Now, Santorum

[arseniccollection]

It looks like tonight is Santorum's turn. Santorum - not santorum - the
guy who lost his Senate seat by 18 points his last election, the
candidate who most resembles a child molester, the one with the most
creepy spousal background.

(In her 20's, Karen Santorum had a years-long affair with the
obstetrician who delivered her. No, not a doctor who delivered her
babies, the doctor who pulled her out of her mother's VJ 20+ years ago.
An ewwww moment for the ages.)

At this rate, the Republicans better hope for a brokered convention at
which to pull Jeb Bush out of a hat.

[DDawgster]

this guy is the biggest threat in the history of democracy.. this MF will
have them BURN all the evidence of evolution and promote christian honor
killings

even the shitstick hillbillies in the GOP cant be this fuckin stupid

well.. maybe they can

> Apparently I see no reason for Perry to have lied well over a year ago..

Another gem from Alim Nassor

--- 

[ChrisRobin]

It's almost like they aren't even trying this time around.

______________________________________________________________________ 

[Mossingen]

"ChrisRobin" <a9d...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:mim909x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

The SNL skit of one of the debates sums it up. Mitt walks over to a
stumbling, bumbling Rick Perry, shakes his head sadly, and says, "Look, I
want to win, but not like this."

[VegasJerry]

I agree. But why should they? Obama has the country on recovery; he's
working around the Republican obstructionism. People know what the
Republicans have in mind if they're elected. The Republicans have promised
to cut their Social Security and Medicare. They have promised to reverse
the Healthcare gains. Just what have the Republicans offered?


Jerry 'n Vegas

____________________________________________________________________ 

[Will in New Haven]

On Feb 7, 11:11 pm, arseniccollection <g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It looks like tonight is Santorum's turn. Santorum - not santorum - the
> guy who lost his Senate seat by 18 points his last election, the
> candidate who most resembles a child molester, the one with the most
> creepy spousal background.

The one who has repeatedly said that people should not disconnect sex
with procreation. What a fucking perfert.

>
> (In her 20's, Karen Santorum had a years-long affair with the
> obstetrician who delivered her. No, not a doctor who delivered her
> babies, the doctor who pulled her out of her mother's VJ 20+ years ago.
> An ewwww moment for the ages.)

On the other hand, this doesn't bother me. WTF right do you have
getting indignant about consenting adults.

>
> At this rate, the Republicans better hope for a brokered convention at
> which to pull Jeb Bush out of a hat.

He would be better than anyone who is running and still he would lose.

--
Will in New Haven

[bratt]

On Feb 8 2012 10:40 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:

> The one who has repeatedly said that people should not disconnect sex
> with procreation. What a fucking perfert.

I haven't paid attention to Santorum because he was little more than a
blip on the screen. What does "people should not disconnect sex with
procreation" mean? Are you saying he said the only reason to have sex was
to make babies?

> > (In her 20's, Karen Santorum had a years-long affair with the
> > obstetrician who delivered her. No, not a doctor who delivered her
> > babies, the doctor who pulled her out of her mother's VJ 20+ years ago.
> > An ewwww moment for the ages.)
>
> On the other hand, this doesn't bother me. WTF right do you have
> getting indignant about consenting adults.

I totally agree with this.


> Will in New Haven


------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

--- 

[da pickle no spam]

Obama's re-election chances shot up to over 60% (it was around 50%
about a week ago) this morning. The stupidity of Republicans is
astonishing. lol.

[Schmedley]

On Feb 8 2012 11:57 AM, bratt wrote:

> On Feb 8 2012 10:40 AM, Will in New Haven wrote:
>
> > The one who has repeatedly said that people should not disconnect sex
> > with procreation. What a fucking perfert.
>
> I haven't paid attention to Santorum because he was little more than a
> blip on the screen. What does "people should not disconnect sex with
> procreation" mean? Are you saying he said the only reason to have sex was
> to make babies?
>

Yes, this is pretty much what he said a few weeks ago. Rick toes the
Vatican line on all issues. He (honestly) says what he is thinking, which
is refreshing, but the thoughts are scary as hell.

-------- 

[Wilhelm Kuhlmann]

On Feb 8, 8:57 am, "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:

> I haven't paid attention to Santorum because he was little more than a
> blip on the screen.

Really, Susan? Well, you must have paid enough attention to Santorum
to decide you prefer him to the other Republican candidates, because
on your Facebook page it says --

"Jan answered Who would you vote for today? with Santorum."


William Coleman (ramashiva)

[Travel]

Rasmussen poll out today:

Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.

That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.

The "independent vote" (about a third of the electorate) broke over 2
to 1 for the Republican candidate in the 2010 mid-term, referendum-on-
Obama elections.; with the conservative Republicans dominating in the
Republican primaries.

[bratt]

This obsession with people you despise and think are stupid is getting out
of control.

I probably said that because I didn't and don't want to vote for Obama,
Newt or Romney and he seemed the only other choice I have. I don't
remember doing it, and I'm sure at one point I said Huntsman. Not sure
how that is a contradiction to saying I haven't followed him closely like
I said I hadn't, but I'm sure you will let me know. I have also said,
many times here and other places, that this just might be the year (the
first since I voted for McGovern in the early seventies) that I don't vote
at all.

[bratt]

Watching MSNBC today (sorry, not FOX Jerry) the commentators were saying
that forcing the Catholics to give up thousands of years of beliefs was
not a good thing to do. They were saying a lot of people see this as a
real government takeover. And if anyone thinks Mika Brezninski(sp) is a
Repug, you are sadly mistaken. I can't even remember who else was on the
*panel* but it was mixed R&D and they all agreed it was a bad thing for
Obama to do. I don't know all the amendments, but they said besides the
1st amendment, it also defied *I think* the 10th.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

________________________________________________________________________ 

[BillB]

On 2/8/2012 10:12 AM, Travel wrote:

> Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
> It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.
>
> That's a virtual tie

No, it isn't.

[BillB]

On 2/8/2012 9:22 AM, da pickle no spam wrote:

>The stupidity of Republicans is
> astonishing.

Yes, I recently posted a study from Psychological Science explaining
this phenomenon.

[Travel]

On Feb 8, 1:25 pm, "bratt" <a890...@webnntp.invalid> wrote:
> On Feb 8 2012 12:12 PM, Travel wrote:
>
> > Rasmussen poll out today:
>
> > Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
> > It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.
>
> > That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.
>

> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis...

>
>
>
> > What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
> > pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
> > candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.
>
> > The "independent vote" (about a third of the electorate) broke over 2
> > to 1 for the Republican candidate in the 2010 mid-term, referendum-on-
> > Obama elections.; with the conservative Republicans dominating in the
> > Republican primaries.
>
> Watching MSNBC today (sorry, not FOX Jerry) the commentators were saying
> that forcing the Catholics to give up thousands of years of beliefs was
> not a good thing to do.  They were saying a lot of people see this as a
> real government takeover.  And if anyone thinks Mika Brezninski(sp) is a
> Repug, you are sadly mistaken.  I can't even remember who else was on the
> *panel* but it was mixed R&D and they all agreed it was a bad thing for
> Obama to do.  I don't know all the amendments, but they said besides the
> 1st amendment, it also defied *I think* the 10th.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
>
> ________________________________________________________________________

So many issues against Obama. The "Canada pipeline" should also be a
biggie in the general election.

[arseniccollection]

On 2/8/2012 08:40, Will in New Haven wrote:

>> (In her 20's, Karen Santorum had a years-long affair with the
>> obstetrician who delivered her. No, not a doctor who delivered her
>> babies, the doctor who pulled her out of her mother's VJ 20+ years ago.
>> An ewwww moment for the ages.)
>
> On the other hand, this doesn't bother me. WTF right do you have
> getting indignant about consenting adults.

Indignant, no. Creeped-out, yes.

[Travel]

Yes it is. It's within the polling margin of error.

[Travel]

Republicans are so stupid that they creamed the Democrats by
historical proportions in the 2010 mid term elections. How stupid does
that make Democrats?

[Will in New Haven]

On Feb 8, 1:12 pm, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Rasmussen poll out today:
>
> Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
> It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.
>
> That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.
>

> http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis...

>
> What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
> pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
> candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.

What you don't understand is that _lots_ of the people who identify as
Christian still like to fuck and don't want the government telling
them it is only for the production of children. Others don't mind
reproducing with their spouses but kinda like to keep their side
action unproductive. And there are many heterosexual couples whose
usual sex practices could not result in a pregnancy barring a
miracle.

NONE of those people want to hear Santorum telling them what to do in
bed. And he does go around saying things like that. He doesn't just
say "it would be nice if" or "people would be happier and better off
if," he is talking about basing government policy on this lunacy.

[VegasJerry]

On Feb 8 2012 10:25 AM, bratt wrote:

> On Feb 8 2012 12:12 PM, Travel wrote:
>
> > Rasmussen poll out today:
> >
> > Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
> > It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.
> >
> > That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.
> >
> >
>
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
> >
> > What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
> > pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
> > candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.
> >
> > The "independent vote" (about a third of the electorate) broke over 2
> > to 1 for the Republican candidate in the 2010 mid-term, referendum-on-
> > Obama elections.; with the conservative Republicans dominating in the
> > Republican primaries.
>
> Watching MSNBC today (sorry, not FOX Jerry) the commentators were saying
> that forcing the Catholics to give up thousands of years of beliefs was
> not a good thing to do.

The Catholics are not being asked to give up thousands of years of beliefs
and you can't show where they are. Right wing misinformation may be a
dirty trick, but it works on the likes of you.

> They were saying a lot of people see this as a
> real government takeover.

And you believe them. Requiring insurance coverage is not a government
take over. I've said it before and I'll say it again: You are one stupid
person, SS.


Jerry 'n Vegas

And if anyone thinks Mika Brezninski(sp) is a
> Repug, you are sadly mistaken. I can't even remember who else was on the
> *panel* but it was mixed R&D and they all agreed it was a bad thing for
> Obama to do. I don't know all the amendments, but they said besides the
> 1st amendment, it also defied *I think* the 10th.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
>
> ________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

That was the point, you idiot. The Republicans bought the Teabagger's BS
and voted them in. Now they see they've been had; that the Teabaggers
didn't do what they promised; and the ones that are smart enough, will
vote them right out.

(Note that you're not one of the "smart enough" ones).


Jerry 'n Vegas

How stupid does
> that make Democrats?

______________________________________________________________________ 

[bratt]

On Feb 8 2012 3:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

> On Feb 8 2012 10:25 AM, bratt wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8 2012 12:12 PM, Travel wrote:
> >
> > > Rasmussen poll out today:
> > >
> > > Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
> > > It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.
> > >
> > > That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.
> > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
> > >
> > > What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
> > > pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
> > > candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.
> > >
> > > The "independent vote" (about a third of the electorate) broke over 2
> > > to 1 for the Republican candidate in the 2010 mid-term, referendum-on-
> > > Obama elections.; with the conservative Republicans dominating in the
> > > Republican primaries.
> >
> > Watching MSNBC today (sorry, not FOX Jerry) the commentators were saying
> > that forcing the Catholics to give up thousands of years of beliefs was
> > not a good thing to do.
>
> The Catholics are not being asked to give up thousands of years of beliefs
> and you can't show where they are.

> Right wing misinformation may be a
> dirty trick, but it works on the likes of you.

What part of this was rightwing information. Do a little google search
for mika brzezinski and tell us all how she is rightwing.

You really didn't read what I wrote and jumped into something you know
nothing about. Or did you see the panel too?

Roman Catholics believe in contraceptives? Gee, I didn't know that.

>
> > They were saying a lot of people see this as a
> > real government takeover.
>
> And you believe them. Requiring insurance coverage is not a government
> take over.

Huh? What does that have to do with the decision? Jerry, we aren't
talking about insurance coverage.

> I've said it before and I'll say it again: You are one stupid
> person, SS.

Stupid person who listens to both sides discuss the matter and all agree
with me. In fact, at the end of the discussion they all said unanimously
- Stick it up your butt Jerry'nVegas

A little word of advise Jerry. There are two sides to every story. I was
relating what was said, you were so determined to call me stupid that you
jumped in without knowing what was going on.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

------- 

[VegasJerry]

On Feb 8 2012 1:42 PM, bratt wrote:

> On Feb 8 2012 3:31 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8 2012 10:25 AM, bratt wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 8 2012 12:12 PM, Travel wrote:
> > >
> > > > Rasmussen poll out today:
> > > >
> > > > Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
> > > > It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.
> > > >
> > > > That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> >
>
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll
> > > >
> > > > What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
> > > > pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
> > > > candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.
> > > >
> > > > The "independent vote" (about a third of the electorate) broke over 2
> > > > to 1 for the Republican candidate in the 2010 mid-term, referendum-on-
> > > > Obama elections.; with the conservative Republicans dominating in the
> > > > Republican primaries.
> > >
> > > Watching MSNBC today (sorry, not FOX Jerry) the commentators were saying
> > > that forcing the Catholics to give up thousands of years of beliefs was
> > > not a good thing to do.
> >
> > The Catholics are not being asked to give up thousands of years of beliefs
> > and you can't show where they are.
>
> > Right wing misinformation may be a
> > dirty trick, but it works on the likes of you.
>
> What part of this was rightwing information.

That Catholics are required to give up thousands of years of beliefs.
Requiring insurance coverage is a government take over.

True or false?


Jerry

> Do a little google search
> for mika brzezinski and tell us all how she is rightwing.
>
> You really didn't read what I wrote and jumped into something you know
> nothing about. Or did you see the panel too?
>
> Roman Catholics believe in contraceptives? Gee, I didn't know that.
>
> >
> > > They were saying a lot of people see this as a
> > > real government takeover.
> >
> > And you believe them. Requiring insurance coverage is not a government
> > take over.
>
> Huh? What does that have to do with the decision? Jerry, we aren't
> talking about insurance coverage.
>
> > I've said it before and I'll say it again: You are one stupid
> > person, SS.
>
> Stupid person who listens to both sides discuss the matter and all agree
> with me. In fact, at the end of the discussion they all said unanimously
> - Stick it up your butt Jerry'nVegas
>
> A little word of advise Jerry. There are two sides to every story. I was
> relating what was said, you were so determined to call me stupid that you
> jumped in without knowing what was going on.
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
> Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas
>
> -------

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[BillB]

On 2/8/2012 11:05 AM, Travel wrote:

>>> That's a virtual tie
>>
>> No, it isn't.
>
> Yes it is. It's within the polling margin of error.

That is not a virtual tie.

[bratt]

On Feb 8 2012 4:16 PM, VegasJerry wrote:

> That Catholics are required to give up thousands of years of beliefs.

true

> Requiring insurance coverage is a government take over.

false (thought this question has nothing to do with the discussion).


Now you tell me, is USAtoday a rightwing publication?

Editorial: Contraception mandate violates religious freedom

Few Americans of any political stripe would disagree with the simple
proposition that the government should steer away from meddling in church
affairs. Certainly, it should never try to force a religiously affiliated
institution to violate a central tenet of its faith.

Yet in drawing up the rules that will govern health care reform, the Obama
administration didn't just cross that line. It galloped over it, requiring
employers affiliated with the Catholic Church to include free birth
control in their health insurance plans. That's contrary to both Catholic
doctrine and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/opinion/editorials/story/2012-02-05/contraception-mandate-religious-freedom/52975796/1

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

________________________________________________________________________ 

[BillB]

On 2/8/2012 2:35 PM, bratt wrote:
>> That Catholics are required to give up thousands of years of beliefs.
>
> true

No, it's not true. They can believe anything they want.

[John Karl]

And evidently the vast majority of them believe that non-natural methods
of contraception are just fine. They would probably appreciate birth
control being covered by their health insurance.

[bratt]

I don't disagree with that at all.

It's the perception, and the delivery that people find offensive.

[Clave]

"bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
news:aaeb09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Feb 8 2012 5:05 PM, John Karl wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/12 4:47 PM, BillB wrote:
>> > On 2/8/2012 2:35 PM, bratt wrote:
>> >>> That Catholics are required to give up thousands of years of beliefs.
>> >>
>> >> true
>> >
>> > No, it's not true. They can believe anything they want.
>>
>> And evidently the vast majority of them believe that non-natural methods
>> of contraception are just fine. They would probably appreciate birth
>> control being covered by their health insurance.
>
> I don't disagree with that at all.
>
> It's the perception, and the delivery that people find offensive.

Yeah, he sure is uppity.

Jim

[bratt]

shit - I lost my bet. I was sure B-BillB would be the first one to make
this racial issue. But the other person had doggie so I guess we both
lose.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

________________________________________________________________________ 

[Clave]

"bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:gsfb09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Feb 8 2012 6:08 PM, Clave wrote:
>
>> "bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message
>> news:aaeb09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...
>> > On Feb 8 2012 5:05 PM, John Karl wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 2/8/12 4:47 PM, BillB wrote:
>> >> > On 2/8/2012 2:35 PM, bratt wrote:
>> >> >>> That Catholics are required to give up thousands of years of
>> >> >>> beliefs.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> true
>> >> >
>> >> > No, it's not true. They can believe anything they want.
>> >>
>> >> And evidently the vast majority of them believe that non-natural
>> >> methods
>> >> of contraception are just fine. They would probably appreciate birth
>> >> control being covered by their health insurance.
>> >
>> > I don't disagree with that at all.
>> >
>> > It's the perception, and the delivery that people find offensive.
>>
>> Yeah, he sure is uppity.
>>
>> Jim
>
> shit - I lost my bet. I was sure B-BillB would be the first one to make
> this racial issue. But the other person had doggie so I guess we both
> lose.

How else is there to take this "it's not his actual policies that are
offensive, it's just that he should be nicer when he talks about them"
horseshit?

Are you saying that it's just shallow, juvenile partisan hatred as opposed
to race-based?

GMAFB

Jim

[bratt]

Tell me where I ever said it was partisan - as a matter of fact I have
consistently said it WASN'T partisan.

You sound like Jerry, too quick to call me stupid or racist rather than
read what was written.

Jerry and clavie - thats a pair to draw to.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

------- 

[Travel]

On Feb 8, 2:10 pm, Will in New Haven <bill.re...@taylorandfrancis.com>
wrote:

> On Feb 8, 1:12 pm, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > Rasmussen poll out today:
>
> > Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
> > It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.
>
> > That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.
>
> >http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis...
>
> > What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
> > pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
> > candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.
>
> What you don't understand is that _lots_ of the people who identify as
> Christian still like to fuck and don't want the government telling
> them it is only for the production of children. Others don't mind
> reproducing with their spouses but kinda like to keep their side
> action unproductive. And there are many heterosexual couples whose
> usual sex practices could not result in a pregnancy barring a
> miracle.
>

What you don't undertand is that that divel is all in your mind.

> NONE of those people want to hear Santorum telling them what to do in
> bed.

He doesn't tell them that. The voters don't think that he does; that's
why conservatives won big in 2010.

>And he does go around saying things like that. He doesn't just
> say "it would be nice if" or "people would be happier and better off
> if," he is talking about basing government policy on this lunacy.
>
> --
> Will in New Haven

That lame divel about "the conservatives" telling people what to do in
bed is all in your mind: proven by the voting results.

The only places where you'll get any agreement is in San Francisco and
Manhatten, with your ilk of other leftbats.

[Travel]

On Feb 8, 4:36 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> On Feb 8 2012 11:09 AM, Travel wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 2:00 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> > > On 2/8/2012 9:22 AM, da pickle no spam wrote:
>
> > >  >The stupidity of Republicans is
>
> > > > astonishing.
>
> > > Yes, I recently posted a study from Psychological Science explaining
> > > this phenomenon.
>
> > Republicans are so stupid that they creamed the Democrats by
> > historical proportions in the 2010 mid term elections.
>
> That was the point, you idiot. The Republicans bought the Teabagger's BS
> and voted them in. Now they see they've been had; that the Teabaggers
> didn't do what they promised; and the ones that are smart enough, will
> vote them right out.

Lol, the tea party/conservative voters ARE the Republicans, you
imbecile. It's 75% of the Republican electorate.





______________________________________________________________________

[Travel]

Hey, Karl Marx, isn't this where you start screaming "separation of
church and state."

[Travel]

Yes it is. In polling, within the margin of error is consdered even
chances. Public Policy Polling had Romney up over Santorum a day
before the Colorado Caucus, and look what happened. Now, STFU, you
idiot.

[Clave]

"bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:k6hb09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> Tell me where I ever said it was partisan - as a matter of fact I have
> consistently said it WASN'T partisan.
>
> You sound like Jerry, too quick to call me stupid or racist rather than
> read what was written.

OK, based on what you wrote -- what *specifically* did he say about it where
you took offense to his "delivery"?

Jim

[bo dark]

On Feb 7, 10:11 pm, arseniccollection <g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> It looks like tonight is Santorum's turn. Santorum - not santorum - the
> guy who lost his Senate seat by 18 points his last election, the
> candidate who most resembles a child molester, the one with the most
> creepy spousal background.

>
> (In her 20's, Karen Santorum had a years-long affair with the
> obstetrician who delivered her. No, not a doctor who delivered her
> babies, the doctor who pulled her out of her mother's VJ 20+ years ago.
> An ewwww moment for the ages.)
>

> At this rate, the Republicans better hope for a brokered convention at
> which to pull Jeb Bush out of a hat.

(In her 20's, Karen Santorum had a years-long affair with the
obstetrician who delivered her. No, not a doctor who delivered her
babies, the doctor who pulled her out of her mother's VJ 20+ years
ago.
An ewwww moment for the ages.)

******************************************************************************************

You should avoid Woody Allen , Roman Polanski , and Morgan Freeman
films with goofballs like these making movies . Shit , i forgot about
Charles Darwin marrying his first cousin and having 10 children with
her , knowing there could be problems , he even worried about it. Does
he get an award or something ? Einstein married his first cousin ,
what a world.

[BillB]

On 2/8/2012 5:20 PM, Travel wrote:

> Yes it is. In polling, within the margin of error is consdered even
> chances.

False.

Come on Travel, you are supposed to be our polling guy, and you don't
even understand the results you report. You've not only embarrassed
yourself, but all of RGP.

[bratt]

#1 - I didn't take offense I quoted what others were saying

#2 - USAToday Yet in drawing up the rules that will govern health care

reform, the Obama
administration didn't just cross that line. It galloped over it, requiring
employers affiliated with the Catholic Church to include free birth
control in their health insurance plans. That's contrary to both Catholic
doctrine and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.

#3 - WSJ - The political furor over President Obama's birth-control
mandate continues to grow, even among those for whom contraception poses
no moral qualms, and one needn't be a theologian to understand why. The
country is being exposed to the raw political control that is the core of
the Obama health-care plan, and Americans are seeing clearly for the first
time how this will violate pluralism and liberty.

#4 - Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who faces re-election in November, sent a
letter to Obama complaining that the mandate is a "direct affront to
religious freedoms."

#5 - Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., said in January that the decision
"violates the long-standing tradition of protection for conscience rights
in federal law."

#6 - Tim Kaine, a Catholic seeking the Senate seat in Virginia, said he
supports contraceptive coverage but thinks there should be a broader
exemption for religious organizations.

#7 - David Axelrod said (and I can't find the quote) something to the
effect that even though he and the administration were wholeheartedly for
the plan, but that perhaps they should have viewed other options first.

I don't have a horse in this race. I am not catholic. I used birth
control in my younger years, but the question I don't see answered is why
can't women who want birth control go to a non-catholic hospital and get
it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

________________________________________________________________________ 

[Clave]

"bratt" <a89...@webnntp.invalid> wrote in message

news:dhob09x...@app-01.ezprovider.com...

> On Feb 8 2012 7:49 PM, Clave wrote:

<...>

>> OK, based on what you wrote -- what *specifically* did he say about it
>> where
>> you took offense to his "delivery"?
>>
>> Jim
>
> #1 - I didn't take offense I quoted what others were saying

Bullshit, as we shall soon see.

> #2 - USAToday Yet in drawing up the rules that will govern health care
> reform, the Obama
> administration didn't just cross that line. It galloped over it, requiring
> employers affiliated with the Catholic Church to include free birth
> control in their health insurance plans. That's contrary to both Catholic
> doctrine and constitutional guarantees of religious freedom.

Where does that say people find the policy OK but are offended by his
"delivery"?

> #3 - WSJ - The political furor over President Obama's birth-control
> mandate continues to grow, even among those for whom contraception poses
> no moral qualms, and one needn't be a theologian to understand why. The
> country is being exposed to the raw political control that is the core of
> the Obama health-care plan, and Americans are seeing clearly for the first
> time how this will violate pluralism and liberty.

Where does that say people find the policy OK but are offended by his
"delivery"?

> #4 - Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., who faces re-election in November, sent a
> letter to Obama complaining that the mandate is a "direct affront to
> religious freedoms."

Where does that say people find the policy OK but are offended by his
"delivery"?

> #5 - Rep. Dan Lipinski, D-Ill., said in January that the decision
> "violates the long-standing tradition of protection for conscience rights
> in federal law."

Where does that say people find the policy OK but are offended by his
"delivery"?

> #6 - Tim Kaine, a Catholic seeking the Senate seat in Virginia, said he
> supports contraceptive coverage but thinks there should be a broader
> exemption for religious organizations.

Where does that say people find the policy OK but are offended by his
"delivery"?

> #7 - David Axelrod said (and I can't find the quote) something to the
> effect that even though he and the administration were wholeheartedly for
> the plan, but that perhaps they should have viewed other options first.

Where does that say people find the policy OK but are offended by his
"delivery"?

> I don't have a horse in this race. I am not catholic.

You're just full of shit is all.

> I used birth
> control in my younger years, but the question I don't see answered is why
> can't women who want birth control go to a non-catholic hospital and get
> it?

Why the fuck should they have to?

A better question is why can't these hospitals simply forego federal money
if their religious sensibilities are so threatened?

98% of sexually-active catholic women use birth control -- the only people
bent out of shape over this are a bunch of dried-up old catholic men, and
people like you who have to invent STUPID, PHONY reasons like Obama's
"delivery" to hang your criticism on just because you hate in the first
place.

Jim

[arseniccollection]

> I don't have a horse in this race. I am not catholic. I used birth
> control in my younger years, but the question I don't see answered is why
> can't women who want birth control go to a non-catholic hospital and get
> it?
>

These days, Catholic and other religious-affiliated hospitals are very
similar to all other hospitals. The vast majority of their funding comes
from government or employer insurance. Most of the people who work or
receive services there reflect the larger community. For example, the
last Catholic Hospital where I worked had about 20% Jewish and 20% Asian
physicians - about the same as in non-Catholic hospitals.

In my state of California, one of the major hospital chains - Catholic
Healthcare West - just separated from the Church.

[Travel]

On Feb 8, 9:10 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> On 2/8/2012 5:20 PM, Travel wrote:
>
> > Yes it is. In polling, within the margin of error is consdered even
> > chances.
>
> False.
>
>

You're false, and don't know what your talking about.

[Travel]

On Feb 8, 8:20 pm, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 5:33 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
> > On 2/8/2012 11:05 AM, Travel wrote:
>
> > >>> That's a virtual tie
>
> > >> No, it isn't.
>
> > > Yes it is. It's within the polling margin of error.
>
> > That is not a virtual tie.
>

Yes it is. In polling, within the margin of error is considered even

[Travel]

On Feb 8, 10:30 pm, arseniccollection <g...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > I don't have a horse in this race.  I am not catholic.  I used birth
> > control in my younger years, but the question I don't see answered is why
> > can't women who want birth control go to a non-catholic hospital and get
> > it?
>

>

> In my state of California,

Okay, stop right there. That's all anyone needs to know.

Funny, Obama can give Obama Commie "Care" waivers to all kinds of
companies, merely by the fact that they gave him campaign
contributions, but there's huge stonewalling when the Catholic Church
should get a waiver for very substantive reasons.

[Dutch]

"Travel" <nin...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:eef78ee7-1779-493f...@l14g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...

You and "Truthseeker" should rent a bubble somewhere..

[BillB]

On 2/8/2012 8:57 PM, Travel wrote:

> You're false, and don't know what your talking about.

I'm no expert, but I obviously know a lot more than you. The margin of
error is +-3% with a 95% confidence interval. That means Obama:46%
Gingrich:43% is more likely than any other combination to reflect actual
public opinion. As you move away from that combination (in either
direction) it becomes increasingly less and less likely that that new
combination is accurate. This poll represents a 3% spread (46% to 43%).
That means it is very likely that Obama is actually ahead by some amount
at the moment. It is far from a "virtual tie," even though that's how
the statistical illiterates on Fox News will often present it to their
under-educated audience if the poll happens to indicate a Democrat leading.

[Travel]

On Feb 9, 12:23 am, "Dutch" <n...@email.com> wrote:
> "Travel" <nine...@webtv.net> wrote in message

> You and "Truthseeker" should rent a bubble somewhere..- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -


There's a major religion bigot, now.

[Travel]

On Feb 8, 11:58 pm, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 8:20 pm, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 5:33 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On 2/8/2012 11:05 AM, Travel wrote:
>
> > > >>> That's a virtual tie
>
> > > >> No, it isn't.
>
> > > > Yes it is. It's within the polling margin of error.
>
> > > That is not a virtual tie.
>

Well, given your idiocy, I'll just have to go over this this one time
to demonstrate your sophomoric understanding.

The link below is the daily tracking poll of Newt v. Obama, from which
the original Rasmussen poll that I posted on this thread is taken.
The poll in the link below is more detailed and shows the background
of the trend of this Rasmussen daily tracking poll.

This poll clearly shows Newt progressively on the "upswing" and Obama
on the "downswing." It's called "momentum," which is quite significant
in polling.

Polls are a snapshot in time, meaning: "if the election were to be
held today," this is the standing.

When one candidate is going up in the polls and gaining on another
candiate, this momentum is most important; and if the two candidates
are within the margin of error from one another, it's definitely
considered "too close to call;" neck and neck;" "even," "virtual tie,"
etc.

That's why commentators use these descriptions: because it's true and
none of them, including the left wing media commentators, would make a
prediction under these poll results. That leaves, you, as the lone-
retard.

Under these circumstances, and with Newt being, previously,
considerably behind and now close and within the margin of error, it
would be indeed a situation considered a "virtual tie" or similar
description: That was my original, appropriate description of which
you, in your abject idiocy, set yourself up for yet another ass-
kicking.



Here's the poll, with daily tracking results [to anyone who knew what
they're talking about (that wouldn't be BillB, obviously) this link
would be unnecessary, as anyone who knew what they're talking about
would already know that Newt has been considerably behind Obama, and
with a stand-alone poll (as the original poll linked on this thread)
showing Newt within the margin of error, it's a momentum-trend
advantage for Newt]:

http://www.google.com/gwt/x?wsc=vb&wsi=54bec16f6e6b565c&source=m&u=http%3A%2F%2Fargojournal.blogspot.com/2012/02/poll-watch-rasmussen-2012-daily_08.html&ei=KOozT8r8LcyCmAfX3YDPDA&ct=pg1&whp=30


I wrote peviously:

[VegasJerry]

On Feb 8 2012 2:35 PM, bratt wrote:

> On Feb 8 2012 4:16 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > That Catholics are required to give up thousands of years of beliefs.
>
> true

WHA! HA~HA! You poor fool, Susan. You're getting desperat and it's funny.
Show us what they had to give up.

WHA! HA~HA...


Jerry 'n Vegas

------- 

[mo_ntresor]

On Feb 8 2012 10:22 AM, da pickle no spam wrote:

> > It looks like tonight is Santorum's turn. Santorum - not santorum - the
> > guy who lost his Senate seat by 18 points his last election, the
> > candidate who most resembles a child molester, the one with the most
> > creepy spousal background.
> >
> > (In her 20's, Karen Santorum had a years-long affair with the
> > obstetrician who delivered her. No, not a doctor who delivered her
> > babies, the doctor who pulled her out of her mother's VJ 20+ years ago.
> > An ewwww moment for the ages.)
> >
> > At this rate, the Republicans better hope for a brokered convention at
> > which to pull Jeb Bush out of a hat.
>

> Obama's re-election chances shot up to over 60% (it was around 50%
> about a week ago) this morning. The stupidity of Republicans is
> astonishing. lol.

the true idiots are big government spenders, democrats and republicans.
that you find obama acceptable given election promises of four years ago
is an intellectual embarrassment of the highest order. you and everyone
like you shouldn't be allowed to share a nation with guys like me.

mo_ntresor

_______________________________________________________________________ 

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:12:07 -0800 (PST), Travel <nin...@webtv.net>

wrote:

>Rasmussen poll out today:
>
>Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
>It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.
>
>That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.
>

>http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/daily_presidential_tracking_poll

>
>What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
>pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
>candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.

But most of them aren't fundamentalist fanatics.

[Pepe Papon]

On Wed, 08 Feb 2012 11:00:13 -0800, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:

>On 2/8/2012 9:22 AM, da pickle no spam wrote:
>
> >The stupidity of Republicans is
>> astonishing.
>

>Yes, I recently posted a study from Psychological Science explaining
>this phenomenon.
>

But Hollis said it's a crap study and that psychology isn't a science.

[Travel]

It's obviously a bogus, left-wing agenda, crap study.

[Travel]

On Feb 11, 4:27 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:12:07 -0800 (PST), Travel <nine...@webtv.net>

> wrote:
>
> >Rasmussen poll out today:
>
> >Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
> >It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.
>
> >That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.
>

> >http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis...

>
> >What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
> >pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
> >candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.
>
> But most of them aren't fundamentalist fanatics.

What's fanatical about religion and family values? And, what fanatics?
The only thing "fanatical" is religion-bigotry.

The Jewish rabbi's are against Obama's most recent attack on religious
freedom. Are they the "fundamentalist fanatics" you're talking
about?

[Travel]

On Feb 11, 4:27 am, Pepe Papon <hitmeis...@mindspring.com> wrote:

> On Wed, 8 Feb 2012 10:12:07 -0800 (PST), Travel <nine...@webtv.net>

> wrote:
>
> >Rasmussen poll out today:
>
> >Obama 46%- Newt 43%.
> >It's about the same as Romney v.Obama.
>
> >That's a virtual tie, and Obama way under 50% v. Newt.
>

> >http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_adminis...

>
> >What anti-religion bigots on this thread need to understand is that
> >pro family values and religion is a plus, not a minus for Republican
> >candidates: over 80% of the US population identifies as Christian.
>
> But most of them aren't fundamentalist fanatics.

What's fanatical about religion family values, exactly? And what
fanatics? The only fanatics are the anti religion bigots.

Rabbis are against Obama's attack on religious freedom. Are they the
"fundamentalist fanatics" you're blithering about?

[VegasJerry]

On Feb 8 2012 5:15 PM, Travel wrote:

> On Feb 8, 4:36 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Feb 8 2012 11:09 AM, Travel wrote:
> >
> > > On Feb 8, 2:00 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
> > > > On 2/8/2012 9:22 AM, da pickle no spam wrote:
> >
> > > >  >The stupidity of Republicans is
> >
> > > > > astonishing.
> >
> > > > Yes, I recently posted a study from Psychological Science explaining
> > > > this phenomenon.
> >
> > > Republicans are so stupid that they creamed the Democrats by
> > > historical proportions in the 2010 mid term elections.
> >
> > That was the point, you idiot. The Republicans bought the Teabagger's BS
> > and voted them in. Now they see they've been had; that the Teabaggers
> > didn't do what they promised; and the ones that are smart enough, will
> > vote them right out.
> >

> > (Note that you're not one of the "smart enough" ones).

> Lol, the tea party/conservative voters....

Making my point that, "You're not one of the 'smart enought' ones."

Jerry (back to ignoring Travel) 'n Vegas

ARE the Republicans, you
> imbecile. It's 75% of the Republican electorate.
>
>
>
>
>
> ______________________________________________________________________

____________________________________________________________________ 

[TruthSeeker]

VegasJerry wrote:

> That was the point, you idiot. The Republicans bought the Teabagger's BS
> and voted them in. Now they see they've been had; that the Teabaggers
> didn't do what they promised; and the ones that are smart enough, will
> vote them right out.

The Tea Party candidates that got elected are still a minority in the
Republican Party. They do not hold the leadership positions or even
Committee chairmanships. They cannot "do what they promised" until they
get more members and leadership positions. Nevertheless, IMO they had a
positive impact during the current term and helped move the narrative in
the proper direction.



--
TruthSeeker

[Travel]

On Feb 12, 2:46 pm, TruthSeeker <TruthSee...@nospam.us> wrote:
> VegasJerry wrote:
> > That was the point, you idiot. The Republicans bought the Teabagger's BS
> > and voted them in. Now they see they've been had; that the Teabaggers
> > didn't do what they promised; and the ones that are smart enough, will
> > vote them right out.
>
> The Tea Party candidates that got elected are still a minority in the
> Republican Party.

You mean, the tea party candidates that got elected are still in the
minority in the Republican congress. That's obvious.

Turd is obviously talking about the Republican voters who voted for
these new tea party congressional members by a majority vote in the
Republican primaries.

[Travel]

You mean:

"Jerry (too dumb to know that conservatives make-up 75% of the
Republican electorate) 'n Vegas."

[RazzO]

On Feb 12 2012 10:21 PM, Travel wrote:

> On Feb 12, 12:25 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cheetosdick.net> wrote:
> > Jerry (back to ignoring Travel) 'n Vegas
> >
> >  ARE the Republicans, you
> >
> > > imbecile. It's 75% of the Republican electorate.
> >

>

> You mean:
>
> "Jerry (too dumb to know that conservatives make-up 75% of the
> Republican electorate) 'n Vegas."

Travel, Jerry 'n Vegas only has half baked posts because of deadlines. You
can't expect him to be right every, every, every, every, every, single
time.


RazzO n' Vegas

________________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

On Feb 12 2012 11:46 AM, TruthSeeker wrote:

> VegasJerry wrote:
>
> > That was the point, you idiot. The Republicans bought the Teabagger's BS
> > and voted them in. Now they see they've been had; that the Teabaggers
> > didn't do what they promised; and the ones that are smart enough, will
> > vote them right out.
>
>
> The Tea Party candidates that got elected are still a minority in the
> Republican Party.

But still blocking job. Something they said they'd do was generate jobs.

> They do not hold the leadership positions or even
> Committee chairmanships. They cannot "do what they promised" until they
> get more members and leadership positions. Nevertheless, IMO they had a
> positive impact during the current term and helped move the narrative in
> the proper direction.
>
>
>
> --
> TruthSeeker

______________________________________________________________________ 

[VegasJerry]

On Feb 12 2012 8:53 PM, RazzO wrote:

> On Feb 12 2012 10:21 PM, Travel wrote:
>
> > On Feb 12, 12:25 pm, "VegasJerry" <jerr...@cheetosdick.net> wrote:
> > > Jerry (back to ignoring Travel) 'n Vegas
> > >
> > >  ARE the Republicans, you
> > >
> > > > imbecile. It's 75% of the Republican electorate.
> > >
>
> >
> > You mean:
> >
> > "Jerry (too dumb to know that conservatives make-up 75% of the
> > Republican electorate) 'n Vegas."
>
> Travel, Jerry 'n Vegas only has half baked posts because of deadlines.

Well, that's a position I haven't had made for me in a while....

You
> can't expect him to be right every, every, every, every, every, single
> time.
>
>
> RazzO n' Vegas
>
> ________________________________________________________________________ 

______________________________________________________________________ 

[bratt]

so you are bigoted against *under-educated* people?

[da pickle]

On 2/13/2012 4:46 PM, bratt wrote:
> On Feb 9 2012 4:06 AM, BillB wrote:
>
>> On 2/8/2012 8:57 PM, Travel wrote:
>>
>>> You're false, and don't know what your talking about.
>>
>> I'm no expert, but I obviously know a lot more than you. The margin of
>> error is +-3% with a 95% confidence interval. That means Obama:46%
>> Gingrich:43% is more likely than any other combination to reflect actual
>> public opinion. As you move away from that combination (in either
>> direction) it becomes increasingly less and less likely that that new
>> combination is accurate. This poll represents a 3% spread (46% to 43%).
>> That means it is very likely that Obama is actually ahead by some amount
>> at the moment. It is far from a "virtual tie," even though that's how
>> the statistical illiterates on Fox News will often present it to their
>> under-educated audience if the poll happens to indicate a Democrat leading.
>
> so you are bigoted against *under-educated* people?

Not the black ones.

[Travel]

Chortle. Good one, RazzO.

[Travel]

On Feb 9, 11:31 am, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:58 pm, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 8:20 pm, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 8, 5:33 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On 2/8/2012 11:05 AM, Travel wrote:
>
> > > > >>> That's a virtual tie
>
> > > > >> No, it isn't.
>
> > > > > Yes it is. It's within the polling margin of error.
>
> > > > That is not a virtual tie.

In the lexicon of polling, yes it is.

http://www.google.com/gwt/x?wsc=vb&wsi=54bec16f6e6b565c&source=m&u=ht...

[Travel]

On Feb 9, 11:31 am, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
> On Feb 8, 11:58 pm, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 8, 8:20 pm, Travel <nine...@webtv.net> wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 8, 5:33 pm, BillB <bo...@shaw1.ca> wrote:
>
> > > > On 2/8/2012 11:05 AM, Travel wrote:
>
> > > > >>> That's a virtual tie
>
> > > > >> No, it isn't.
>
> > > > > Yes it is. It's within the polling margin of error.
>
> > > > That is not a virtual tie.
>

Yes it is.

wouldn't be unnecessary, as anyone who knew what they're talking about

would already know that Newt has been considerably behind Obama, and
with a stand-alone poll (as the original poll linked on this thread)
showing Newt within the margin of error, it's a momentum-trend
advantage for Newt]:

http://www.google.com/gwt/x?wsc=vb&wsi=54bec16f6e6b565c&source=m&u=ht...

[Pepe Papon]

Would it be bigotry to point out that the under-educated are easily
fooled and manipulated?

[da pickle]

On 2/14/2012 12:58 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:

>>> so you are bigoted against *under-educated* people?
>>
>> Not the black ones.
>
> Would it be bigotry to point out that the under-educated are easily
> fooled and manipulated?

First, a direct answer to your question:

No.

Second, a comment:

Why instead of making a contribution do you so often make an off topic
comment or fail to comment and ask an off topic question?

[This is a rhetorical question/comment; it does not require an answer.
See if you can do it!]

[BTSinAustin]

Not the black ones

----- 

[bratt]

actually, the smarter a person is the easier it is to trick them - ask any
magician

------------------------------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8 2011 2:11 PM, VegasJerry wrote:
Jerry (almonst worthless) 'n Vegas

------- 

[Pepe Papon]

On Tue, 14 Feb 2012 08:02:31 -0600, da pickle
<jcpi...@nospam.hotmail.com> wrote:

>On 2/14/2012 12:58 AM, Pepe Papon wrote:
>
>>>> so you are bigoted against *under-educated* people?
>>>
>>> Not the black ones.
>>
>> Would it be bigotry to point out that the under-educated are easily
>> fooled and manipulated?
>
>First, a direct answer to your question:
>
>No.
>
>Second, a comment:
>
>Why instead of making a contribution do you so often make an off topic
>comment or fail to comment and ask an off topic question?

If you're suggesting that the question I asked is off topic, then
there's no reason to take your question seriously.

Here's one for you: Would you consider your repeated "Not the black
ones" replies to be making a contribution? Are they on topic?

[Pepe Papon]

LOL

[TruthSeeker]

They make an excellent point, and in this case their very number helps
make the point.



--
TruthSeeker