$0$18797$a826...@newsreader.readnews.com...
Note well your utter failure to quote in its entirety - including header and
disclaimer - my post in which those words were purportedly said by me. You
seem to be another here who just can't understand English. Oh well, so be
it.
max headroom
Nov 10, 2012, 4:34:01 PM11/10/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7ltpl$7ro$1...@dont-email.me:
> I just love when someone like "max headroom" here makes like Jerry Okamura
> by challenging someone for cites when he himself refuses to do the exact
> same thing when similarly challenged....
Au contraire: you made an allegation and challenged me to provide cites to disprove it, rather than
provide supporting cites yourself.
> I just love when someone like "max headroom" here makes like Jerry Okamura
> by challenging someone for cites when he himself refuses to do the exact
Au contraire: you made an allegation and challenged me to provide cites to disprove it, rather than
provide supporting cites yourself.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 10, 2012, 6:35:13 PM11/10/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7mhga$5da$1...@dont-email.me...
clearly is - one for whom English is a second language?
Earlier today (11/10/2012 2:14am), I said in response to you:
- - -
THAT, "max headroom", is what is known as a link - one which cites that
Romney himself said that he excludes PBS...and probably NPR as well. This
is a clear prima facie case of Romney's 100% being exclusionary rather than
inclusionary.
So what is the color in your sky such that you make the statement here that
you did? Where o where is your citation/link/reference that Romney's 100%
is indeed inclusionary - that it indeed is "all" - rather than exclusionary?
***********************
[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]
So tell me - do you understand English? Or are you - like "GLOBALIST"
[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]
clearly is - one for whom English is a second language?
Earlier today (11/10/2012 2:14am), I said in response to you:
- - -
tsk, tsk, tsk. Clearly you missed the presidential debates. 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.
- - -
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.
THAT, "max headroom", is what is known as a link - one which cites that
Romney himself said that he excludes PBS...and probably NPR as well. This
is a clear prima facie case of Romney's 100% being exclusionary rather than
inclusionary.
So what is the color in your sky such that you make the statement here that
you did? Where o where is your citation/link/reference that Romney's 100%
is indeed inclusionary - that it indeed is "all" - rather than exclusionary?
max headroom
Nov 10, 2012, 7:20:02 PM11/10/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7mobh$d2b$1...@dont-email.me:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7mhga$5da$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:k7ltpl$7ro$1...@dont-email.me:
>>> I just love when someone like "max headroom" here makes like Jerry Okamura
>>> by challenging someone for cites when he himself refuses to do the exact
>>> same thing when similarly challenged....
>> Au contraire: you made an allegation and challenged me to provide cites to
>> disprove it, rather than provide supporting cites yourself.
> Earlier today (11/10/2012 2:14am), I said in response to you:
> - - -
> tsk, tsk, tsk. Clearly you missed the presidential debates. 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.
> - - -
> THAT, "max headroom", is what is known as a link - one which cites that
> Romney himself said that he excludes PBS...and probably NPR as well. This
> is a clear prima facie case of Romney's 100% being exclusionary rather than
> inclusionary....
Maybe in the bizarro world whereupon you dwell, but not for the rest of humanity. I am surprised
that you seem so concerned about the well-being of corporations when most pinkies are outraged over
the idea that "corporations are people."
CPB is doing very well, thank you. The USA cannot afford to borrow money to subsidize non-essential
businesses, and in doing so, harm American citizens. Romney realizes this; why can't pinkies?
> So what is the color in your sky such that you make the statement here that
> you did? Where o where is your citation/link/reference that Romney's 100%
> is indeed inclusionary - that it indeed is "all" - rather than exclusionary?
Unneeded, since you failed to prove your allegation.
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7mhga$5da$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>> news:k7ltpl$7ro$1...@dont-email.me:
>>> I just love when someone like "max headroom" here makes like Jerry Okamura
>>> by challenging someone for cites when he himself refuses to do the exact
>>> same thing when similarly challenged....
>> Au contraire: you made an allegation and challenged me to provide cites to
>> disprove it, rather than provide supporting cites yourself.
> So tell me - do you understand English? Or are you - like "GLOBALIST"
> clearly is - one for whom English is a second language?
Globalist is not an English word?!?
> clearly is - one for whom English is a second language?
> Earlier today (11/10/2012 2:14am), I said in response to you:
> - - -
> tsk, tsk, tsk. Clearly you missed the presidential debates. 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
> 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.
> - - -
> THAT, "max headroom", is what is known as a link - one which cites that
> Romney himself said that he excludes PBS...and probably NPR as well. This
> is a clear prima facie case of Romney's 100% being exclusionary rather than
Maybe in the bizarro world whereupon you dwell, but not for the rest of humanity. I am surprised
that you seem so concerned about the well-being of corporations when most pinkies are outraged over
the idea that "corporations are people."
CPB is doing very well, thank you. The USA cannot afford to borrow money to subsidize non-essential
businesses, and in doing so, harm American citizens. Romney realizes this; why can't pinkies?
> So what is the color in your sky such that you make the statement here that
> you did? Where o where is your citation/link/reference that Romney's 100%
> is indeed inclusionary - that it indeed is "all" - rather than exclusionary?
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 10, 2012, 8:29:33 PM11/10/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7mrin$39h$2...@dont-email.me...
language. Or logic. Explain, please, how exclusion by Romney of the folks
at PBS constitutes inclusion of those folks in his 100%. This, folks,
should be really good.
And do note, folks, the attempt by one who asks for cites to himself not
provide cites as to what constitutes - in Romney's own words - Romney's
100%.
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
[chuckle] Now here is someone who really does not understand the English
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
language. Or logic. Explain, please, how exclusion by Romney of the folks
at PBS constitutes inclusion of those folks in his 100%. This, folks,
should be really good.
And do note, folks, the attempt by one who asks for cites to himself not
provide cites as to what constitutes - in Romney's own words - Romney's
100%.
max headroom
Nov 10, 2012, 8:45:39 PM11/10/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7l9dh$kos$1...@dont-email.me:
> 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%.
> 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
> 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
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.
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 .."
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/offbeat/story/2012/10/04/big-bird-mitt-romney-debate-funding-cut.html
> 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.
> 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
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.
> eight ball as you clearly are.
> Furthermore, the point is not whether the people at PBS, NPR, and Planned
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
> 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."
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?
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 10, 2012, 9:07:38 PM11/10/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7n011$nq3$1...@dont-email.me...
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.
***********************
[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 -
[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]
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.
Scout
Nov 10, 2012, 10:52:12 PM11/10/12
to
"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:k7mv1u$jf8$1...@dont-email.me...
> ***********************
> [That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
> so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
> addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
> post
> so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and
> have
> in the past done]
FYI - If you roll back to Live V14....your Usenet will properly quote.
> [That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
> so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
> addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that
> post
> so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and
> have
> in the past done]
Send me an email if you need a link to the download on the MS website. It
can sometimes be hard to find.
max headroom
Nov 10, 2012, 10:43:51 PM11/10/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7mv1u$jf8$1...@dont-email.me:
excluded the employees of PBS from his concern, except in your fevered imagination.
Why should the US Treasury borrow money from China to subsidize this business at taxpayer expense?
> And do note, folks, the attempt by one who asks for cites to himself not
> provide cites as to what constitutes - in Romney's own words - Romney's
> 100%.
100% means all, right? If you have evidence that it doesn't, trot it out. So far, all you have is
your supposition that withdrawal of taxpayer money from an affluent business means lack of concern
for its employees.
BTW, can't you learn to operate a modern news client?
> [chuckle] Now here is someone who really does not understand the English
> language. Or logic. Explain, please, how exclusion by Romney of the folks
> at PBS constitutes inclusion of those folks in his 100%. This, folks, should be really good.
The fine folks at PBS are doing quite well, thank you, assisted by taxpayers' money. Romney never
> language. Or logic. Explain, please, how exclusion by Romney of the folks
> at PBS constitutes inclusion of those folks in his 100%. This, folks, should be really good.
excluded the employees of PBS from his concern, except in your fevered imagination.
Why should the US Treasury borrow money from China to subsidize this business at taxpayer expense?
> And do note, folks, the attempt by one who asks for cites to himself not
> provide cites as to what constitutes - in Romney's own words - Romney's
> 100%.
your supposition that withdrawal of taxpayer money from an affluent business means lack of concern
for its employees.
BTW, can't you learn to operate a modern news client?
max headroom
Nov 10, 2012, 10:50:57 PM11/10/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7n19b$tna$1...@dont-email.me:
[crickets.wav]
max headroom
Nov 10, 2012, 10:51:49 PM11/10/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7n19b$tna$1...@dont-email.me:
[crickets.wav]
max headroom
Nov 10, 2012, 11:09:18 PM11/10/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7n19b$tna$1...@dont-email.me:
[crickets.wav]
>>> ... 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?
[crickets.wav]
>>> 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.
> ...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.
He didn't explicitly exclude the PBS people, in your own words. You allege he implied exclusion of
PBS employees. By your logic, Democrats deny concern for employees of British Petroleum, Peabody
Energy, Arch Coal, Cloud Peak Energy, and the Keystone Pipeline workers, among others.
> 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.
100% means all, right? It's your allegation it doesn't, but you haven't provided any proof. Perhaps
you should cite Lewis Carroll.
>>> ... 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.
> 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...
Financially, as in taxpayers' money.
> 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.
PBS employees. By your logic, Democrats deny concern for employees of British Petroleum, Peabody
Energy, Arch Coal, Cloud Peak Energy, and the Keystone Pipeline workers, among others.
> 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.
you should cite Lewis Carroll.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 11, 2012, 12:51:55 AM11/11/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7n7p0$pom$1...@dont-email.me...
another - quote - "Cite, please?"
Let me see - are you saying that Romney's avowed cessation of PBS funding
indicates that he is concerned about the welfare of the people at PBS and
that such PBS folks consequently are part of his 100%? Is that your logic?
Very interesting. Most folks - unlike you - would conclude that Romney's
ceasing to fund PBS would not at all be an indication that he is concerned
about those folks....to wit:
from http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/opinion/burton-wolfe-pbs/index.html
"The vast majority of taxpayer funds for PBS ($1.35 per person per year)
goes to local stations, many of which serve rural areas, where losing
funding would mean stations going dark. We remind Mr. Romney that when
small businesses go out of business, not only are their products no longer
available to the public, people lose their jobs."
You clearly seem to be of the posture that such people adversely affected by
Romney's stoppage of PBS funding are included in Romney's 100%. How
distinctly odd. What strange reasoning. Of course, such reasoning does
make sense in the same way that "I killed her because I loved her" does.
Most folks would say that those people affected adversely by Romney's
stoppage of PBS funding are not included in Romney's 100%. (Yes, yes...I
know - you are definitely NOT most people.)
And non sequiturs galore to boot! Once again, you having done nothing but
flap your gums and toss out non sequiturs:
"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
respond. You have well established in your responses to date that you are
expert in gum flapping. I have no argument with your gum flapping ability,
as I have no argument in Jerry Okamura's similar ability.
***********************
[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]
egads...nothing but gum flapping again. And this from someone who says to
[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]
another - quote - "Cite, please?"
Let me see - are you saying that Romney's avowed cessation of PBS funding
indicates that he is concerned about the welfare of the people at PBS and
that such PBS folks consequently are part of his 100%? Is that your logic?
Very interesting. Most folks - unlike you - would conclude that Romney's
ceasing to fund PBS would not at all be an indication that he is concerned
about those folks....to wit:
from http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/opinion/burton-wolfe-pbs/index.html
"The vast majority of taxpayer funds for PBS ($1.35 per person per year)
goes to local stations, many of which serve rural areas, where losing
funding would mean stations going dark. We remind Mr. Romney that when
small businesses go out of business, not only are their products no longer
available to the public, people lose their jobs."
You clearly seem to be of the posture that such people adversely affected by
Romney's stoppage of PBS funding are included in Romney's 100%. How
distinctly odd. What strange reasoning. Of course, such reasoning does
make sense in the same way that "I killed her because I loved her" does.
Most folks would say that those people affected adversely by Romney's
stoppage of PBS funding are not included in Romney's 100%. (Yes, yes...I
know - you are definitely NOT most people.)
And non sequiturs galore to boot! Once again, you having done nothing but
flap your gums and toss out non sequiturs:
"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
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.
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."
Now if all you are going to do is yet again flap your gums, just don't
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."
respond. You have well established in your responses to date that you are
expert in gum flapping. I have no argument with your gum flapping ability,
as I have no argument in Jerry Okamura's similar ability.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 11, 2012, 1:33:21 AM11/11/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7n8ea$th6$1...@dont-email.me...
affected by Romney's stopping PBS funding. And given that PBS people are in
fact adversely affected by Romney's actions, how can they be part of
Romney's 100%? My only logical explanation is that they are not part of his
100%. If you contend that "100% means all" then how do you explain that
Romney is so concerned about them that he affects them adversely? The
twisted logic is something like "I loved her so much that I killed her" -
right?
from http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/opinion/burton-wolfe-pbs/index.html
"The vast majority of taxpayer funds for PBS ($1.35 per person per year)
goes to local stations, many of which serve rural areas, where losing
funding would mean stations going dark. We remind Mr. Romney that when
small businesses go out of business, not only are their products no longer
available to the public, people lose their jobs."
from http://www.oudaily.com/news/2012/oct/21/counterpointpbs/
"Despite Romney’s suggestion he cares about “all Americans,” he doesn’t. If
he did, he would listen to the 69 percent who said they did not want
government funding taken away from public broadcasting.
"He would have also realized his fervor to cut the deficit would be hurting
the people who need the kind of educational programming public broadcasting
provides the most: the rural poor.
"Government funding for public broadcasting in rural areas is significantly
higher than non-rural areas, ranging from 40 to 60 percent, and PBS chief
executive Paula Kerger said these stations would go off the air without this
funding."
from http://www.southernstandard.com/archives/5902/
"What Mitt Romney and other Republicans eager to defund NPR and PBS don't
apparently realize is emphasized by the very credible Tom Rosenstiel,
director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism,
who told NPR: "You probably have stations, particularly (in) more rural and
smaller markets, that would cease to exist ... There will be a lot of
collateral damage at the local level ("Public Broadcasting Funds Caught in
Budget Battle," 2/17/11)." "
/snip - follow the thread/
***********************
[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, I am not the only one who thinks that the people at PBS are adversely
[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]
affected by Romney's stopping PBS funding. And given that PBS people are in
fact adversely affected by Romney's actions, how can they be part of
Romney's 100%? My only logical explanation is that they are not part of his
100%. If you contend that "100% means all" then how do you explain that
Romney is so concerned about them that he affects them adversely? The
twisted logic is something like "I loved her so much that I killed her" -
right?
from http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/opinion/burton-wolfe-pbs/index.html
"The vast majority of taxpayer funds for PBS ($1.35 per person per year)
goes to local stations, many of which serve rural areas, where losing
funding would mean stations going dark. We remind Mr. Romney that when
small businesses go out of business, not only are their products no longer
available to the public, people lose their jobs."
"Despite Romney’s suggestion he cares about “all Americans,” he doesn’t. If
he did, he would listen to the 69 percent who said they did not want
government funding taken away from public broadcasting.
"He would have also realized his fervor to cut the deficit would be hurting
the people who need the kind of educational programming public broadcasting
provides the most: the rural poor.
"Government funding for public broadcasting in rural areas is significantly
higher than non-rural areas, ranging from 40 to 60 percent, and PBS chief
executive Paula Kerger said these stations would go off the air without this
funding."
from http://www.southernstandard.com/archives/5902/
"What Mitt Romney and other Republicans eager to defund NPR and PBS don't
apparently realize is emphasized by the very credible Tom Rosenstiel,
director of the Pew Research Center's Project for Excellence in Journalism,
who told NPR: "You probably have stations, particularly (in) more rural and
smaller markets, that would cease to exist ... There will be a lot of
collateral damage at the local level ("Public Broadcasting Funds Caught in
Budget Battle," 2/17/11)." "
max headroom
Nov 11, 2012, 2:00:49 AM11/11/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7ngri$vee$1...@dont-email.me:
> Well, I am not the only one who thinks that the people at PBS are adversely
> affected by Romney's stopping PBS funding. And given that PBS people are in
> fact adversely affected by Romney's actions...
An assumption which has not been established as fact.
> Well, I am not the only one who thinks that the people at PBS are adversely
> affected by Romney's stopping PBS funding. And given that PBS people are in
An assumption which has not been established as fact.
max headroom
Nov 11, 2012, 3:47:50 AM11/11/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7nedr$lt6$1...@dont-email.me:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7n7p0$pom$1...@dont-email.me...
The fine folks at PBS are doing quite well, thank you, assisted by taxpayers' money. Romney never
excluded the employees of PBS from his concern, except in your fevered imagination. Your refusal to
address my responses to your repeated questions requires me to repeat them, since they apparently
don't fit in well with your desired responses.
> ... Very interesting. Most folks - unlike you - would conclude that Romney's
federal funds amount to a very, very small part of their funding, and that they really, really,
REALLY need us to pick up that phone and call in our pledges right NOW?!?
SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!
> You clearly seem to be of the posture that such people adversely affected by
> Romney's stoppage of PBS funding are included in Romney's 100%....
Of course they are. All American citizens will benefit when the government eliminates non-essential
spending and reduces borrowing from China and other creditors.
> ... How distinctly odd. What strange reasoning. Of course, such reasoning does
> make sense in the same way that "I killed her because I loved her" does....
Is that like, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."?
> Most folks would say that those people affected adversely by Romney's
> stoppage of PBS funding are not included in Romney's 100%. (Yes, yes...I
> know - you are definitely NOT most people.)
Are you implying that those people affected adversely by Obama's stoppage of Keystone Pipeline
construction (nearly anyone who depends on fuel) are not included in Obama's 100%, or is that just
the inevitable logical conclusion?
> And non sequiturs galore to boot! Once again, you having done nothing but
> flap your gums and toss out non sequiturs:
Well, if you desire to use aural similes, it is as if my responses go in one ear, pick up speed, and
out your other. You are unwilling or unable to answer the questions I put to you, but rather you
demand I disprove allegations you haven't proven. It IS the proper time for you to sue for peace,
and I accept your surrender.
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7n7p0$pom$1...@dont-email.me...
>> BTW, can't you learn to operate a modern news client?
> egads...nothing but gum flapping again. And this from someone who says to
> another - quote - "Cite, please?"
> Let me see - are you saying that Romney's avowed cessation of PBS funding
> indicates that he is concerned about the welfare of the people at PBS and
> that such PBS folks consequently are part of his 100%? Is that your logic?...
> another - quote - "Cite, please?"
> Let me see - are you saying that Romney's avowed cessation of PBS funding
> indicates that he is concerned about the welfare of the people at PBS and
The fine folks at PBS are doing quite well, thank you, assisted by taxpayers' money. Romney never
address my responses to your repeated questions requires me to repeat them, since they apparently
don't fit in well with your desired responses.
> ... Very interesting. Most folks - unlike you - would conclude that Romney's
> ceasing to fund PBS would not at all be an indication that he is concerned
> about those folks....to wit:
> from http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/opinion/burton-wolfe-pbs/index.html
> "The vast majority of taxpayer funds for PBS ($1.35 per person per year)
> goes to local stations, many of which serve rural areas, where losing
> funding would mean stations going dark. We remind Mr. Romney that when
> small businesses go out of business, not only are their products no longer
> available to the public, people lose their jobs."
Holy cow, are you saying that our local PBS and NPR announcers are lying to us when they say that
> about those folks....to wit:
> from http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/opinion/burton-wolfe-pbs/index.html
> "The vast majority of taxpayer funds for PBS ($1.35 per person per year)
> goes to local stations, many of which serve rural areas, where losing
> funding would mean stations going dark. We remind Mr. Romney that when
> small businesses go out of business, not only are their products no longer
> available to the public, people lose their jobs."
federal funds amount to a very, very small part of their funding, and that they really, really,
REALLY need us to pick up that phone and call in our pledges right NOW?!?
SAY IT AIN'T SO!!!
> You clearly seem to be of the posture that such people adversely affected by
Of course they are. All American citizens will benefit when the government eliminates non-essential
spending and reduces borrowing from China and other creditors.
> ... How distinctly odd. What strange reasoning. Of course, such reasoning does
> make sense in the same way that "I killed her because I loved her" does....
Is that like, "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what's in it."?
> Most folks would say that those people affected adversely by Romney's
> stoppage of PBS funding are not included in Romney's 100%. (Yes, yes...I
> know - you are definitely NOT most people.)
construction (nearly anyone who depends on fuel) are not included in Obama's 100%, or is that just
the inevitable logical conclusion?
> And non sequiturs galore to boot! Once again, you having done nothing but
> flap your gums and toss out non sequiturs:
> Now if all you are going to do is yet again flap your gums, just don't
> respond....
Well, if you desire to use aural similes, it is as if my responses go in one ear, pick up speed, and
out your other. You are unwilling or unable to answer the questions I put to you, but rather you
demand I disprove allegations you haven't proven. It IS the proper time for you to sue for peace,
and I accept your surrender.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 11, 2012, 4:23:01 AM11/11/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7nkku$f8r$2...@dont-email.me...
funding is an assumption? Yeesh. I bet you didn't read the citations that
I included in my post.
On the other hand, where are your references/links/citations that Romney
indeed includes blacks, asians, single mothers, gays, and hispanics in his
100%? Where is one single solitary reference from you where Romney says
that he is concerned about any of those people? If indeed 100% means all as
you say it does, then surely you can find at least one such reference. How
come you can't?
***********************
[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]
So people who lose their jobs as the result of Romney's cutting off PBS
[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]
funding is an assumption? Yeesh. I bet you didn't read the citations that
I included in my post.
On the other hand, where are your references/links/citations that Romney
indeed includes blacks, asians, single mothers, gays, and hispanics in his
100%? Where is one single solitary reference from you where Romney says
that he is concerned about any of those people? If indeed 100% means all as
you say it does, then surely you can find at least one such reference. How
come you can't?
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 11, 2012, 4:25:57 AM11/11/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7nouf$1fp$2...@dont-email.me...
Indeed a most worthy successor to Jerry Okamura.
***********************
[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]
Just more gum flapping, bad logic, and of course non sequiturs. [sigh]
[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]
Indeed a most worthy successor to Jerry Okamura.
foxin...@gmail.com
Nov 11, 2012, 5:58:48 AM11/11/12
to
On Friday, November 9, 2012 4:42:31 PM UTC, Robert Westergrom,1900 Harvey rd.,Wilmington,D.E wrote:
> On Nov 9, 9:35 am, foxinabo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:45:15 PM UTC, walt tonne wrote:
>
> > > By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
>
> >
>
> > > voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
> >
>
> > > Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
>
> >
>
> > It's not fair to blame the voter. Voters vote on what's on offer for them.
>
> >
>
> > Obama said all the right things to the Hispanics, Women and Minorties groups whereas Mitt Romney's Campaign alienated them. Had he not, the outcome might have been very different.
>
>
>
> Well by gawd that's all that matters then, "saying the right things".
>
> Of course saying and doing are two completely different things with
>
> Obama, or haven't you noticed?
Obama's campaign specifically targeted the groups Romney's campaign
alienated.
We all know Promising is one thing....Delivering is another, but when
it comes to winning over hearts and minds, saying all the right things
most certainly matters to voters - A Lesson in Politics.
> On Nov 9, 9:35 am, foxinabo...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > On Friday, November 9, 2012 2:45:15 PM UTC, walt tonne wrote:
>
> > > By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
>
> >
>
> > > voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
> >
>
> > > Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
>
> >
>
> > It's not fair to blame the voter. Voters vote on what's on offer for them.
>
> >
>
> > Obama said all the right things to the Hispanics, Women and Minorties groups whereas Mitt Romney's Campaign alienated them. Had he not, the outcome might have been very different.
>
>
>
> Well by gawd that's all that matters then, "saying the right things".
>
> Of course saying and doing are two completely different things with
>
> Obama, or haven't you noticed?
Obama's campaign specifically targeted the groups Romney's campaign
alienated.
We all know Promising is one thing....Delivering is another, but when
it comes to winning over hearts and minds, saying all the right things
most certainly matters to voters - A Lesson in Politics.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 11, 2012, 12:19:24 PM11/11/12
to
On 11/11/2012 4:23 AM, Lawrence T. Akutagawa wrote:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7nkku$f8r$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:k7ngri$vee$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Well, I am not the only one who thinks that the people at PBS are
>> adversely
>> affected by Romney's stopping PBS funding. And given that PBS people
>> are in
>> fact adversely affected by Romney's actions...
>
> An assumption which has not been established as fact.
>
> ***********************
> [That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
I thought you were looking at porn and shaking your ding-a-ling at the
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7nkku$f8r$2...@dont-email.me...
>
> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:k7ngri$vee$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> Well, I am not the only one who thinks that the people at PBS are
>> adversely
>> affected by Romney's stopping PBS funding. And given that PBS people
>> are in
>> fact adversely affected by Romney's actions...
>
> An assumption which has not been established as fact.
>
> ***********************
> [That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
same time you typed this post.
So that keyboard jiz (Astrix line) is actually part of the post?
max headroom
Nov 11, 2012, 1:20:52 PM11/11/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7nqpl$ahh$1...@dont-email.me:
> So people who lose their jobs as the result of Romney's cutting off PBS
> funding is an assumption?...
Why don't you go back to community college and take a class in English Composition so you can write
a coherent sentence?
> So people who lose their jobs as the result of Romney's cutting off PBS
Why don't you go back to community college and take a class in English Composition so you can write
a coherent sentence?
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 11, 2012, 2:26:09 PM11/11/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7oqbv$3lr$2...@dont-email.me...
***********************
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
ah yes...yet another non sequitur.
[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
in the past done]
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 11, 2012, 2:35:08 PM11/11/12
to
>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
>so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
>addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
>so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
>in the past done]
Why don't you get a real news reader?
>[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
>so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
>addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
>so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
>in the past done]
max headroom
Nov 11, 2012, 3:38:24 PM11/11/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7ou4i$rta$1...@dont-email.me:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7oqbv$3lr$2...@dont-email.me...
> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:k7nqpl$ahh$1...@dont-email.me:
>> So people who lose their jobs as the result of Romney's cutting off PBS
>> funding is an assumption?...
> Why don't you go back to community college and take a class in English
> Composition so you can write a coherent sentence?
to you?
"So people who lose their jobs as the result of Romney's cutting off PBS funding is an assumption?"
English teachers all across Usenet are quietly sobbing.
Btw, get a REAL news client.
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7oqbv$3lr$2...@dont-email.me...
> Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
> news:k7nqpl$ahh$1...@dont-email.me:
>> So people who lose their jobs as the result of Romney's cutting off PBS
>> funding is an assumption?...
> Why don't you go back to community college and take a class in English
> Composition so you can write a coherent sentence?
> ah yes...yet another non sequitur.
Not a non-sequitur. I realize you wrote this, but upon further review, does this still seem coherent
to you?
"So people who lose their jobs as the result of Romney's cutting off PBS funding is an assumption?"
Btw, get a REAL news client.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 11, 2012, 8:58:48 PM11/11/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7p441$21i$2...@dont-email.me...
and its exclusion of the folks at PBS?
***********************
[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]
Same old non sequitur. What does your post have to do with Romney's 100%
[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]
and its exclusion of the folks at PBS?
max headroom
Nov 11, 2012, 9:40:05 PM11/11/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7pl4p$2v7$1...@dont-email.me:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7p441$21i$2...@dont-email.me...
Besides, I accepted your surrender last night.
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7p441$21i$2...@dont-email.me...
>> Btw, get a REAL news client.
> Same old non sequitur. What does your post have to do with Romney's 100%
> and its exclusion of the folks at PBS?
Your inability to write a coherent sentence betrays your inability to express a coherent thought.
> and its exclusion of the folks at PBS?
Besides, I accepted your surrender last night.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 12, 2012, 1:27:13 AM11/12/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7pnj7$e2u$1...@dont-email.me...
after non sequitur. He has yet to provide even one cite wherein Romney
mentions that his 100% includes specific minorities like hispanics, asians,
etc.
At least in spouting this train of non sequiturs "max headroom" does not
crawl under a rock as "GLOBALIST" does. So all I have to do is sit back and
point out on the one hand his non sequiturs and on the other hand his utter
inability to provide a cite whereby Romney's 100% is indeed inclusive and
not the Republican exclusive that built the wall between the Hispanics and
the Republicans as per:
from
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-restart-talks-us-immigration-reform-plan-153200663.html:
"Speaking on the CBS program "Face the Nation," Graham said the tone and
rhetoric used by members of his party on immigration "built a wall between
the Republican Party and the Hispanic community." "
In other words, "max headroom" - if indeed Romney's 100% is "all" as you
claim, then how do you explain this "wall between the Republican Party and
the Hispanic community" as referenced by Lindsey Graham, a leading
Republican?
ummm...yet more non sequiturs from you? Again?
***********************
[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]
Clearly all "max headroom" can do is spout non sequitur after non sequitur
[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]
after non sequitur. He has yet to provide even one cite wherein Romney
mentions that his 100% includes specific minorities like hispanics, asians,
etc.
At least in spouting this train of non sequiturs "max headroom" does not
crawl under a rock as "GLOBALIST" does. So all I have to do is sit back and
point out on the one hand his non sequiturs and on the other hand his utter
inability to provide a cite whereby Romney's 100% is indeed inclusive and
not the Republican exclusive that built the wall between the Hispanics and
the Republicans as per:
from
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-restart-talks-us-immigration-reform-plan-153200663.html:
"Speaking on the CBS program "Face the Nation," Graham said the tone and
rhetoric used by members of his party on immigration "built a wall between
the Republican Party and the Hispanic community." "
In other words, "max headroom" - if indeed Romney's 100% is "all" as you
claim, then how do you explain this "wall between the Republican Party and
the Hispanic community" as referenced by Lindsey Graham, a leading
Republican?
ummm...yet more non sequiturs from you? Again?
plainolamerican
Nov 12, 2012, 11:21:59 AM11/12/12
to
On Nov 9, 8:45 am, walt tonne <tonnewalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
> voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
> Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
Hispanics now enemies of the White race
> By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
> voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
> Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
----
we've played cowboys and spics ... they lost
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 12, 2012, 11:27:54 AM11/12/12
to
>"Lawrence T. Akutagawa" <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
>"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7pnj7$e2u$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>news:k7pl4p$2v7$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7p441$21i$2...@dont-email.me...
>
>>> Btw, get a REAL news client.
>
>> Same old non sequitur. What does your post have to do with Romney's 100%
>> and its exclusion of the folks at PBS?
>
>Your inability to write a coherent sentence betrays your inability to
>express a coherent thought.
>
>Besides, I accepted your surrender last night.
>
>Btw, get a REAL news client.
>
>***********************
>[That line of asterisks is for the benefit of "Earl Evleth" el al
>so they are aware that what precedes those asterisks is the post I am
>addressing and what comes after those asterisks is my response to that post
>so those folks don't misquote me as they otherwise are apt to do...and have
>in the past done]
>
>Clearly all "max headroom" can do is spout non sequitur after non sequitur
>after non sequitur. He has yet to provide even one cite wherein Romney
>mentions that his 100% includes specific minorities like hispanics, asians,
>etc.
Yet you're too stupid to understand what "100%" means. Clearly, you're
not giving Max much to work with.
And get a real news client.
>"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7pnj7$e2u$1...@dont-email.me...
>
>Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in
>news:k7pl4p$2v7$1...@dont-email.me:
>
>> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7p441$21i$2...@dont-email.me...
>
>>> Btw, get a REAL news client.
>
>> Same old non sequitur. What does your post have to do with Romney's 100%
>> and its exclusion of the folks at PBS?
>
>Your inability to write a coherent sentence betrays your inability to
>express a coherent thought.
>
>Besides, I accepted your surrender last night.
>
>Btw, get a REAL news client.
>
>***********************
>[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]
>
>Clearly all "max headroom" can do is spout non sequitur after non sequitur
>after non sequitur. He has yet to provide even one cite wherein Romney
>mentions that his 100% includes specific minorities like hispanics, asians,
>etc.
not giving Max much to work with.
And get a real news client.
Alias
Nov 12, 2012, 11:37:40 AM11/12/12
to
On 11/12/2012 5:27 PM, Klaus Schadenfreude wrote:
> Yet you're too stupid to understand what "100%" means.
It means that Romney the Liar and Big Time Loser supports 100% of his
> Yet you're too stupid to understand what "100%" means.
whining, right wing wacko base, what else?
--
Alias
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 12, 2012, 11:27:09 AM11/12/12
to
On 11/12/2012 11:21 AM, plainolamerican wrote:
> On Nov 9, 8:45 am, walt tonne <tonnewalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
>> voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>>
>> Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
> Hispanics now enemies of the White race
That sucks, I have so may people in my life that you might separate from
> On Nov 9, 8:45 am, walt tonne <tonnewalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
>> voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>>
>> Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
> Hispanics now enemies of the White race
Americans and call then Hispanics.
I'd hate to lose my family and friends just so you and Obama can drive a
wedge between us just to get some votes.
*Rumination*
#1 - Liberalism is based on race and is inherently racist because in
Liberalism, race is the one thing from which all else is derived.
Derek Smalls
Nov 12, 2012, 11:38:28 AM11/12/12
to
"plainolamerican" wrote in message
news:cdc4bf30-e3f0-449c...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
Remember the Alamo?
Klaus Schadenfreude
Nov 12, 2012, 11:55:02 AM11/12/12
to
>Alias <aka@masked&anonymous.com.invalid> wrote in talk.politics.guns :
Yet ANOTHER graduate of the Dudu School of Math!
[chuckle]
"You ALWAYS start counting with zero."
-Deep "Euclid" Dudu, 8/11/2012
[chuckle]
"You ALWAYS start counting with zero."
-Deep "Euclid" Dudu, 8/11/2012
plainolamerican
Nov 12, 2012, 11:55:23 AM11/12/12
to
Scout
Nov 12, 2012, 11:58:18 AM11/12/12
to
"Klaus Schadenfreude" <klausscha...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fp82a854fv8pl6clf...@4ax.com...
Microsoft has always had issues getting Usenet to quote properly.
Bert
Nov 12, 2012, 12:08:34 PM11/12/12
to
In news:k7jia8$iap$1...@dont-email.me "Lawrence T. Akutagawa"
that inane disclamer in every one of your posts.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
<lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> [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]
Why not just use a real news client? Then you wouldn't have to include
> [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]
that inane disclamer in every one of your posts.
--
be...@iphouse.com St. Paul, MN
Derek Smalls
Nov 12, 2012, 12:52:24 PM11/12/12
to
"plainolamerican" wrote in message
news:247da7d9-0fcf-46fa...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
So you DID forget!
How smurphy of you!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo
See the part on the right where it says "Result : Mexican victory" , You
racist retard?
max headroom
Nov 12, 2012, 12:54:16 PM11/12/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7q4s2$5vs$1...@dont-email.me:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7pnj7$e2u$1...@dont-email.me...
Hardly. I provide answers that don't fit your desired responses.
> ... He has yet to provide even one cite wherein Romney
> In other words, "max headroom" - if indeed Romney's 100% is "all" as you
> claim, then how do you explain this "wall between the Republican Party and
> the Hispanic community" as referenced by Lindsey Graham, a leading
> Republican?
You've been unwilling or unable to answer my questions to you, so if you wish me to further your
education, your responses to these questions are required:
Why should the United States Treasury borrow money from the Chinese and others to support CPB and
its subsidiaries when they are doing quite well?
When the Treasury is hemorrhaging, borrowing money for non-essentials is foolish. Romney recognises
this fact; why can't pinkies?
Can you make a case for Obama - and the Democrats - caring about and concerned over the well being
of the miners at Peabody Energy, Arch Coal, or Cloud Peak Energy?
Are you implying that those people affected adversely by Obama's stoppage of Keystone Pipeline
construction (nearly anyone who depends on fuel) are not included in Obama's 100%, or is that just
the inevitable logical conclusion?
Are you saying that our local PBS and NPR announcers are lying to us when they say that
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7pnj7$e2u$1...@dont-email.me...
>> Btw, get a REAL news client.
> Clearly all "max headroom" can do is spout non sequitur after non sequitur
> after non sequitur....
Hardly. I provide answers that don't fit your desired responses.
> ... He has yet to provide even one cite wherein Romney
> mentions that his 100% includes specific minorities like hispanics, asians,
> etc.
No need-- you've been unable to prove it doesn't.
> etc.
> In other words, "max headroom" - if indeed Romney's 100% is "all" as you
> claim, then how do you explain this "wall between the Republican Party and
> the Hispanic community" as referenced by Lindsey Graham, a leading
> Republican?
education, your responses to these questions are required:
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 hemorrhaging, borrowing money for non-essentials is foolish. Romney recognises
this fact; why can't pinkies?
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?
Are you implying that those people affected adversely by Obama's stoppage of Keystone Pipeline
construction (nearly anyone who depends on fuel) are not included in Obama's 100%, or is that just
the inevitable logical conclusion?
federal funds amount to a very, very small part of their funding, and that they really, really,
REALLY need us to pick up that phone and call in our pledges right NOW?!?
No more hiding behind your Fisher-Price news client. Answer these questions if you wish to continue.
REALLY need us to pick up that phone and call in our pledges right NOW?!?
Alias
Nov 12, 2012, 1:05:21 PM11/12/12
to
supreme lack of self confidence. Romney lost. Get over it and learn to
live with it.
--
Alias
BIG BIRD
Nov 12, 2012, 1:24:29 PM11/12/12
to
"Derek Smalls" <Spin...@bass.gov> wrote in message
news:50a12604$0$1228$607e...@cv.net...
:
:
: "plainolamerican" wrote in message
:
is that where all those lard assed, no fightin ability, twanging, gutless,
loud mouth, rednecks got slaughtered like hogs at a barbecue ??
time for another barbecue ???
Tom Swift Sr.
Nov 12, 2012, 1:25:09 PM11/12/12
to
On Nov 12, 11:22 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
Newt Gingrich tells his fellow Republicans to get a Clue!
----------
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548445/gingrich-gop-needs-to-be...
* Gingrich: GOP Needs to Be "Inclusive" *
by Lucy Madison
November 12, 2012, 12:29 PM
In the aftermath of Mitt Romney's presidential loss last week, Newt
Gingrich is joining the cadre of Republicans calling for the
Republican Party to more actively reach out to a more diverse
electorate, arguing on Monday that the party needs to become more
"inclusive."
"I think we need to be inclusive, and I emphasize the difference
between inclusive and outreach," Gingrich said Monday morning in an
appearance on ABC's "The View." "Outreach is when five white guys
have
a meeting and call you. Inclusive is when you're in the meeting. And
I
think we have to understand to be inclusive."
Gingrich, who was joined by his wife Callista on the show, argued
that
Republicans had "misunderstood the American people" in 2012, and that
the GOP can't just wait until 2016 to try to broaden its reach.
"The Republican doctrine of highly paid consultants spending hundreds
of millions of dollars on 30-second ads doesn't build a party," he
said. "The Republican Party better not wait until 2016. The
Republican
Party better rethink in 2013 how we're going to deal with the
country's issues and do it in a way that the average American looks
up
and says, you know, those are folks I'm willing to trust with my
future. We lost that."
He added that "there were a whole series of fundamental things that
were really wrong" with how the GOP framed the 2012 election,
including the fact that the Obama campaign so successfully appealed
to
non-white voters.
"Obama, for example, very intelligently [started] to advertise on
Univision and Telemundo months and months before the election,
setting
a framework," Gingrich said. But, he pointed out, the president
didn't
just win the Latino vote: Romney lost the Asian-American vote by an
even bigger margin.
We need to stop, take a deep breath, and learn," Gingrich said on a
separate appearance on NBC's "Today." "The president won an
extraordinary victory. And the fact is we owe him the respect of
trying to understand what they did and how they did it."
He added: "But if you had said to me three weeks ago, 'Mitt Romney
would get fewer votes than John McCain and it looks like he'll be 2
million fewer,' I would have been dumbfounded."
-----------
-----
-----
Please Note:
In select newsgroups this post will now be follow by an out-of-date,
cut-and-paste, SHRIEKING ranting and raving by Bob Milby Jr., aka
Patriot Games, aka Buster Norris, aka 1000s of Sockpuppets -- and the
winner of alt.usenet.kook's K00K of the Month Award for September
2012.
We hope to return you to more rational posting after this brief,
psychotic interruption.
------
------
wrote:
> On Nov 9, 8:45 am, walt tonne <tonnewalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
> > voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
> > Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
> --
> > By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
> > voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
> > Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
> Hispanics now enemies of the White race
> we've played cowboys and spics ... they lost
--
Newt Gingrich tells his fellow Republicans to get a Clue!
----------
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548445/gingrich-gop-needs-to-be...
* Gingrich: GOP Needs to Be "Inclusive" *
by Lucy Madison
November 12, 2012, 12:29 PM
In the aftermath of Mitt Romney's presidential loss last week, Newt
Gingrich is joining the cadre of Republicans calling for the
Republican Party to more actively reach out to a more diverse
electorate, arguing on Monday that the party needs to become more
"inclusive."
"I think we need to be inclusive, and I emphasize the difference
between inclusive and outreach," Gingrich said Monday morning in an
appearance on ABC's "The View." "Outreach is when five white guys
have
a meeting and call you. Inclusive is when you're in the meeting. And
I
think we have to understand to be inclusive."
Gingrich, who was joined by his wife Callista on the show, argued
that
Republicans had "misunderstood the American people" in 2012, and that
the GOP can't just wait until 2016 to try to broaden its reach.
"The Republican doctrine of highly paid consultants spending hundreds
of millions of dollars on 30-second ads doesn't build a party," he
said. "The Republican Party better not wait until 2016. The
Republican
Party better rethink in 2013 how we're going to deal with the
country's issues and do it in a way that the average American looks
up
and says, you know, those are folks I'm willing to trust with my
future. We lost that."
He added that "there were a whole series of fundamental things that
were really wrong" with how the GOP framed the 2012 election,
including the fact that the Obama campaign so successfully appealed
to
non-white voters.
"Obama, for example, very intelligently [started] to advertise on
Univision and Telemundo months and months before the election,
setting
a framework," Gingrich said. But, he pointed out, the president
didn't
just win the Latino vote: Romney lost the Asian-American vote by an
even bigger margin.
We need to stop, take a deep breath, and learn," Gingrich said on a
separate appearance on NBC's "Today." "The president won an
extraordinary victory. And the fact is we owe him the respect of
trying to understand what they did and how they did it."
He added: "But if you had said to me three weeks ago, 'Mitt Romney
would get fewer votes than John McCain and it looks like he'll be 2
million fewer,' I would have been dumbfounded."
-----------
-----
-----
Please Note:
In select newsgroups this post will now be follow by an out-of-date,
cut-and-paste, SHRIEKING ranting and raving by Bob Milby Jr., aka
Patriot Games, aka Buster Norris, aka 1000s of Sockpuppets -- and the
winner of alt.usenet.kook's K00K of the Month Award for September
2012.
We hope to return you to more rational posting after this brief,
psychotic interruption.
------
------
BIG BIRD
Nov 12, 2012, 1:25:59 PM11/12/12
to
"plainolamerican" <plainol...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:247da7d9-0fcf-46fa...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
stupid and ignorant rednecks in the neighborhood, and you should have seen their
husbands,
they was even worse
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 12, 2012, 1:30:32 PM11/12/12
to
"Klaus Schadenfreude" wrote in message
news:fp82a854fv8pl6clf...@4ax.com...
OK...if you too contend that Romney's 100% is inclusive rather than
exclusive, then explain the wall which Republican Graham describes as
between the Hispanics and the Republican party as per
utterly been unable to provide - where Romney when talking about his 100%
includes hispanics, asians, etc. Bet you find as much difficulty as finding
such a link/reference/citation as "max headroom" does.
[chuckle] "Clearly, you're not giving Max much to work with." Well, I'm
giving him everything and anything available on the internet to cite a
Romney speech on his 100% where Romney says that he includes hispanics,
asians, etc. My contention is that Romney's - and the Republican's - 100%
is exclusionary rather than the inclusionary that "max headroom" and you
seem to think it is. I say that Romney's - and the Republican's - 100%
excludes among others hispanics and people at PBS and have provided
references that clearly establish that exclusion. I await from "max
headroom" and from you verifiable references - aside from the standard
dictionary definition from which Romney and the Republican party with the
exclusion of hispanics and PBS folks clearly deviate -
links/references/citations that Romney's 100% indeed is inclusive such that
it does include hispanics and the PBS folks.
news:fp82a854fv8pl6clf...@4ax.com...
exclusive, then explain the wall which Republican Graham describes as
between the Hispanics and the Republican party as per
from
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-restart-talks-us-immigration-reform-plan-153200663.html:
"Speaking on the CBS program "Face the Nation," Graham said the tone and
rhetoric used by members of his party on immigration "built a wall between
the Republican Party and the Hispanic community." "
Better yet, provide a link/reference/citation - as "max headroom" has
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-restart-talks-us-immigration-reform-plan-153200663.html:
"Speaking on the CBS program "Face the Nation," Graham said the tone and
rhetoric used by members of his party on immigration "built a wall between
the Republican Party and the Hispanic community." "
utterly been unable to provide - where Romney when talking about his 100%
includes hispanics, asians, etc. Bet you find as much difficulty as finding
such a link/reference/citation as "max headroom" does.
[chuckle] "Clearly, you're not giving Max much to work with." Well, I'm
giving him everything and anything available on the internet to cite a
Romney speech on his 100% where Romney says that he includes hispanics,
asians, etc. My contention is that Romney's - and the Republican's - 100%
is exclusionary rather than the inclusionary that "max headroom" and you
seem to think it is. I say that Romney's - and the Republican's - 100%
excludes among others hispanics and people at PBS and have provided
references that clearly establish that exclusion. I await from "max
headroom" and from you verifiable references - aside from the standard
dictionary definition from which Romney and the Republican party with the
exclusion of hispanics and PBS folks clearly deviate -
links/references/citations that Romney's 100% indeed is inclusive such that
it does include hispanics and the PBS folks.
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 12, 2012, 1:49:04 PM11/12/12
to
"max headroom" wrote in message news:k7rd5s$hiu$1...@dont-email.me...
discuss his non sequiturs instead of address the issue of Romney's 100%. He
utterly ignores Republican Graham's comment of the wall between hispanics
and the Republican party, which wall makes a prima facie case that
Romney's - and the Republican's - 100% is indeed effectively exclusionary
rather than the dictionary 100% inclusionary "all" to which "max headroom"
clings.
the Republican Party and the Hispanic community." "
And yes, "max headroom" ignores my cites pointing out that an immediate
impact of losing Federal funding of PBS is loss and shutdown of rural PBS
stations with concomitant loss of associated jobs. Here - again - is one
such cite.
from http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/opinion/burton-wolfe-pbs/index.html
"The vast majority of taxpayer funds for PBS ($1.35 per person per year)
goes to local stations, many of which serve rural areas, where losing
funding would mean stations going dark. We remind Mr. Romney that when
small businesses go out of business, not only are their products no longer
available to the public, people lose their jobs."
Go find someone else to chase your red herrings, "max headroom."
Now do we get even more non sequiturs from you? It seems as though that
you - who ask for cites from others - yourself can provide none and have
indeed provided none as per Romney's - and the Republican's - 100%. You
have time and again here shown that you can only flap your gums and spew out
yet more non sequiturs.
***********************
[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]
And yet more non sequiturs. "max headroom" clearly would much rather
[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]
discuss his non sequiturs instead of address the issue of Romney's 100%. He
utterly ignores Republican Graham's comment of the wall between hispanics
and the Republican party, which wall makes a prima facie case that
Romney's - and the Republican's - 100% is indeed effectively exclusionary
rather than the dictionary 100% inclusionary "all" to which "max headroom"
clings.
from
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-restart-talks-us-immigration-reform-plan-153200663.html:
"Speaking on the CBS program "Face the Nation," Graham said the tone and
rhetoric used by members of his party on immigration "built a wall between
http://news.yahoo.com/senators-restart-talks-us-immigration-reform-plan-153200663.html:
"Speaking on the CBS program "Face the Nation," Graham said the tone and
the Republican Party and the Hispanic community." "
And yes, "max headroom" ignores my cites pointing out that an immediate
impact of losing Federal funding of PBS is loss and shutdown of rural PBS
stations with concomitant loss of associated jobs. Here - again - is one
such cite.
from http://www.cnn.com/2012/10/08/opinion/burton-wolfe-pbs/index.html
"The vast majority of taxpayer funds for PBS ($1.35 per person per year)
goes to local stations, many of which serve rural areas, where losing
funding would mean stations going dark. We remind Mr. Romney that when
small businesses go out of business, not only are their products no longer
available to the public, people lose their jobs."
Go find someone else to chase your red herrings, "max headroom."
Now do we get even more non sequiturs from you? It seems as though that
you - who ask for cites from others - yourself can provide none and have
indeed provided none as per Romney's - and the Republican's - 100%. You
have time and again here shown that you can only flap your gums and spew out
yet more non sequiturs.
BeamMeUpScotty
Nov 12, 2012, 1:53:26 PM11/12/12
to
>>
>> > By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
>> > voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>>
>> > Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
>>
>> Hispanics now enemies of the White race
>> ----
>> we've played cowboys and spics ... they lost
>>
>> >^^^^
>>
>> Remember the Alamo?
>
--
*Welcome to Socialism*
-Kum bay ya-
Lawrence T. Akutagawa
Nov 12, 2012, 1:58:16 PM11/12/12
to
"Tom Swift Sr." wrote in message
news:8f36e339-7dcc-471c...@b12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 11:22 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 9, 8:45 am, walt tonne <tonnewalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
> > voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
> > Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
> --
> Hispanics now enemies of the White race
> we've played cowboys and spics ... they lost
--
Newt Gingrich tells his fellow Republicans to get a Clue!
----------
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548445/gingrich-gop-needs-to-be...
* Gingrich: GOP Needs to Be "Inclusive" *
by Lucy Madison
November 12, 2012, 12:29 PM
In the aftermath of Mitt Romney's presidential loss last week, Newt
Gingrich is joining the cadre of Republicans calling for the
Republican Party to more actively reach out to a more diverse
electorate, arguing on Monday that the party needs to become more
"inclusive."
/snip - follow the thread/
***********************
[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]
The really fascinating thing is that there are folks here who really believe
that Romney's - and the Republican Party's - 100% is already
inclusive...that that 100% already means "all." So how exactly can the GOP
be more inclusive when it already is 100%? I wonder how such folks
reconcile their belief of that 100% with GOP folks like Gingrich saying that
the GOP has to be more inclusive and Graham talking about the existing wall
between the hispanics and the GOP.
news:8f36e339-7dcc-471c...@b12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 11:22 am, plainolamerican <plainolameri...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 9, 8:45 am, walt tonne <tonnewalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
> > voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
> > Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
> --
> Hispanics now enemies of the White race
> we've played cowboys and spics ... they lost
--
Newt Gingrich tells his fellow Republicans to get a Clue!
----------
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57548445/gingrich-gop-needs-to-be...
* Gingrich: GOP Needs to Be "Inclusive" *
by Lucy Madison
November 12, 2012, 12:29 PM
In the aftermath of Mitt Romney's presidential loss last week, Newt
Gingrich is joining the cadre of Republicans calling for the
Republican Party to more actively reach out to a more diverse
electorate, arguing on Monday that the party needs to become more
"inclusive."
***********************
[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]
that Romney's - and the Republican Party's - 100% is already
inclusive...that that 100% already means "all." So how exactly can the GOP
be more inclusive when it already is 100%? I wonder how such folks
reconcile their belief of that 100% with GOP folks like Gingrich saying that
the GOP has to be more inclusive and Graham talking about the existing wall
between the hispanics and the GOP.
Derek Smalls
Nov 12, 2012, 2:08:09 PM11/12/12
to
"BeamMeUpScotty" wrote in message
news:vAbos.689249$xK2.3...@en-nntp-11.dc1.easynews.com...
Rental car agencies is "socialism"? :)
plainolamerican
Nov 12, 2012, 3:49:07 PM11/12/12
to
On Nov 12, 11:52 am, "Derek Smalls" <Spinal...@bass.gov> wrote:
> "plainolamerican" wrote in message
>
> news:247da7d9-0fcf-46fa...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Nov 12, 10:38 am, "Derek Smalls" <Spinal...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "plainolamerican" wrote in message
>
> >news:cdc4bf30-e3f0-449c...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 9, 8:45 am, walt tonne <tonnewalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
> > > voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
> > > Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
>
> > Hispanics now enemies of the White race
> > ----
> > we've played cowboys and spics ... they lost
>
> > >^^^^
>
> > Remember the Alamo?
>
> yeah ... it's still in America
>
> >^^^
>
> So you DID forget!
> How smurphy of you!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo
> "plainolamerican" wrote in message
>
> news:247da7d9-0fcf-46fa...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Nov 12, 10:38 am, "Derek Smalls" <Spinal...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "plainolamerican" wrote in message
>
> >news:cdc4bf30-e3f0-449c...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 9, 8:45 am, walt tonne <tonnewalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
> > > voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
> > > Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
>
> > Hispanics now enemies of the White race
> > ----
> > we've played cowboys and spics ... they lost
>
> > >^^^^
>
> > Remember the Alamo?
>
> yeah ... it's still in America
>
> >^^^
>
> So you DID forget!
> See the part on the right where it says "Result : Mexican victory" , You
> racist retard?
See the part on the right where it says "Result : Mexican victory" ,
----
> racist retard?
See the part on the right where it says "Result : Mexican victory" ,
An insignificant fact ... as we've beaten mexicans like dogs and can
anytime we want. We can also annex their shit hole anytime we want.
Santa Anna reportedly told Captain Fernando Urizza that the battle
"was but a small affair".[127] Another officer then remarked that
"with another such victory as this, we'll go to the devil".[Note 17]
[128] In his initial report Santa Anna claimed that 600 Texians had
been killed, with only 70 Mexican soldiers killed and 300 wounded.
[129] His secretary, Ramón Martínez Caro, later repudiated the report.
[130] Other estimates of the number of Mexican soldiers killed ranged
from 60–200, with an additional 250–300 wounded.[128] Most Alamo
historians place the number of Mexican casualties at 400–600 Mexicans.
[128][131][132] This would represent about one-third of the Mexican
soldiers involved in the final assault, which Todish remarks is "a
tremendous casualty rate by any standards".[128] Most eyewitnesses
counted between 182–257 Texians killed.
---
killing mexicans is easier than killing jews or muzzies.
You racist retard?
---
go fuck your dead mother's carcass and like it, bitch!
plainolamerican
Nov 12, 2012, 3:50:38 PM11/12/12
to
On Nov 12, 12:26 pm, "BIG BIRD" <Sno...@Teranews.com> wrote:
> "plainolamerican" <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
he Mexicans didn't want it
---
oh, that's why it took 600 spics to kill 150 Texians?
gfyb
> "plainolamerican" <plainolameri...@gmail.com> wrote in message
---
oh, that's why it took 600 spics to kill 150 Texians?
gfyb
Derek Smalls
Nov 12, 2012, 4:03:09 PM11/12/12
to
"plainolamerican" wrote in message
news:4d137634-1ee1-4112...@a14g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
On Nov 12, 11:52 am, "Derek Smalls" <Spinal...@bass.gov> wrote:
> "plainolamerican" wrote in message
>
> news:247da7d9-0fcf-46fa...@j10g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Nov 12, 10:38 am, "Derek Smalls" <Spinal...@bass.gov> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > "plainolamerican" wrote in message
>
> >news:cdc4bf30-e3f0-449c...@c16g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Nov 9, 8:45 am, walt tonne <tonnewalt...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > By giving Obama 73% of their vote they prove that race dictated their
> > > voting.. I assume that their voters were 95% legal citizens.
>
> > > Race counts, isolate hispanics from here forward.
>
> > Hispanics now enemies of the White race
> > ----
> > we've played cowboys and spics ... they lost
>
> > >^^^^
>
> > Remember the Alamo?
>
> yeah ... it's still in America
>
> >^^^
>
> So you DID forget!
> How smurphy of you!http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Alamo
> See the part on the right where it says "Result : Mexican victory" ,
> You
> racist retard?
See the part on the right where it says "Result : Mexican victory" ,
----
>^^^^
Facts spook you.
plainolamerican
Nov 12, 2012, 4:13:39 PM11/12/12
to
The Mexican–American War resulted in a huge loss of Mexican territory
to the USA. It comprised almost 1,700,000 sq mi, which was reduced to
just under 800,000 by1848. Another 32,000 were sold to the U.S. in the
Gadsden Purchase of 1853, for a total reduction of more than 55%, or
900,000 square miles.
say it ... an American Victory!!!
RD Sandman
Nov 12, 2012, 5:06:31 PM11/12/12
to
plainolamerican <plainol...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:ab189e78-5196-4888...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
Which was the result of the Mexican-American War, not the loss of the
Alamo.
--
Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,
And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman)
news:ab189e78-5196-4888...@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com:
Alamo.
--
Democracy means that anyone can grow up to be President,
And anyone who doesn't grow up can be Vice President.
Sleep well, tonight.....
RD (The Sandman)
Alias
Nov 12, 2012, 7:47:59 PM11/12/12
to
On 11/12/2012 10:13 PM, plainolamerican wrote:
> certainly not insignificant facts like a short-term loss at the Alamo.
>
> The Mexican–American War resulted in a huge loss of Mexican territory
> to the USA. It comprised almost 1,700,000 sq mi, which was reduced to
> just under 800,000 by1848. Another 32,000 were sold to the U.S. in the
> Gadsden Purchase of 1853, for a total reduction of more than 55%, or
> 900,000 square miles.
>
> say it ... an American Victory!!!
Yet the Mexicans are taking it all back by having more children than
> certainly not insignificant facts like a short-term loss at the Alamo.
>
> The Mexican–American War resulted in a huge loss of Mexican territory
> to the USA. It comprised almost 1,700,000 sq mi, which was reduced to
> just under 800,000 by1848. Another 32,000 were sold to the U.S. in the
> Gadsden Purchase of 1853, for a total reduction of more than 55%, or
> 900,000 square miles.
>
> say it ... an American Victory!!!
anyone else. Who's getting fucked, hot shot? Say it, Mexican Victory!!!
--
Alias
max headroom
Nov 12, 2012, 8:24:49 PM11/12/12
to
Lawrence T. Akutagawa <lakuN...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in news:k7rgb0$853$1...@dont-email.me:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7rd5s$hiu$1...@dont-email.me...
Already addressed and dismissed.
> ... He utterly ignores Republican Graham's comment of the wall between hispanics
> and the Republican party,...
I will continue your education AFTER you answer the questions I've posed to you, which you are
unwilling or unable to answer, to wit:
> "max headroom" wrote in message news:k7rd5s$hiu$1...@dont-email.me...
>> No more hiding behind your Fisher-Price news client. Answer these questions
>> if you wish to continue.
>> if you wish to continue.
> And yet more non sequiturs. "max headroom" clearly would much rather
> discuss his non sequiturs instead of address the issue of Romney's 100%....
Already addressed and dismissed.
> ... He utterly ignores Republican Graham's comment of the wall between hispanics
> and the Republican party,...
I will continue your education AFTER you answer the questions I've posed to you, which you are
unwilling or unable to answer, to wit:
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages