Trump says he has doubts about Obama's birth place
Leroy N. Soetoro
about-obama%E2%80%99s-birth-place/?iref=obnetwork
(CNN) – Donald Trump, the business mogul who continues to claim he is
seriously interested in mounting a bid for the White House, says he has
doubts about whether President Obama was born in the United States.
In an interview with ABC, Trump said he finds it strange “nobody knew”
Obama as a young child in Hawaii.
“Let me tell you, I’m a really smart guy. I was a really good student at
the best school in the country. The reason I have a little doubt, just a
little, is because he grew up and nobody knew him,” Trump said in the
interview that aired Thursday.
“If I got the nomination, if I decide to run, you may go back and
interview people from my kindergarten. They'll remember me. Nobody comes
forward. Nobody knows who he is until later in his life. It's very
strange,” the Celebrity Apprentice host added. “The whole thing is very
strange.”
Current Hawaii Gov. Neil Abercrombie has said he was a friend of Obama’s
parents in Hawaii and remembers when the future president was born.
Abercrombie, a former congressman who became governor last December, vowed
to produce an original copy of Obama’s birth certificate but abandoned
those efforts earlier this year because it is against state law to release
private documents, according to his spokeswoman.
In 2008, the Obama campaign produced a certification of live birth that
reports his birthplace as Honolulu, Hawaii. He attended kindergarten there
before moving to Jakarta, Indonesia with his stepfather at age six.
Katherine Nakamoto, Obama’s kindergarten teacher, described the then-five-
year old to the Maui News in 2009: “He was a cute, likable, heavy build-
child. I could visualize Barry smiling, dressed in his long-sleeved, white
shirt tucked into his brown Bermuda shorts, and wearing laced shoes."
In the interview with ABC, Trump also said he would be willing to spend
$600 million on his own presidential bid and ran through his opinions of
his possible opponents.
Mitt Romney? “He doesn’t resonate.”
Tim Pawlenty? “I don't think he will captivate the voters.”
Jon Huntsman? “When you work for somebody else, as he has worked for
Barack Obama, you don't leave and run against that person. It's very
disloyal.”
Mike Huckabee? “I really like him. He's the kind of a guy that maybe could
really get some votes.”
Sarah Palin? “She did fine as the governor. I think, personally, she made
a tragic mistake when she left early. I think she's more qualified than
Barack Obama was when he became president.
Newt Gingrich? “You know why I like Gingrich? He just joined my club in
New York.”
--
Obama's black racist USAG appointee.
Eric Holder, racist black United States Attorney General drops voter
intimidation charges against the Black Panthers, "You are about to be
ruled by the black man, cracker!"
Eric Holder, prejudiced black United States Attorney General settles the
hate crime debate, "Whites Not Protected by Hate Crime Laws."
Nancy Pelosi, Democrat criminal, accessory before and after the fact, to
former House Ways and Means Committee Chairman Charles B. Rangel of New
York's million dollar tax evasion. On December 3, 2010, Congress voted to
censure Rangel for 11 ethics violations. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi
fought removal of Charles B. Rangel from the House Ways and Means
Committee.
Felony President. 18 USC, Sec. 600. Promise of employment or other
benefit for political activity
Obama violated the law by trying to buy Joe Sestak off with a political
appointment in exchange for not pursuing an election bid to replace Arlen
Specter. Obama violated the law by trying to buy former Colorado House
Speaker Andrew Romanoff off last fall to see if he'd be interested in an
administration job -- instead of running against Sen. Michael Bennet.
--- news://freenews.netfront.net/ - complaints: ne...@netfront.net ---
Shall not be infringed
wrote:
> http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2011/03/17/trump-says-he-has-dou...
Trump's no dummy.
JLS
Rightard Whitey
> Trump is kissing the bums of the teabaggers.
I'm a little Tea Partier,
Portly and nutty,
Here is my handle (one hand on hip),
Here is my spout (other arm out with elbow and wrist bent),
When I get all steamed up,
Hear me pout,
Tip me over and make me into putty!
Larry Hewitt
Trump's an idiot.
He has announced he plans to buy the presidency, in large part becuase
he has no constituency.
Larry
Shall not be infringed
That's right. No one is qualified to be president except a democrat.
What was I thinking?
Larry Hewitt
> In article<Z9SdnZgyDPQ...@comporium.net>,> Trump is a Martian. The hair is to hide his antennae.
>
Hmmm. Never thought of that. Could be...
Larry
Larry Hewitt
TI said trump has no constituency.
That means he has never run for office, never appealed to voters for
support, never detailed his policies, stands, or positions, has no
financial support nor a campaign volunteers. No one knows what he is for
or against, except for this idiot question about Obama's birth.
He has just noted that tea partiers with no experience have been
elected, and --- as he has said in interviews --- he can probably win
the presidency if he spends a paltry dew hundred million of his own money.
Larry
Shall not be infringed
And I never said he would make a good president.
I said he was no dummy, and you had shoot down his ability to be
president.
You might as well take this opportunity to attack Sarah Palin and her
daughter as well.
> He has just noted that tea partiers with no experience have been
> elected, and --- as he has said in interviews --- he can probably win
> the presidency if he spends a paltry dew hundred million of his own money.
So? Didn't Hillary spend some of her own money???
Sheesh! You guys never, ever stop criticising anyone who is not a
democrat.
Ray Keller
"Larry Hewitt" wrote in message
news:2pSdnTEshoF...@comporium.net...
Boris Kapusta
So far his qualifications look pretty good if you compare to what we
have now.
I guess we'll find out what he's all about when he announces that he's
running. Like SNBI said, he's no dummy. He's not making any
announcements until his show ends its season to avoid having the
democraps get equal time.
The fact that we'll have a President who wants to give us money
instead of helping himself to our wallets is a welcome change. And
that's no small CHANGE, like O'bummer.
Boris Kapusta
He scares you, huh?
Larry Hewitt
I don't understand the desire of the right to put incompetent,
inexpereienced people in o0ffice.
Trump has never held office, never run for office. He has never served
in a senior position as a government appointee at any level.
Ian B MacLure
The only thing that matters about Soetaro's birth is that he is
a bastard sonovabitch in both the literal and figurative sense.
IBM
Larry Hewitt
Trump has never run for office, never participated in A CAMPAIGN AS A
MAJOR PLAYER (AND BEEN ASKED TO, LEAVE WHEN HE DOES STICK HIS NOSE INTO
A CAMPAIGN)
He has never tried to raise funds from the public, never served in an
appointed capacity at any level of government never advised an executive
at any level of government in a manner that gets accepted.
He has become rich on OPM, with his businesses going bankrupt at least
4 times, twice in the last 3 years, costing investors tens of billions
of dollars.He has been forced off of the board for mismanagement in at
least 3 of the bankruptcies.
Trump's reputation in the business community is as a showboating self
promoter who's only talent is to hire smart people *then abuse them til
they quit). Watch the apprentice and learn.
Trump has no ability to read public sentiment, and picked on this fringe
issue because he will get press.
Trump is a joke, not being taken seriously. This is another epsidoe like
2000 where he threatened to run, but was just basking in the publicity.
> You might as well take this opportunity to attack Sarah Palin and her
> daughter as well.
Run, Sarah, run.
I'd *love* to see here at the convention!!!
>
>> He has just noted that tea partiers with no experience have been
>> elected, and --- as he has said in interviews --- he can probably win
>> the presidency if he spends a paltry dew hundred million of his own money.
>
> So? Didn't Hillary spend some of her own money???
Yep.
Lot's of candidates did,
None have had the resources Trump had, and none have run for president
as a major party candidate.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
Trump is a showboating idiot.
So far he is a birther, wants to (illegally) put a 25% tariff on Chinese
goods (imagine if all stuff at Walmart went up 25% overnight!!!), and is
anti-gun control and anti-abortion (new stances, he has given money to
pro candidates and pro groups in the past.
He has gone bankrupt 4 (twice in the last 3 years) times and been fired
on 3 of those occasions.
You want &him& as president????
Larry
Buster Norris
Why did you have then cancel this web ad??????
http://mingle2.com/user/view/2780429
Why do you have this web ad??????
http://www.connexion.org/viewprofile.cfm?id=547792
Why did you post this on the internet??????
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/b4dd5145cba7dc79?dmode=source
From: Secular Human
Newsgroups: alt.politics.homosexuality,alt.politics
Subject: Re: I eat shit! Message me if you're into giving scat!
Date: Wed, 3 Nov 2010
Joe Snodgrass wrote in news:37069b96-4ee9-
4c34-8c20-58ae0f55d...@j2g2000yqf.googlegroups.com:
> Message me if you're into giving scat.
> I want to be a man's shit slave.
> Keep it discreet.
I like sharing shit and other scat games....
Call me: (727) 916-7356 or (727) 789-2029.
Or come by anytime:
1401 Woodgrove Ct
Palm Harbor, FL 34683
======================================
Why did you post this Ad if you aren't a faggot?????
Re: Moveon.org- Defend the Dream Action North Pinellas County, FL
Rightrdia supported a MoveOn.org event at the corner of McMullen
Booth Rd. and State Road 580, 3000 State Road 580 in Clearwater, FL on
Tuesday, March 15th, 5:30 PM
See our new Ad:
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2011-1/1363827/Rtg-Mvo-Ad-Copy.gif
Or here:
http://img832.imageshack.us/i/rtgmvoadcopy.gif/
Message from your host, Shelly L.: The American middle class is under
attack.
Republicans in DC want to shut down the government if they don't get
their right to cut things we need, Republicans in Wisconsin are doing
the same, and we all know what our Governor/Medicare-fraudster is
doing here in Florida.
We have had enough! We are ra...(more)llying at the corner of 580 and
McMullen-Booth Road (near Countryside High School) to send a message
to Rick Scott, to our legislature, and to Washington that we won't
take this anymore.
We rallied on the 26th, we will rally on the 15th, and we will keep
rallying until they get the message. I've had enough and I know you
have too!
Please don't miss our new banner Ad!
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2011-1/1363827/Rtg-Mvo-Ad-Copy.gif
http://img832.imageshack.us/i/rtgmvoadcopy.gif/
See the You Tube video of the event and photos.
http://rightardis.blogspot.com/2011/03/moveonorg-defend-dream-action-north.html
Larry Hewitt
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:26:27 -0400, Larry Hewitt
> <larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>
>
At least Illinois.
>
>> That means he has never run for office, never appealed to voters for
>> support, never detailed his policies, stands, or positions, has no
>> financial support nor a campaign volunteers. No one knows what he is for
>> or against,
>
> Sounds like a typical candidate of either party to me.
Only the right wants incompetent, ineffective, inexperienced candidates.
>
>> except for this idiot question about Obama's birth.
>
> Let me understand you. Everything, every blessed thing, about Obama
> is unknown. Right. Except the missing birth certificate. We know
> all about that? Because no one has ever seen it but liberals have
> "faith".
>
Sheesh you guys are dense.
The official, as required by the constitution certified birth
certificate was produced.
No ifs, ands, or buts.
EVERY TIME a suit questioning the validity of that document reaches
SCOTUS they smack down the person bringing the suit, and have even fined
Taitz $20k for filing too many frivolous lawsuits.
If you think those guys are Obama supporters I've got a bridge in NY for
sale.
There is no missing birth certificate
it is not faith. It is rule of law, SEVERAL SCOTUS rulings by ALL SEVEN
republicans on that court.
> Liberal logic at it's best.
Rightard denial of reality at its finest.
Larry
DogDiesel
"Larry Hewitt" <larr...@comporium.net> wrote in message
news:pqmdnTtXWdr...@comporium.net...
The only thing you proved . Is that he is the legal ,unconstitutionally
eligible president.
Larry Hewitt
Bwahahahahaha.
More rightard denial of reality.
You don't like the rule of law???
You guys make our jobs soooo easy.
Larry
JLS
> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 17:39:31 -0700 (PDT), Rightard Whitey
>
> >On Mar 19, 7:09 pm, JLS <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> Trump is kissing the bums of the teabaggers.
>
> > I'm a little Tea Partier,
> > Portly and nutty,
> > Here is my handle (one hand on hip),
> > Here is my spout (other arm out with elbow and wrist bent),
> > When I get all steamed up,
> > Hear me pout,
> > Tip me over and make me into putty!
>
> He scares you, huh?
Yes, that messy ill-dyed comb-over is frightening. Why doesn't he
just wear a nice neat rug and be done with it. His headgear looks
like a scruffy animal crawled on top of his head and died.
Frank
I remember in the McCain/Obama race how adamant the press was to see
McCain's medical records. It was not enough for his doctors to step in
front of the cameras and swear his skin cancer was gone, the press
wanted to see all the back ground information. Even when supplied the
press would still have doubts. But with Obama, it was la, la, la.
JLS
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe they were afraid he had an undisclosed condition at his advanced
age and that if he died in office, next in line was a bumbling ditz.
Can you refudiate that?
Curly Surmudgeon
Why? The deceased rodent atop his head gets a lot of free publicity.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Irony defined: http://www.fox.com/lietome/
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Larry Hewitt
You misremember.
There was much discussion, but little questioning.
Larry
robw
>
> >On Mar 19, 7:09 pm, JLS <jls1...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> Trump is kissing the bums of the teabaggers.
>
> > I'm a little Tea Partier,
> > Portly and nutty,
> > Here is my handle (one hand on hip),
> > Here is my spout (other arm out with elbow and wrist bent),
> > When I get all steamed up,
> > Hear me pout,
> > Tip me over and make me into putty!
>
> He scares you, huh?
Why is it that everytime a liberal slams a conservative you Cowardly
Lyings take it as being afraid of someone?
Is it becuase you really have no other comeback.
Are you all such empty-headed itdiots?
Of course no one is scared of Trump.
Why would anyone be?
You people are morons.
Boris Kapusta
wrote:
Maybe because it would mean the end of the libtard party, as we know
it. He terrifies you, doesn't he?
robw
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 10:45:12 -0700 (PDT), robw <noddy...@comcast.net>
>
> - Show quoted text
What's the "libtard party"?
It's not someone that involves anyone with whom we associate?
Is that another "witty comeback"???
And no, as I said, trump really doesn't scare me in the least.
Got it now?
Winston_Smith
>On 3/20/2011 12:59 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>
>>> I said trump has no constituency.
>>
>> And in early 2007, Obama had how big a constituency?
>
>At least Illinois.
>
>>> That means he has never run for office, never appealed to voters for
>>> support, never detailed his policies, stands, or positions, has no
>>> financial support nor a campaign volunteers. No one knows what he is for
>>> or against,
>>
>> Sounds like a typical candidate of either party to me.
>
>Only the right wants incompetent, ineffective, inexperienced candidates.
Ah, thanks for identifying yourself. A party loyalist that votes by
what color Jersey "his" team is wearing. I.e., no thinking required.
Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
>>> except for this idiot question about Obama's birth.
>>
>> Let me understand you. Everything, every blessed thing, about Obama
>> is unknown. Right. Except the missing birth certificate. We know
>> all about that? Because no one has ever seen it but liberals have
>> "faith".
>>
>
>Sheesh you guys are dense.
Ah, thanks for identifying yourself. A party loyalist that votes by
what color Jersey "his" team is wearing. "My" guys are always right;
"their" guys are always wrong. No thinking required.
>The official, as required by the constitution certified birth
>certificate was produced.
There you go. Limit the scope until you are right in the tiny sliver
of a window you leave us. "As required" is not anywhere near
"establishing fact".
If you want to go down that road, you will have to explain to us why
black slaves are only 3/5 of a person and Native Americans aren't even
human. That's what the Constitution "required".
And no, the Constitution does NOT specify a particular document. In
fact birth certificates mostly didn't exist, so how could it? It
specifies "natural born". You are weaseling over how that's to be
proven. I'm talking about whether it is fact.
I can understand how you, in your role of party cheerleader, may not
understand the difference.
Frank
Nope.
But, why shouldn't all the candidates records be out there for the
public to see? The list of Obama's shielded records is legend.
Frank
Duh.
One of the nice things about being a liberal is you don't have to think
for your self.
Larry Hewitt
Do a google search.
Lots of articles, few interviews, over in a week or two,
This birther insanity has passed its second birthday.
Wake up and smell the coffee.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
yes.
plus they live in eternal fear, so they think everyone else does.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:35:37 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>> On 3/20/2011 12:59 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:26:27 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>>
>>>> I said trump has no constituency.
>>>
>>> And in early 2007, Obama had how big a constituency?
>>
>> At least Illinois.
>>
>>>> That means he has never run for office, never appealed to voters for
>>>> support, never detailed his policies, stands, or positions, has no
>>>> financial support nor a campaign volunteers. No one knows what he is for
>>>> or against,
>>>
>>> Sounds like a typical candidate of either party to me.
>>
>> Only the right wants incompetent, ineffective, inexperienced candidates.
>
> Ah, thanks for identifying yourself. A party loyalist that votes by
> what color Jersey "his" team is wearing. I.e., no thinking required.
>
> Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
> President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
He wasn't my choice.
You guys destroyed my choice with baseless attacks.
If you assholes weren't the party of no, airheads intent on forcing
social change on an unwilling public, maybe something would get done.
Why did you idiots nominate an elder statesman that no one liked and a
quitter?
>
>>>> except for this idiot question about Obama's birth.
>>>
>>> Let me understand you. Everything, every blessed thing, about Obama
>>> is unknown. Right. Except the missing birth certificate. We know
>>> all about that? Because no one has ever seen it but liberals have
>>> "faith".
>>>
>>
>> Sheesh you guys are dense.
>
> Ah, thanks for identifying yourself. A party loyalist that votes by
> what color Jersey "his" team is wearing. "My" guys are always right;
> "their" guys are always wrong. No thinking required.
>
Ah, yes the jubemnile rightard retort "I am rubber ..."
Grow up.
\|
Larry
Larry Hewitt
The rightard fanatasy of a list of guarded record is legendary.
Larry
Frank
You're full of it, Larry.
So I just googled "Obama's undisclosed records" to get this hit:
“To date the following are all undisclosed documents on Obama:
1) 1961 long-form, original, signed birth certificate
3) Obama’s adoption records — sealed
4) Records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on
return from Indonesia — not found, not released
5) Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) records — not
found, not released
6) Columbia College records — not released
7) Columbia senior thesis — not released
8) Harvard Law School records — not released
9) Obama’s files from career as an Illinois state senator — sealed
10) Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association — sealed
They don't even mention medical records.
Always like to refer to leftist rags in arguing with leftists ;)
Frank
I did, Larr.
You missed this:
1) 1961 long-form, original, signed birth certificate
3) Obama’s adoption records — sealed
4) Records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on
return from Indonesia — not found, not released
5) Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) records — not
found, not released
6) Columbia College records — not released
7) Columbia senior thesis — not released
8) Harvard Law School records — not released
9) Obama’s files from career as an Illinois state senator — sealed
10) Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association — sealed
Don't know what the hell you been smelling.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
> Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
> President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
America, not just Democrats, elected Barak Obama because the alternative
was so repulsive.
But you knew that...
Winston_Smith
>On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:36:46 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>> Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
>> President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
>
>America, not just Democrats, elected Barak Obama because the alternative
>was so repulsive.
>
>But you knew that...
Sadly, yes I did.
I share Larry Hewitt's disappointment in the selection he is offered
at the polls. I just don't understand his trying to pin the failure
of both parties on the Rs alone. And then trying to stretch that
until the string breaks and blame conservatives for the sins of the
Rs.
(I suppose it comes from liberals being brainwashed for thirty years
about what a conservative stands for. The Ds just equate it to evil
and start their mantra chants.)
How long has it been since either party had a last minute floor fight
at the convention to settle on a candidate? In the last few decades,
the entire lifetime of young voters, it's been locked long before the
party representatives get together to do some debating, horse trading,
and vote fighting. That's one of many, many reasons for the demise of
anything that could be called representative democracy.
Boris Kapusta
wrote:
>On Mar 20, 1:57�pm, Boris Kapusta <tha...@nothanks.notreal> wrote:
The Obammy party
Boris Kapusta
>Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
>President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
He was the only black guy running.
Curly Surmudgeon
Because Republicans are terrified of the dark, hell, teachers opposing
opinions, women who don't require dentures, other races, barbers, other
religions, oral hygienists, people with colored skin, pumpkinhead,
thunder, words with more than five letters, anything purple or pink,
other languages, lightning, dentists, anything more than 5 miles away
from their birthplace, chop sticks, education, indoor plumbing, rain,
soap, the boogeyman, Hello Kitty, technology, hail, the End Days,
immunizations, Catholics, unfried food, eclipses, Buddhists, science,
personal hygine products, Sikhs, bidets, Arabs, Moslems, god, tornados,
medicine, whole wheat bread, hurricanes, scented toilet paper,
transfusions, liberty, freedom and the American Way.
Why is it a surprise that Republicans want to kill?
> Of course no one is scared of Trump.
> Why would anyone be?
>
> You people are morons.
^^^^^^
Larry Hewitt
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:58:19 -0400, Larry Hewitt
> <larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
>
>> On 3/20/2011 3:36 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:35:37 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>>> On 3/20/2011 12:59 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 19 Mar 2011 21:26:27 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I said trump has no constituency.
>>>>>
>>>>> And in early 2007, Obama had how big a constituency?
>>>>
>>>> At least Illinois.
>>>>
>>>>>> That means he has never run for office, never appealed to voters for
>>>>>> support, never detailed his policies, stands, or positions, has no
>>>>>> financial support nor a campaign volunteers. No one knows what he is for
>>>>>> or against,
>>>>>
>>>>> Sounds like a typical candidate of either party to me.
>>>>
>>>> Only the right wants incompetent, ineffective, inexperienced candidates.
>>>
>>> Ah, thanks for identifying yourself. A party loyalist that votes by
>>> what color Jersey "his" team is wearing. I.e., no thinking required.
>>>
>>> Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
>>> President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
>>
>> He wasn't my choice.
>>
>> You guys destroyed my choice with baseless attacks.
>
> Republican party can't spell "conservative".
>
I can't tell the difference any more. You are the repugs second largest
voting block, after religious reichers.
Until tea party wackos hit the scene, no one on the right dared
criticize anyone on teh right.
Rush Limbaugh might say something bad about you.
Non-repug conservatives are in hiding. You have no spokespeople or
leaders, publish no manifestos or platforms, hold no caucuses, elect no
independents, do nothing but call for nebulous budget cuts.
And even there you sheepishly follow repugs. When The CBO published a
report about duplicate programs, you sat in silence. When Sec Def called
for major cuts in defense spending by bringing home armored brigades
from Europe, you could hear a pin drop. You sit tight and let the repug
masquerade of forcing unwanted social change under the guise of cutting
the budget continue unopposed.
> You prove yourself to be simply one of those mindless minions that see
> anyone that doesn't agree with them to be a member of their favorite
> "other", "evil" enemy groups.
>
The right requires enemies, not the left.
> McBush as my last choice. Hell, he didn't even make the list.
>
> But now you pop up to tell me that because I don't like Obama - just
> as you say is your opinion - no I am the evil "other" and everything
> is my fault.
>
I don;'t care who you like or don't like.
I was talking about idiot birthers who prefer psychotic fantasy and
conspiracy over the rule of law.
I'm not crazy about Obama. and have said so. I think Sanders is right
--- Obama needs a primary challenger.
BTW, notice how often the left criticizes Obama. Anti-war/ anti budget
cuts. against the last round of tax cuts for the rich. against reopening
drilling in the gulf so fast. against nuclear power. and on and on
Anyone on the right criticizing, for ex., HR3 that makes the IRS
abortion cops? I thought you guys hated the IRS, now you are okay with
them putting a line on the 1040 asking if anyone in the household had an
abortion last year?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/gop-bill-irs-abortion-audits
> Hit to the uncritical thinkers - there are way more than two points of
> view. It make you look ludicrous to paint anyone you don't agree with
> - anyone that says something you don't like - as a member of whatever
> group you fear the most.
>
Those on the right don't seem to think so.
I have heard *no* dissension from the right, for ex, on the budget bill
other than "we want more".
HR3 --- silence
War in Libya?
Crickets.
Selling Wisconsin state assets without open bidding?
Calls for increased government subsidies for building nukes along with
reduced oversight --- Coulter saying radiation is good for you?
snore.
Everyone on the right agrees with everything repugs say???
>> If you assholes weren't the party of no, airheads intent on forcing
>> social change on an unwilling public, maybe something would get done.
>
> See above. Asshole. (Hey you are the one calling names instead of
> honest debate. Don't rag me for reflecting it back to you.)
>
> Why do liberals always resort to name calling and bathroom "humor"
> when they are loosing a debate?
>
call all you want,, no skin of of my nose.
But I notice you got snippy and avoided my point --- that if repugs
tried to govern instead of rule things would be better.
>> Why did you idiots nominate an elder statesman that no one liked and a
>> quitter?
>>
> See above. Idiot. (Hey you are the one calling names instead of
> honest debate. Don't rag me for reflecting it back to you.)
Hey, idiot, you're the one who accused me of voting for Obama. I didn't.
Watch what you accuse people of, it may get you in trouble.
>>>
>>>>>> except for this idiot question about Obama's birth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Let me understand you. Everything, every blessed thing, about Obama
>>>>> is unknown. Right. Except the missing birth certificate. We know
>>>>> all about that? Because no one has ever seen it but liberals have
>>>>> "faith".
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sheesh you guys are dense.
>>>
>>> Ah, thanks for identifying yourself. A party loyalist that votes by
>>> what color Jersey "his" team is wearing. "My" guys are always right;
>>> "their" guys are always wrong. No thinking required.
>>>
>>
>> Ah, yes the jubemnile rightard retort "I am rubber ..."
>>
>> Grow up.
>
> Does anyone have a clue what this leftist party loyalist meant to say?
bwahahaha.
misstyped juvenile.
As in, the poster I responded to sounds like my kids did arguing when
accused of something when they were 6 years old. no, you are. no You
are, NO, YOU are. NO, YOU ARE.
childish.
infantile, lacking in maturity, education, logic.
It actually takes someone with a few more years of emotional maturity to
say what I wrote.
>
> "Jubemnile" You say you have rubbers? What the hell are you saying?
>
4th grade vocabulary, huh?
Larry
> And then somehow, he thinks he's the adult in this thread. Amazing.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
"Party Politics is synonymous with "Election Fraud".
Larry Hewitt
> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 01:07:09 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:36:46 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
>>> President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
>>
>> America, not just Democrats, elected Barak Obama because the alternative
>> was so repulsive.
>>
>> But you knew that...
>
> Sadly, yes I did.
>
> I share Larry Hewitt's disappointment in the selection he is offered
> at the polls. I just don't understand his trying to pin the failure
> of both parties on the Rs alone. And then trying to stretch that
> until the string breaks and blame conservatives for the sins of the
> Rs.
>
I don't understand your defense of repugs.
I believe that you have honest disagreements with them.
But to suggest that they are not out to obstruct seems to me to be more
than a little disingenuous.
The ACA is a perfect example.
I can understand honest opposition. But this is a republic, not a
dictatorship, and all sides have a seat at the table, and sometimes you
must accept something you don't like when in the minority.
So the repug response??
Well, I'll just briefly mention the endless lies.
But Obama and dems bent over backwards to include repugs. They included
several Bush era programs, like Money Follows the People, support for
state run private insurance pools for the difficult to insure, end of
life counseling (yes, taken from the 2004 medicare act!!!), and more.
Truth to tell most on the left thought most of those programs,
especially the state insurance pools, were transfers of money to
insurance companies.
Invitations to repugs to contribute fell on deaf ears.
At least THREE congressional level working groups were formed to come
up with a repug reform package, and at least one got tens of millions in
contributions to help.
Not one word of reform was published. The one that got the millions just
faded into the aether.
In the end they refused every invitation to discuss it with Obama,
refused to offer a single amendment, voted unanimously against it, and
put repealing it as their #1 objective on retaking the House.
Larry
Shall not be infringed
> On 3/19/2011 9:33 PM, Shall not be infringed wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Mar 19, 9:26 pm, Larry Hewitt<larryh...@comporium.net> wrote:
>
> >> TI said trump has no constituency.
>
> >> That means he has never run for office, never appealed to voters for
> >> support, never detailed his policies, stands, or positions, has no
> >> financial support nor a campaign volunteers. No one knows what he is for
>
> > And I never said he would make a good president.
>
> > I said he was no dummy, and you had shoot down his ability to be
> > president.
>
> I don't understand the desire of the right to put incompetent,
> inexpereienced people in o0ffice.
You meant "left" didn't you?
> Trump has never held office, never run for office. He has never served
> in a senior position as a government appointee at any level.
Trump has never said "present" when he was supposed to be saying yeah
or nay.
> > You might as well take this opportunity to attack Sarah Palin and her
> > daughter as well.
>
> >> He has just noted that tea partiers with no experience have been
> >> elected, and --- as he has said in interviews --- he can probably win
> >> the presidency if he spends a paltry dew hundred million of his own money.
>
> > So? Didn't Hillary spend some of her own money???
>
> > Sheesh! You guys never, ever stop criticising anyone who is not a
> > democrat.
Shall not be infringed
> MAJOR PLAYER (AND BEEN ASKED TO, LEAVE WHEN HE DOES STICK HIS NOSE INTO
> A CAMPAIGN)
>
> He has never tried to raise funds from the public, never served in an
> appointed capacity at any level of government never advised an executive
> at any level of government in a manner that gets accepted.
>
> He has become rich on OPM, with his businesses going bankrupt at least
> 4 times, twice in the last 3 years, costing investors tens of billions
> of dollars.He has been forced off of the board for mismanagement in at
> least 3 of the bankruptcies.
>
> Trump's reputation in the business community is as a showboating self
> promoter who's only talent is to hire smart people *then abuse them til
> they quit). Watch the apprentice and learn.
>
> Trump has no ability to read public sentiment, and picked on this fringe
> issue because he will get press.
>
> Trump is a joke, not being taken seriously. This is another epsidoe like
> 2000 where he threatened to run, but was just basking in the publicity.
>
> > You might as well take this opportunity to attack Sarah Palin and her
> > daughter as well.
>
>
> I'd *love* to see here at the convention!!!
>
>
>
> >> He has just noted that tea partiers with no experience have been
> >> elected, and --- as he has said in interviews --- he can probably win
> >> the presidency if he spends a paltry dew hundred million of his own money.
>
> > So? Didn't Hillary spend some of her own money???
>
>
> Lot's of candidates did,
>
> None have had the resources Trump had, and none have run for president
> as a major party candidate.
Hillary wasn't a major party candidate???
Larry Hewitt
Hawaii declared it illegal to release.
And SCOTUS ruled MANY TIMES the form released was both accurate nd
sufficient.
> 3) Obama’s adoption records — sealed
Adoption records are sealed by law.
> 4) Records of Obama’s and his mother’s repatriation as U.S. citizens on
> return from Indonesia — not found, not released
He didn't need to be repatriated --- he was a US citizen.
Are you saying that the federal government entered into a conspiracy
with Obama to elect him president by hiding documentation?
> 5) Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) records — not
> found, not released
Huh???
> 6) Columbia College records — not released
> 7) Columbia senior thesis — not released
LIE
http://www.snopes.com/politics/obama/columbia.asp
The thesis was published, and copies can be found.
WND, and others, complained that the "file copy" could not be found.
> 8) Harvard Law School records — not released
His grades were not released.
All other documents were.
> 9) Obama’s files from career as an Illinois state senator — sealed
What files?
Confidential work papers?
God, your stretching!!!
> 10) Obama’s record with Illinois State Bar Association — sealed
by law
>
> Don't know what the hell you been smelling.
I'm smelling something rancid emanating from some conspiracy theorists
looking for any excuse to smear Obama.
Larry
>
Larry Hewitt
Ah, the racist stops hiding.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
> 1) 1961 long-form, original, signed birth certificat�e
> 3) Obama�s adoption records � sealed
> 4) Records of Obama�s and his mother�s repatriati�on as U.S. citizens on
> return from Indonesia � not found, not released
> 5) Name change (Barry Sotero to Barack Hussein Obama) records � not
> found, not released
> 6) Columbia College records � not released
> 7) Columbia senior thesis � not released
> 8) Harvard Law School records � not released
> 9) Obama�s files from career as an Illinois state senator � sealed
> 10) Obama�s record with Illinois State Bar Associatio�n � sealed
>
> They don't even mention medical records.
>
> Always like to refer to leftist rags in arguing with leftists ;)
See my earlier detailed rebuttal.
Snopes rebuts a few of these, some are just a certain copy are missing,
some are assumptions that documents exist and are therefore being
withheld, others require changes in the law.
All in all, not one single important issue is under question here, and
SCOTUS has so ruled.
Larry
Larry Hewitt
Ah, yes, more of that juvenile logic/
>> Trump has never held office, never run for office. He has never served
>> in a senior position as a government appointee at any level.
>
> Trump has never said "present" when he was supposed to be saying yeah
> or nay.
>
Meaningless diversion.
Saying yea or nay is far more important, and he never did either.
So, IOW, ya got nuttin
Larry
Larry Hewitt
Larry
Shall not be infringed
As an 0bama apologist, you're fired.
Shall not be infringed
Then why would you say "Yep" above?
Boris Kapusta
LOL you are the moron. Maybe you missed the news... Obama's the one
doing the killing. It's a democrat thing.
Trump hasn't killed anyone. Hurt a lot of feelings maybe, but not a
killer like you libtards. Why are you scared of him? Don't want your
feelings hurt too? Laugh, laugh, laugh @ libtards.
Ray Fischer
>On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 01:07:09 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:36:46 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>
>>> Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
>>> President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
>>
>>America, not just Democrats, elected Barak Obama because the alternative
>>was so repulsive.
>>
>>But you knew that...
>
>Sadly, yes I did.
>
>I share Larry Hewitt's disappointment in the selection he is offered
>at the polls. I just don't understand his trying to pin the failure
>of both parties on the Rs alone. And then trying to stretch that
>until the string breaks and blame conservatives for the sins of the
>Rs.
Because, in fact, it has been the Republicans that have done the most
damage. Theyr'e responsible for about 90% of the nations's debt, the
recession, and two wars.
>(I suppose it comes from liberals being brainwashed for thirty years
Nah, you're not a partisan bigot.
--
Ray Fischer | Mendacracy (n.) government by lying
rfis...@sonic.net | The new GOP ideal
Larry Hewitt
Ooohh.
almost made a funny!!
Larry
Curly Surmudgeon
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> In article <im6b00$t5o$2...@news.eternal-september.org>,
> Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySu...@live.com> wrote:
>
>> Hello Kitty
>
> Anybody in the right mind fears The Great Mouthless One.
>
> http://www.jwz.org/blog/2005/02/the-great-mouthless-one/
> http://www.kittyhell.com/2010/08/30/hello-kitty-devil-worship/
Ok, you're ahead of the crowd. Now can you find Cthulhu?
RichTravsky
>
> On 3/19/2011 9:09 PM, China Blue Meanies wrote:
> > In article<Z9SdnZgyDPQ...@comporium.net>,
> > Larry Hewitt<larr...@comporium.net> wrote:
> >
> >>> Trump's no dummy.
> >>
> >> Trump's an idiot.
> >
> >
>
> Hmmm. Never thought of that. Could be...
>
> Larry
Winston_Smith
>On 3/20/2011 6:16 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On 3/20/2011 3:36 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:35:37 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>>>> On 3/20/2011 12:59 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>> Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
>>>> President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
>>>
>>> He wasn't my choice.
>>>
>>> You guys destroyed my choice with baseless attacks.
But YOU guys nominated him and elected him. Now it's all someone
else's fault, you say ? Wow, put on your big boys pants, grow a pair,
and take responsibility. Why do liberals always claim to be victims?
Of their own actions !!!!
>> Who is "you guys"? I'm a conservative. I am NOT a Republican. The
>> Republican party can't spell "conservative".
>
>I can't tell the difference any more. You are the repugs second largest
>voting block, after religious reichers.
Again. Who is "you"? I'm not Republican. I'm not tea party. I'm an
agnostic, and I'm not a social conservative. But still I'm a "you" ??
All you leftists seem to come up with is to lump anyone who disagrees
with what you babble in the "you" category and get on with your
unrelated mantra chanting.
>
>Until tea party wackos hit the scene, no one on the right dared
>criticize anyone on teh right.
How is the sins of the Republicans, the tea party, the religious, or
the social conservatives to be laid at MY feet? By leftist mantra
chanting, obviously.
"You" seems to be a pretty big tent in your mind. The more you argue
your view is "right" the more you wind up contradicting yourself.
Liberal logic at it's "best".
Winston_Smith
>On 3/20/2011 9:28 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Mar 2011 01:07:09 +0000 (UTC), Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 12:36:46 -0700, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>
>>>> Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
>>>> President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
>>>
>>> America, not just Democrats, elected Barak Obama because the alternative
>>> was so repulsive.
>>>
>>> But you knew that...
>>
>> Sadly, yes I did.
>>
>> I share Larry Hewitt's disappointment in the selection he is offered
>> at the polls. I just don't understand his trying to pin the failure
>> of both parties on the Rs alone. And then trying to stretch that
>> until the string breaks and blame conservatives for the sins of the
>> Rs.
>
>I don't understand your defense of repugs.
I don't understand YOU saying that I DO defend them. I've ripped Bush
a new asshole hundreds of times right here on this group. I've called
the various right talk show hosts idiots hundreds of times right here
on this group. Along comes little Larry and sees that as "defense".
>I believe that you have honest disagreements with them.
>
>But to suggest that they are not out to obstruct seems to me to be more
>than a little disingenuous.
Hee, hee, snicker. You are young and naive, aren't you? Both parties
have "agendas" and "obstruct" as they see it effecting the next
election. They flip sides at the drop of a dime. You buy it when the
Ds do it and yell foul when the Rs do it. And to make your position
sillier, you attack a critic of the Rs for defending them. Smoking
the good stuff, are you?
>The ACA is a perfect example.
>
>I can understand honest opposition. But this is a republic, not a
>dictatorship, and all sides have a seat at the table, and sometimes you
>must accept something you don't like when in the minority.
Like the Rs were locked out of ObamaCare meetings. Meetings that were
not announced, the very time and location kept secret, and if some Rs
did find them, literally in the cellar somewhere, the Ds locked the
doors. Then the Ds told the press how much they wanted input from the
Rs and complained they weren't getting any.
It's just what's happening in the House right now in reverse. But
little leftist you, see it as awful when the Rs are doing it, but
solid politics when the Ds did it.
>So the repug response??
Why do leftists always have to stoop to name calling when they are
losing a debate?
Why are you asking ME for the R response?
What is the left's response to the tactics during ObamaCare I just
mentioned?
>Well, I'll just briefly mention the endless lies.
Whoa. Stop. Time. You are getting silly and repetitive. I've told
you a dozen times - and you have simply ignored it a dozen times -
that >I< am not R. Why are you debating with me instead of an R?
Rs are mostly stupid. I'm bright enough to see you are just flapping
your gums and chanting your mantras.
>But Obama and dems bent over backwards to include repugs.
BULLSHIT. See above.
>They included
>several Bush era programs, like Money Follows the People, support for
>state run private insurance pools for the difficult to insure, end of
>life counseling (yes, taken from the 2004 medicare act!!!), and more.
>Truth to tell most on the left thought most of those programs,
>especially the state insurance pools, were transfers of money to
>insurance companies.
I didn't like them when BUSH proposed them. OBAMA adopted them, like
he copies everything Bush did, and now you want ME to defend them ????
You do live in a nice little isolated world don't you?
I'll say it once more, again - and type real slow for you - Bush was a
liberal. R does NOT equal conservative and D does NOT equal liberal.
What you chop up into two groups to support your mantra chants, is at
the minimum four groups with a million shade in between whacko right
and whacko left. It's pretty clear which whacko fringe you represent.
Politics of the last half century has degenerated into which party can
give away the most to get votes - right now - and while they are doing
it they try to gain the most control over the sheeples. There is not
a functional dimes worth of difference between parties.
Yet YOU see one was swell and the other as the bad guy. I fear your
view is the vast majority and if it is this nation is screwed.
>Invitations to repugs to contribute fell on deaf ears.
BULLSHIT repeated. See above.
more name calling and lies snipped just because I'm getting tired of
you and you obviously aren't worth trying to educate. Buy a nice blue
team Jersey, a couple team posters, put them over your bed, and go
cheer your ass off.
Larry Hewitt
> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:57:10 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>> On 3/20/2011 6:16 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:58:19 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>>> On 3/20/2011 3:36 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:35:37 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>>>>> On 3/20/2011 12:59 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>
>>>>> Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
>>>>> President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
>>>>
>>>> He wasn't my choice.
>>>>
>>>> You guys destroyed my choice with baseless attacks.
>
> But YOU guys nominated him and elected him.
Let me make this perfectly clear.
I've said in this thread, and YOU are responding to ME saying I didn't
vote for Obama.
My choice dropped out of the primary early on because LYING RIGHTARDS
were afraid of him,, and flooded the airwaves of the first primaries
with LYING ATTACK ADS.
Now it's all someone
> else's fault, you say ?
I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM.
Wow, put on your big boys pants, grow a pair,
> and take responsibility. Why do liberals always claim to be victims?
> Of their own actions !!!!
This coming from the whiner complaining that I told the unpleasant truth
about his hero.
>
>>> Who is "you guys"? I'm a conservative. I am NOT a Republican. The
>>> Republican party can't spell "conservative".
>>
>> I can't tell the difference any more. You are the repugs second largest
>> voting block, after religious reichers.
>
> Again. Who is "you"? I'm not Republican. I'm not tea party. I'm an
> agnostic, and I'm not a social conservative. But still I'm a "you" ??
>
COWARD.
deleted the rest of my r4ant that ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
Here it is again.
Raed it, if you have the cognitive ability to understand it.
Then get back to me with something other than name calling and (failed)
mind reading.
> Who is "you guys"? I'm a conservative. I am NOT a Republican. The
> Republican party can't spell "conservative".
>
I can't tell the difference any more. You are the repugs second largest
voting block, after religious reichers.
Until tea party wackos hit the scene, no one on the right dared
criticize anyone on teh right.
Rush Limbaugh might say something bad about you.
Non-repug conservatives are in hiding. You have no spokespeople or
leaders, publish no manifestos or platforms, hold no caucuses, elect no
independents, do nothing but call for nebulous budget cuts.
And even there you sheepishly follow repugs. When The CBO published a
report about duplicate programs, you sat in silence. When Sec Def called
for major cuts in defense spending by bringing home armored brigades
from Europe, you could hear a pin drop. You sit tight and let the repug
masquerade of forcing unwanted social change under the guise of cutting
the budget continue unopposed.
I don;'t care who you like or don't like.
I was talking about idiot birthers who prefer psychotic fantasy and
conspiracy over the rule of law.
I'm not crazy about Obama. and have said so. I think Sanders is right
--- Obama needs a primary challenger.
BTW, notice how often the left criticizes Obama. Anti-war/ anti budget
cuts. against the last round of tax cuts for the rich. against reopening
drilling in the gulf so fast. against nuclear power. and on and on
Anyone on the right criticizing, for ex., HR3 that makes the IRS
abortion cops? I thought you guys hated the IRS, now you are okay with
them putting a line on the 1040 asking if anyone in the household had an
abortion last year?
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/03/gop-bill-irs-abortion-audits
Those on the right don't seem to think so.
I have heard *no* dissension from the right, for ex, on the budget bill
other than "we want more".
HR3 --- silence
War in Libya?
Crickets.
Selling Wisconsin state assets without open bidding?
Calls for increased government subsidies for building nukes along with
reduced oversight --- Coulter saying radiation is good for you?
snore.
Everyone on the right agrees with everything repugs say???
...
If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck, smells
like a duck, then just maybe its a duck
If you don;t want to be called a duck, do something to distinguish
yourself from ducks.
Larry
Winston_Smith
You stooped to name calling. I win the debate.
Why does a debate with liberals always end with name calling?
Winston_Smith
But not the only candidate in the primaries. Remember Hillary?
Both parties started out with over a dozen more or less credible
(i.e., sellable) candidates seeking the nomination. The Democrats
had lots of choices and lots of opportunities to select someone else.
Now, of course, it's the evil Rs that made them pick Obama. Liberals
are always poor little victims. "You guys destroyed my choice". How
the hell can one party take away candidate selection from another
party? The Ds got to vote in their primary, not the Rs.
Ray Fischer
Like calling people "brainwashed"?
> I win the debate.
Grow up, child.
Larry Hewitt
Repugs were getting payback.
Under Bush dems were not allowed to participate in authoring bills (many
were written by business or lobbyists).
Many bills went to the floor on a short track with no amendments
accepted, such as the first Patriot Act
>> So the repug response??
>
> Why do leftists always have to stoop to name calling when they are
> losing a debate?
>
> Why are you asking ME for the R response?
>
> What is the left's response to the tactics during ObamaCare I just
> mentioned?
Disapproval that forced Obama to initiate talks.
>
>> Well, I'll just briefly mention the endless lies.
>
> Whoa. Stop. Time. You are getting silly and repetitive. I've told
> you a dozen times - and you have simply ignored it a dozen times -
> that>I< am not R. Why are you debating with me instead of an R?
>
Sensitive??
I'm talking about repugs, apparently no you.
> Rs are mostly stupid. I'm bright enough to see you are just flapping
> your gums and chanting your mantras.
>
>> But Obama and dems bent over backwards to include repugs.
>
> BULLSHIT. See above.
Bullshit.
see above.
It matters little what goes committee, but what goes to the floor.
>
>> They included
>> several Bush era programs, like Money Follows the People, support for
>> state run private insurance pools for the difficult to insure, end of
>> life counseling (yes, taken from the 2004 medicare act!!!), and more.
>> Truth to tell most on the left thought most of those programs,
>> especially the state insurance pools, were transfers of money to
>> insurance companies.
>
> I didn't like them when BUSH proposed them. OBAMA adopted them, like
> he copies everything Bush did, and now you want ME to defend them ????
They were put in at teh request of repug leaders in an attempot to get
repug support.
They lied.
They had no intention of voting for teh bill
> You do live tin a nice little isolated world don't you?
Nope, I'm out and about fighting for my survival and teh survival of teh
less fortunate.
I give my time and money to those less fortunate (and I don't have much)
I see the destruction of our schools, hospitals, food banks, ... while
the right funnels more and more money to the wealthy and mean
spirited, small minded conservatives insist on taking money out of teh
pockets of teh cops and firemen who are there to protect them, the
teachers who prepare your kids for adulthood (cause you sure as heel won't)
I'm watching t4eh right protect those that stole billions, pushing us
into recession, and trying to back out the feeble controls put in by
dems. I see them insist that employment contracts are sacrosanct,
funneling hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars as bonuses for
millionaires, and then say employment contracts for cops are worthless
and can be unilaterally abrogated.
I've watched the right remove governments from support for the needy
saying churches can handle it, then hunger shoot up as charitable
donations plummet.
I've buried people denied health care in a timely manner, watched those
with long term illnesses discharged to teh streets as state funding for
hospitals ends and they are forced to close (2 in my state last year(
And the rich??
During the last admin here the top marginal tax rate wen down 14%. Other
rates w were unaffected.
I've watched the propert tax rate we pay on cars and boats go up, but be
capped. So now the owner of a $119999 Camaro pays the same taxes as the
owner of a Malibu.
Real estate property taxes were cut and capped. The use of property
taxes to pay for local schools was outlawed, and replaced with a SALES
TAX INCREASE and the application of the sales tax to food. I now pay 9%
o0nas aBig Mac, up from 4% 5 years ago.
You must be the only person on the right who disagrees with this, and
all I here from you is some whining in the NGs.
Do what the left dopes.
I'm on the board of 2 charities. We knock on the doors of businesses to
get money to buy food for the hungry
We arrange for volunteers to work in various hospitals so they can
reduce costs (free is cheap, employees aren't)
I was with the liberal Christian Action Council demonstrating for a
moral budget a couple of weeks ago.
NO ONE on the right is with us.
Whether repug, tea partier, John Bircher (still big around here) or
unaffiliated all we hear is hate and greed.
Larry
Winston_Smith
>On 3/26/2011 8:30 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 21:57:10 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>> On 3/20/2011 6:16 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 17:58:19 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>>>> On 3/20/2011 3:36 PM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Mar 2011 03:35:37 -0400, Larry Hewitt wrote:
>>>>>>> On 3/20/2011 12:59 AM, Winston_Smith wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Why the hell did you guys elect a one piece of one term wonder as
>>>>>> President? Incompetent, ineffective describes him well.
>>>>>
>>>>> He wasn't my choice.
>>>>>
>>>>> You guys destroyed my choice with baseless attacks.
>>
>> But YOU guys nominated him and elected him.
>
>Let me make this perfectly clear.
>
>I've said in this thread, and YOU are responding to ME saying I didn't
>vote for Obama.
>
>My choice dropped out of the primary early on because LYING RIGHTARDS
>were afraid of him,, and flooded the airwaves of the first primaries
>with LYING ATTACK ADS.
Yet when I point out I had nothing to do with the Republicans or their
campaign, you come right back and try to hang me for their actions.
Either I CAN hold you responsible for the actions of the Ds or you can
NOT hold me responsible for the actions of the Rs. Pick one. Liberal
logic at it's best.
> Now it's all someone
>> else's fault, you say ?
>
>I DIDN'T VOTE FOR HIM.
The party you are now defending DID vote for him as candidate and
again as President. You can not fault others for what a party did and
still get yourself out from under what your party did by saying you
didn't vote for one guy. Liberal logic at it's best.
Homework assignment - look up the meaning of political party. Read
your state law on the subject.
> Wow, put on your big boys pants, grow a pair,
>> and take responsibility. Why do liberals always claim to be victims?
>> Of their own actions !!!!
>
>This coming from the whiner complaining that I told the unpleasant truth
>about his hero.
I did? What? Who? Classic liberal name calling in lieu of facts.
>>>> Who is "you guys"? I'm a conservative. I am NOT a Republican. The
>>>> Republican party can't spell "conservative".
>>>
>>> I can't tell the difference any more. You are the repugs second largest
>>> voting block, after religious reichers.
So you can say things about "you guys" but you can't tell who they
are? Liberal logic at it's best.
And you still haven't told us what "second largest voting block, after
religious reichers" you think I belong to. State it and give a cite.
>> Again. Who is "you"? I'm not Republican. I'm not tea party. I'm an
>> agnostic, and I'm not a social conservative. But still I'm a "you" ??
Now little Larry is going to duck the question. Again.
>COWARD.
>deleted the rest of my r4ant that ANSWERED YOUR QUESTION.
How come you quoted some of it above? What I cut was long, boring,
self serving, deceptive, and irrelevant. You rant on about the Rs,
the tea party, talk show hosts, book authors, the religionists. You
wobble far afield and rope in anti-abortion and anti worker rights
advocates in your list of YOUR evil empire.
The rant I (partially) snipped gave a long and confused list of groups
that I don't agree with or support. It is not relevant to ME because,
not only am I not "them", but I disagree with them - JUST AS YOU DO.
Yet it's good when you say it and bad when I say it. Liberal logic at
it's best.
It's only in your fantasy that you can get away with saying - because
I've explicitly stated I don't agree or support them - that I'm one
of them, that I defend their actions, and that I'm responsible for
them. Liberal logic at it's best.
You are simply a typical liberal hater. You don't know who you hate
but it's "you guys". You can't describe what I am, but you hate me
and you hate the people you erroneously claim I associate with. People
that you don't know who they are. People that you can't identify.
But you hate. You hate them and you hate me because you say I'm one
of them. Liberal logic at it's best. It goes with your party
lynching blacks because they weren't Democrats.
Your principle failing is that you see the world in bi-polar black and
white. In that non-existent universe anyone that isn't for you is
lumped as equal with everyone else that isn't for you, They are
declared a nebulous "you guys" of evil, and attacked by you with the
claim that each is responsible for your hate of the others. Liberal
logic at it's best.
And you try to use that to attack me WHILE I AM IN FACT NONE OF THEM.
I'll leave your summer rerun in, so people can see how loose with
facts and logic you are.
>Here it is again.
>
>Raed it, if you have the cognitive ability to understand it.
Yup. True liberal. Always with name calling to prove they are right.
>Then get back to me with something other than name calling and (failed)
>mind reading.
YOU called names, not me. Perfect example just above. But that's all
Bush's fault right? Bush drove you to it. (I'm trying to think like
a liberal victim here.)
Summer rerun starts here. If some of it seems familiar it's because
he quotes some of the "snipped" material above.
Please also note he has snipped out my replies to his rant. He says
I'm a coward (liberal name calling) for cutting it off but he edits it
and then and dons his pious coat to repost what he has left. Liberal
Winston_Smith
Aww, let's have a pity party.
Winston_Smith
<chine...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In article <rs2to6lr21gfb1j8s...@4ax.com>,
> Winston_Smith <inv...@butterfly.net> wrote:
>
>> >Nah, you're not a partisan bigot.
>>
>> You stooped to name calling. I win the debate.
>
>Not if you really are a partisan bigot.
Sure I win. He stopped to name calling and forfeited and legitimate
claim to facts or issues. Even if he were right, he would have lost.
A true bigot would hold to his bigoted beliefs over that of party. The
bigots problem with a party is that any party holds multiple views in
it's members but the bigot only holds one. So, it's questionable if
the same person can be partisan and bigoted.
Curly Surmudgeon
wrote:
Either party, Winston. Not much difference. Both want our tax dollars,
both want a huge military to coerce their view of "How the Earth Should
Be," both lie, both cheat, both ignore the Constitution.
They argue minor differences intended to keep the sheeple convinced the
other is evil incarnate. They're both right.
--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The President does not have power under the Constitution to
unilaterally authorize a military attack in a situation that does not
involve stopping an actual or imminent threat to the nation." --Barack
Obama, 12/20/07
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JLS
Bwaaaaaahahahahaaaa! That's very funny!
>
> Why is it a surprise that Republicans want to kill?
>
> > Of course no one is scared of Trump.
> > Why would anyone be?
>
> > You people are morons.
>
> ^^^^^^
>
> --
> Regards, Curly
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Irony defined: http://www.fox.com/lietome/
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hide quoted text -
Tater Gumfries
> Why did you have then cancel this web ad??????
>
> http://mingle2.com/user/view/2780429
Maybe he was sick of you callin at all hours.
Tater
Buster Norris
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <ta...@kernsholler.net>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterG...@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.138.19.107
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterG...@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.164.153
From: Baggi <BaggiBum...@gmail.com>
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.170.32
Google Profile:
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=aPeBnxUAAACt8q8X_hh5lAgeZWKUTajQZk8LRyw6Fzc364xXu3mYhA
http://www.kernsholler.net
Registrant: John Starrett
3500 Clay St.
Denver, Colorado 80211
303-242-6285
Real Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
http://whois.domaintools.com/kernsholler.net
http://www.aurapiercing.com
Registrant: StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801
Administrative,
Technical Contact: Starrett, John David (Age 57)
StarrBoard
1226 Calle de Lago
Socorro, New Mexico 87801 (Home address)
575-838-0915 (Home telephone, Qwest)
Real Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
Real Email: jsta...@sdc.org
http://whois.domaintools.com/aurapiercing.com
Employer: New Mexico Institute of Mining and Technology
--- [Courtesy of Buster Norris] --------------------------
Johnnie is in the Mathematics Dept, extension 5763.
http://www.nmt.edu/directory
http://infohost.nmt.edu/~jstarret/
"I am an associate professor of mathematics at the New Mexico
Institute of Mining and Technology. My main area of research is in
knot theory and the topology of strange attractors."
Office: 240 Weir
Email: jsta...@nmt.edu
Phone: 575-835-5763
His boss is Chairman/Professor Stone, William D. extension 5786,
email: wds...@nmt.edu
----------------------------------------------------------------
Posted from:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
http://www.democrathallofshame.com/
Buster Norris
On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:50:05 -0800 (PST), Tater Gumfries
<ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>On Feb 9, 3:27 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@america.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 21:46:02 -0800 (PST),TaterGumfries
>> <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>> >On Feb 5, 3:31 pm, Patriot Games <Patr...@america.com> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 5 Feb 2010 09:01:32 -0800 (PST),TaterGumfries
>> >> <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>> >> >On Feb 4, 6:55 pm, Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
>> >> ><PopUlist...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> >> >>TaterGumfries <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:.
>> >> >> > And Dave Heil is too ignorant to refute any of this.
>> >> >> What did you contribute that could have been refuted?
>> >> >WhatTatercontributed is the ongoingLimbaughchallenge:Limbaugh
>> >> >fans provide a one page transcript of any RushLimbaughshow andTater
>> >> >finds at least one lie in it.
>> >> Prove it.
>> >You know the drill, you lazy jackass. You provide the transcript,
>> >Taterprovides the proof.
>> So your "ongoingLimbaughchallenge" has TO DATE been a TOTAL FAILURE?
>> Noted...
>> Try this one:
>> Bill Clinton Admits: Rush Is Right!
>> January 18, 2010
>> BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
>> RUSH: Now, let's go to the audio sound bites on this because it's
>> interesting. If you listened far enough on Face the Nation yesterday
>> you heard Bill Clinton eventually agree with me. It takes three sound
>> bites to get there. Bob Schieffer is talking to Bill Clinton. Here's
>> the first of three bites.
>> RUSH: Schieffer says, what would you say, Mr. President Bush?
>> RUSH: So Bob Schieffer then says, what do you -- and Clinton erupts.
>> RUSH: Exactly! Which is my point from the get-go, which was
>> distorted by the media watchdogs that watch and misreport this program
>> and people like Bob Schieffer who don't listen to this program then
>> get an idea, a distorted idea of what I said. The government can't do
>> it all! I can't believe he actually admitted it. These guys are
>> having you believe government can do everything, government can fix
>> your health care, government can solve war, government can solve
>> pestilence, government can do everything. Now it can't. Did you ever
>> hear them say this during Katrina? "Government can't do everything."
>> You never heard them say this during Katrina. So vindication for me
>> is all over the place. It's out there for one and all to see and
>> hear.
>Tater cut out all but the Rush in there, so there ain't much left, and
>there ain't no lie in here.
You said: "provide a one page transcript of any Rush Limbaugh show and
Tater finds at least one lie in it."
You FAILED.
>Congratulations. You won the Limbaugh Challenge. You're the first one
>brave enough to post an actual transcript, and you found one without a
>lie.
Since I am "the first one brave enough to post an actual transcript"
then your claim of "the ongoing Limbaugh challenge" was a LIE.
>Tater salutes you.
Patriot Games urinates on you.
Thus, the Universe is in balance.
Buster Norris
On Sun, 6 Sep 2009 10:45:19 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
<TaterG...@usa.com> wrote:
>And to his credit, he is. He has spent the last few decades in an
>exaggerated macho posture to try to live down his shame in dodging the
>draft during the Vietnam war.
>Now, if he would just take that last step and admit he was wrong.
Oops! Caught LYING, again...
"An interviewer from the British newspaper The Independent questioned
Nugent about a 1977 interview in High Times magazine in which Nugent
allegedly detailed elaborate steps taken to avoid the Vietnam draft.
"I got 30 days' notice of the physical," Nugent told them. "I ceased
cleansing my body. Two weeks before the test I stopped eating food
with nutritional value. A week before, I stopped going to the
bathroom. I did it in my pants. My pants got crusted up."
"Nugent dismissed the veracity of these statements, saying "You've got
to realize that these interviewers would arrive with glazed eyes and I
would make stories up." He explained that he did not go to Vietnam
because he had a one-year student deferment. When questioned, he
admitted that he had "not wanted to get his ass blown off in Vietnam,"
but made note of a tour he made with the USO in 2004 to Fallujah and
Afghanistan as support of his assertion that "I am not a coward." He
also said that "Because I failed to serve in Vietnam, I feel an
obligation now, to do everything I can to support those defending our
freedom. Do I feel guilt and embarrassment? Yes."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Nugent
Buster Norris
On Fri, 5 Mar 2010 08:00:54 -0800 (PST), Tater Gumfries
<ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote:
>On Mar 5, 6:38 am, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>> "Tater Gumfries" <ta...@kernsholler.net> wrote in message
>> news:5bca8273-8bf7-430f...@q21g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>> On Mar 4, 7:50 pm, "Dionysus" <no.surren...@never.net> wrote:
>> > But...but..the homeless were George Bush's fault.
>> No one but you says so.
>> ***********
>> But Da lyin' Prick (Jimmuh Cartah in burnt cork) always says it's Bush's
>> fault.
>If you had evidence you could post it.
Oops! Caught LYING, again:
Obama's New Tack: Blaming Bush
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/03/13/AR2009031303486.html
Obama blames Bush, Wall Street
http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/07/29/obama_blames_bush_wall_street/
Obama makes Bush his blame czar
http://www.ocregister.com/articles/-217132--.html
Obama Won't Abandon Blame Bush Strategy
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/obama/2010/02/09/obama-wont-abandon-blame-bush-strategy.html
Obama's first economic lesson: blame Bush
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/william_rees_mogg/article5119348.ece
Buster Norris
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:08:09 -0700 (PDT), Tater Gumfries
<TaterG...@usa.com> wrote:
>On Jul 22, 7:48 am, Mr.B1ack <b...@barrk.net> wrote:
>> BBC reports that the UKs anti-knife drive - created in
>> response to an escalation in youth knife attacks - has
>> resulted in about a seven precent INCREASE in stabbing
>> deaths since its implmentation.
>There ain't no report says that.
Oops! Caught LYING, again:
(7.3%)
Tackling Knives Action Programme (TKAP) Phase 1:
Overview of key trends from a monitoring programme
http://www.homeoffice.gov.uk/rds/pdfs09/horr18c.pdf
YOUR Original:
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/0512853060eba1c2?hl=en
Learn to like your LIE...
It will NEVER go away...
Buster Norris
On Mon, 26 Jan 2009 15:20:34 -0800 (PST), Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
wrote:
>On Jan 26, 3:40 pm, AnAmericanCitizen <NoAmne...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> President Bush, has admitted he made some mistakes.
>No, he hasn't.
"Clearly, putting `Mission Accomplished' on an aircraft carrier was a
mistake," he [Bush] said Monday.
http://www.thestar.com/article/569450
Its not a coincidence that most Liars are Frauds and most Frauds are
also Liars:
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
63.225.11.38 = Albuquerque, New Mexico.
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
63.225.11.38 = Albuquerque, New Mexico.
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
63.225.11.38 = Albuquerque, New Mexico.
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com>
Buster Norris
http://www.fropper.com/ezBlog/BodhiPrana
Apr 27, '08
How to set up an electric guitar
The cheapest and surest way to get your guitar set up is to take it to
the local guitar shop and have the repair man do it. However, I am
going to tell you how an expert sets up a guitar, but if you are
ham-handed, you could be sorry. This is a general set of instructions,
and details can change depending on how you play; how hard you pick or
strum, what kind of music you like to play, etc.
There are four likely reasons the guitar plays out of tune.
1. You don't know how to tune it. Go spend the "20 and get an
electronic guitar tuner.
2. The bridge is improperly set up, that is, the bridge pieces (little
metal things with screws south of the pickups) are in the wrong
positions.
3. Either
a) the bridge is too high,
b) the nut is too high, or
c) the neck has too much bow.
4. Your strings are too light or too heavy. Get a good set of strings
-- GHS roundwound steel strings with gauges .009 to 0.042 are a good
choice.
If you haven't taken care of #1, go do it now. You will need the
electronic tuner to set up the bridge.
Buy a new set of strings and put them on. Tune them using the tuner.
Make sure the screws holding the tuning heads onto the shafts of the
tuners are tight, but not so tight that the tuners are difficult to
turn.
Before you can set up the bridge (here I mean just the adjustment of
the little screws), you need to check the height of the nut and the
height of the bridge, but before you can do that, you have to check
the bow of the neck.
Sight down the side of the neck from the nut end (where the tuners
are). The neck should be almost straight, but with a slight back bow,
that is, the neck should curve gradually away from the strings a
little bit, being the farthest at the 12th fret. It takes practice to
know just how it should look, so your best bet is to get an 18" steel
ruler and place it over the frets down the middle of the neck between
the middle two strings. There should be a little more than a 1/32" gap
between the ruler and the fret closest to the 9" mark. To adjust the
truss rod, you need to locate the truss rod access. It may be on the
headstock beneath a little plastic cover, or at the otehr end, and it
might be adjustible with an allen wrench or a phillips screwdriver, or
it might be a nut that needs to be adjusted with a little socket. If
the neck has too much back bow, or front bow, adjust the truss rod by
turning it clockwise to bring the neck closer to the ruler, and
counterclockwise to bring it away. If you bring it away, you should
give it the tiniest clockwise turn after it is in the right position
to tighten it up. It is helpful to flex the neck a little by hand
between quarter turns of the truss rod.
Now you can adjust the nut and bridge height. Press a string to the
first fret and measure the distance from the string to the second
fret. Now measure the distance from the open string to the first fret.
It should be the same as from the string to the second fret when the
string is fretted at the first. If the string is too far from the
first fret, lift it out of the slot and into the neighbor slot. Use a
razor saw (made by X-acto and available at most hardware stores) or a
jewelers file to file the nut slot a little lower (a tiny bit at a
time! it is easy to take it too deep), with the fret or saw at a 15
degree angle off the fretboard. Pop the string back into the slot and
measure again. Do it again and again until it is right. If you cut a
little too deep, put a tiny drop of superglue on the tip of a
toothpick and wick it in the slot. Sprinkle a little baking soda in
the slot and get it right this time. Do this for every string.
Now we adjust the bridge height.
Depending on the type of guitar and how you play, the distance from
the low E string to the 12th fret should be anywhere from about 1/16
to 1/8 inch. If you play hard, the larger distance is correct. On the
side of the neck with the higher notes, th strings should be a little
closer than on the low side, because the excursion of the low E string
is larger than that of the high E. Adjust the height of the bridge
using the screws in the bridge, or if the height adjustment is
individual for each string, using those strings. Usually the neck will
have a non-zero radius, that is, there will be a curvature across the
frets, so the heights of the bridge pieces should be higher in the
middle than on the ends, and should follow the same curvature as the
neck. Adjust until the height is right, and you can strum the open
strings without them buzzing on the frets.
Now we adjust the individual bridge pieces to assure the strings play
in tune. Retune the strings with the tuner. Turn the tone and volume
knobs all the way up. We will compare the octave harmonic (the pitch
you get when you touch the string lightly at the twelfth fret while
plucking it) with the pitch of the string when it is fretted at the
12th fret. Pluck the harmonic and make sure the tuner indicates that
it is in tune. Now fret the string and pluck. The pitch indicated on
the tuner should be the same as that when you played the harmonic. If
not, and the pitch was higher for the fretted note than the harmonic,
turn the screw on the bridge piece so that the piece move closer to
the rear of the guitar. If it was flat, move the bridge piece closer
to the nut. Do this carefully for each string. You will have to retune
each string each time you adjust the bridge piece.
To do a really thorough job, you will need to recheck each of these
steps at this point, because each adjustment changes the others.
Good luck, and good playing.
Sri Bodhi Prana
=======================
Apr 14, '08
Try Sub-Enlightenment Risk Free!
As you may know, I have been an enlightened master since the age of
thirteen and have been teaching a personal transformation course that
teaches *YOU* how to get more money, more chicks, the finest rides and
more SLACK than anyone could imagine by *FAKING* *ENLIGHTENMENT*.
Yes, this program really works, and what's more, many of my students
have experienced true, earth-shaking satori just by concentrating on
the three simple steps to faking enlightenment. This is his is an
amazing achievement on *my* part too, because *I* developed the
program!
But my teachings have become more profound than ever, due to my
revolutionary new discovery, SUB-ENLIGHTENMENT!
I discovered sub-enlightenment while *pretending* to teach fake
enlightenment! It turns out that there is a state between ordinary
mind and the enlightened mind that has been hidden until now.
Now, those of you who know something about enlightenment, or who have
experienced it themselves like *I* have, know that there are different
levels of grace. Some are relatively light and wear off completely
after a few days, and some are more profound and long lasting, like
mine. You may say "Ho-hum. Another Swami something or other and a
crazy theory claiming that enlightenment really goes by another name,
and that the name you call it is REALLY important".
But I'm not talking about levels, I'm talking about a *whole* *new*
mental state, neither above nor below, neither left nor right, not a
parallel mind state, but a *PERPENDICULAR* one!
This revolutionary new discovery will allow *YOU* to experience all of
the super bonuses that come with enlightenment, but none of the
headaches. No more eager disciples following you around, groveling and
whining "master this" and "master that", no more chicks hitting on you
when you are trying to sleep, no poor relatives begging you for money
-- AND WHY? Because with SUB-ENLIGHTENMENT, you don't *LOOK*
enlightened, you just *FEEL* enlightened!!! You'll be groovin' with
the creator, merging with the one-ness -- you'll be satori surfin' in
no time, and no one will know the difference!
Sure, you can still get all the chicks, money and cars you want -- all
you have to do is turn on the charm. But until then, you'll be in
super stealth mode!
Don't let enlightenment get in the way! Order my revolutionary course
today.
You can contact me as usual by just looking inward. Pay Pal accepted.
Namaste,
Sri Bodhi Prana
===============
Apr 14, '08
Satori by Faking It
As you may know, I have a thriving business teaching people how to
fake enlightenment. The basics are easy: you just learn to look like a
guy at one with the universe, a guy without a care in the world, like
me. Even though it is easy to describe how to do it, not everyone can
learn to do it well. The payoffs are fantastic, though, so it is well
worth it to learn how. Why? Because chicks dig it, and there is a lot
of money in it. You can make three or four chicks a day, and even at
the same time, if you learn how to fake the look, walk the walk, and
talk the talk. Guys will dig you too, but in a non-sexual way. You
will have a better job, make more money, or even have people just give
you money! It's like having control of the tilt lever of the luck
plane!
OK, enough of the promo. In the process of teaching people how to fake
enlightenment . I have discovered something fantastic: people are
actually achieving satori THROUGH THE PROCESS OF FAKING IT! I know it
counds crazy, but just hear me out.
If you read the first of my essays on faking enlightenment, you may
remember some of the lessons: you must learn first of all how to look
the part. This involves letting the muscles of your face and body go
slack. Each of us (well, not me, because I am in a perpetual state of
enlightenment) has a sort of rigor vita of the face, a living mask
whose character has to do with the nature of our ego and our relation
to the world and society. Certain sets of muscles are unnaturally
tensed in accordance with our conscious and unconscious thought
processes. Look at yourself in the mirror -- see the worry lines, the
scowl lines? If you had been enlightened since you were young, you
wouldn't have those. They are the result of years of unnatural muscle
tension. If you can learn to let it go, you can fake the look of
someone who is in direct contact with the source. There is a look,
eyelids slightly drooping, muscles relaxed, just the hint of a smile,
associated with someone completely at home in the universe.
Now, learning to do this involves letting go of not just ones muscle
control, but also of the thoughts that disturb this relaxed state. Try
looking in the mirror and letting your facial muscles go slack. See
how long you can keep it up. If you are like most people, you can't
keep it up for more than a minute. Thoughts intrude. You think "Why am
I doing this? What's the point?" Of course if you knew me, you would
see the benefits, and might not be so quick to dismiss this exercise.
Another part of the program is learning to walk the walk of a Buddha.
There is a relaxed, rhythmic walk that the fully enlightened master
has that speaks of freedom and power. If you can do it, you look like
you are fully in control, and yes, it drives the babes wild, even if
you are skinny or overweight. Learning to walk the walk also requires
a similar discipline (of course, for me it just comes naturally!) You
have to let your muscles and bones move freely, in a way in accordance
with their natural tendencies. You can't rush it, you can't be in a
hurry... after all, who is God trying to impress? In the same way
that you can't keep "the face" for long before thoughts intrude and
ruin it, it is difficult to keep up the wald for long before you
become conscious that you are *trying* to not try, you are trying to
influence your body to be free from the influence of the ego: YOU ARE
JUST FAKING IT!
Well DUH, you say. That is the point: you are learning how to fake
it! But this is the amazing part: This whole exercise in faking it is
a simple koan, designed to focus the mind on what it is that separates
you from the enlightened masters. If you have thought about the
process of enlightenment at all, you know how it usually works, at
least in the stories. A young man goes to a monastary to learn how to
sit and concentrate on some nonsense sentence, but because it is given
to him with an air of solemnity by a highly revered spiritual teacher,
he knows that it must be taken seriously: it is a kind of subtle logic
puzzle that *must* be solved. He sits and sits and meditates, trying
and failing to keep his koan at the center of his attention night and
day. Some sit for years and never get it. But the lucky few find in a
moment of blinding clarity that it really was *just* *nonsense*! They
run to the teacher, tears of transcendent joy streaming down their
faces and he just looks at them and sees that they GET IT. They
*understand*!
What has happened? Their continual striving to solve a puzzle that
cannot be solved caused them to break: at some point they just gave
up, but not like ordinary giving up: they *really* *gave* *the* *hell*
*up* all at once, and in such a way that they dropped everything, the
pose, the ego, the koan... they experienced the true glorious freedom
of quitting a job you really hate, the job of being YOU!
Now there is nothing special about zazen and master issued koans.
There are numerous stories about monks or ordinary people experiencing
profound satori in the midst of ordinary activities, the "chopping
wood, carrying water" tales familiar to everyone who has an interest
in Zen. So what were the "koans' used by Basho, by Jesus, by
nenslo? Nothing at all out of the ordinary: just an extreme form of
self consciousness that concentrated the mind on an insoluble problem.
In the course of teaching people how to fake it, I have discovered
that many of them have had satori as a result of faking it: the sheer
effort of concentrating on how to lose the appearance of ego, how to
move and walk and interact as if you were at one with the Godhead is
so stressful on the mind, at least for those people who really work at
it, that at some point they just GIVE UP! They go SLACK all at once,
and discover who they really are! Now, you might think that this is
cheating, that this is somehow dishonest, like giving up drinking by
pretending to be sober, but it works.
This is not for everybody, though. Some have to do it their own way,
but for those of you who want a better life NOW, who want to grab the
tilt lever on the luck plane and just LEAN INTO IT, this method is for
you. The advantages are enormous compared to the usual path of quiet
meditation: You get all the sex and money and power you could ever
want WHILE YOU LEARN! Three, four, five chicks at a time, a BMW, a
Mercedes, a Jaguar, a swimming pool and thousands of dollars, all for
just following my simple instructions! Of course, unless you really
work at it you will probably not *get* *it*, but hey, who cares when
you are living this large?
Namaste,
Sri Bodhi Prana
===================
Apr 14, '08
Followups to "How to Fake Enlightenment" #2
(This is a second response to a rather rude unbeliever)
Satori sometimes comes about when one has concentrated long and hard
trying to solve an insoluble problem. Before satori, it seems
imperative that you solve the riddle. It seems like it must have an
answer of some sort, even though you may well know, having been
steeped in a tradition that fosters this kind of mindwork, that giving
up on trying to solve it *is* the solution. The student knows he can't
just give up, because he has heard the stories about the student who
tries to fool the master by imitating the actions of someone else who
*has* had the experience. Of course it never works. The enlightened
*know* the look, the walk and the talk, just as recovering drug
addicts can invariably tell that someone at a meeting is lying about
being clean.
It has been said that Biblical literalism provides some of the most
difficult koans. This is at least in part because there is no
tradition comparable to zazen in fundamentalist Christian sects.
Additionally, the "koans" of Christian fundamentalism are scattershot
things, not meant to tense the mind properly, but rather codified
misunderstandings of the deep meaning of real Christian mystical
experience. Better to study Eckhart rather than Robertson.
Yeah, Christian koans are difficult, but not as difficult as Subgenius
koans. The Subgenius is at a disadvantage in several ways. In some
ways the goal of slack is like the goal of enlightenment, but there is
no great problem to overcome -- the luck plane just tilts your way,
and glory be, you're on easy street. Slack is a desired state, but not
a goal to be achieved through hard work. Not only that, but the SG is
naturally cynnical about religious traditions, and sort of a wise ass
to boot, so the idea of seriously persuing a "religious" regimen is
distinctly uncool. In a way, the SG is just the sort who might be
tempted to take the easy way, to fake enlightenment, to show his
superiority over the other religious kooks.
In truth, many SGs really do feel a great affinity for Zen and Taoism,
because they are the ultimate non-religious religions. While as a
student you are exected to seriously believe five impossible things
before breakfast, the goal is to see how silly these things are and to
toss them aside when you *really* understand. One hears of people who
just *get* it suddenly, seemingly without formal preparation, but
these people have been preparing their minds by trying to solve some
koan or the other. Whether it was given by a master or is just some
insoluble idee fixe is not important: the important thing is that it
occupies their mind and causes great mental stress.
I am sure that there is nothing you would like better than to achieve
satori. You know it is what you want. Why not do the impossible, the
unthinkable, and accept this gift from "Bob", this koan offered by
someone you despise, someone who you are sure is a base charlatan, a
flim flam man, a Royal Pain in the Ass, but whose narrative is
compelling enough to attract you nonetheless?
The Subgenius is taught to pull the wool over his own eyes, in other
words, to fool himself rather than allowing himself to be fooled by
others. But he is still being fooled! Haven't you been pulling the
wool over your own eyes long enough? Why not pull the wool from the
other side? You know intellectually that you are God, that you are
weaving the fabric of "reality" from nothing more than the division
into this and that, by making distinctions. It's a pretty good yarn,
isn't it,
this world? You *know* intellectually that the fabric of reality is
woven from just this kind of wool.
Why not find out how it is done? Ask yourself
"How do you hold the first thread in place?"
_______________
Sri Bodhi Prana
=================
Apr 14, '08
Followups to "How to Fake Enlightenment"
(This is a response to a rather rude unbeliever)
Thank you, but just the same, aren't you just a little surprised at
the intensity of your feelings upon reading my little piece about how
to get laid by faking enlightenment? Not everyone will attain
enlightenment during their lifetime, but eventually everyone will,
even if it is on their deathbed. Even if they didn't, they are still a
part of the Godhead, dancing in Maya's recital. They, and you and I,
are no more and no less God, whether we know it or not. There is no
need to feel jealous at my good fortune.
There is no system of punishment and rewards. Some are confined to a
life of pain, and some unworthy characters, like yours truly, Sri
Bodhi Prana, get far more than they deserve. I remember one time, when
I was on the downswing, feeling my ego creeping back, when I came
across a girl in a wheelchair, sobbing uncontrollably. By the looks of
the chair and her body, you could tell she was quadriplegic. I
suddenly felt a deep empathy for her -- I imagined that she had either
been dumped by a boy she thought liked her, or she had just failed an
exam, or someone, maybe someone like you who likes to hurt people for
sport, had made fun of her. The pain she felt shot through me like it
was my own. It was excruciating, and it caused me to tense up, and I
could feel my ego returning. I felt overwhelmed, like that Summer when
I was 13 before my first satori. My koan came to me, though, and after
a moment's concentration, the scales fell from my eyes, and I was
free. I felt light, and the tears of sympathy I had shed for the girl
in the wheelchair turned into tears of joy for my own good fortune! I
looked into her eyes, and saw God in them. Yeah, she was trapped in a
crippled shell, she was grasping for any help in a sea of pain, she
was playing the sad sack, but hey, I was on my way to lunch, and the
seafood would be gone by 1:00. The universe knows what it is doing.
See what I mean?
Sri Bodhi Prana
====================
Apr 14, '08
How to Fake Enlightenment
I know what a lot of you are probably saying: "Bodhi, why would anyone
want to fake enlightenment?" That is a pretty good question, for
someone on a lower spiritual plane than me, so I will get straight to
the point -- chicks *dig* it! Take it from me, and from other major
spiritual studs like Alan Watts and Ken Wilbur, if you want to get
laid, and get laid a *lot*, it doesn't hurt to have the "intense but
totally centered spiritual guy" thing going for you.
"OK," you say, "that's good enough for me. How *do* you fake
enlightenment?" Well, *I* don't have to fake it. I have been in a
continual state of cosmic consciousness since I was 13, but as some of
you may know, enlightenment gradually wears off, and you have to
recharge your Godhead from time to time. To tell the truth, I was
lucky. I discovered the perfect koan early in my life, and I only have
to meditate for four or five minutes, tops, to get that satori when I
need to get back on top of my game. But some people never "get it",
and this lesson is for you. If you want all the benefits, without all
the work, just follow these simple instructions.
1. Learn "the look". The look is the face and actions of a guy (or
chick!) totally at peace, and at one with the universe. First, the
face. Look at yourself in the mirror. What do you see? You see a guy
(or a gal!) with worry lines and muscles pulled into the mask that
people think of as "you". The enlightened master is relaxed and at
ease, and his serene look shows it! Let your facial muscles go slack.
Don't let your jaw drop open, but your lips should just barely touch
each other. Your eyelids should be drooping, so that they are just
touching the top of your pupils, and you should have just a hint of a
"Mona Lisa" smile. Get just the slightest hint of a smirk, like you
*know* Victoria's secret! Not too much, though, or you'll ruin the
effect. Practice this in the mirror every day until you can do it by
feel.
2. Walk the walk. This is part two of "the look", and is just as
important. Chicks should get the feeling that you are relaxed, yet
powerful, ready to spring into action, like a panther. First of all,
SLOW DOWN! If you are at one with the universe, who are you hurrying
to meet? Yourself! And you won't be disappointed if YOU turn up a
little late, will you? Walk slowly and deliberately, letting your arms
swing free. It takes a while to get the rhythm, but it is not as hard
as getting the face right. Practice is the key. It's not you walking,
it's God walking through you, baby!
3. Meeting people's eye. This might be the hardest part -- you have to
be able to look directly at people, yet look through them at the same
time. What do you usually do when you come across someone on the
street or in the office? If you know them, you might look them in the
eye and say "hi", but if you don't, you look away. NUH UH. That won't
fly. The enlightened master can look directly into the eyes of a
stranger, because he is looking at himself! Of course, you won't be
able to actually look into your own eyes unless you have had the "big
flash", so try this instead: look directly through people at things
behind them, but not too far to the side. Look at the tree for a few
seconds, the car for a few seconds, the sidewalk, that bird, whatever.
You will look like you are looking directly into their soul if that is
what they want to think (and believe me, the babes want exactly that!)
and they will think you are looking at things behind that if they are
uncomfortable thinking otherwise. This takes practice, but the
payoffs... well, just look at me!
4. Conversation. It is not as hard as you might think. Just think,
"What would the Buddha say?" Say you are at a party, and you have "the
face" and "the walk" and you are sitting, relaxed, drinking a beer and
talking to a babe. She asks you what you do for a living. Your
response? "I teach people how to live. That sounded weird... you know,
some people just aren't comfortable in the world, and I help them out.
I guess I'll never have you for a client. You look like you are
extremely together, Denise. Oh, it's Carla? Well believe me, in
another life it was Denise, and she was really together too." See how
easy it is? Babes want to be spiritual, and they want you to notice.
Well, that's enough for now. Let me know how well my system works for
you. Who knows, someday, if you play your cards right and get the act
down, you might just become an enlightened master too!
Namaste,
Sri Bodhi Prana
Buster Norris
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 08:49:50 -0800 (PST), Sri Bodhi Prana
<bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
>On Dec 28, 9:25 am, Patriot Games <Patr...@America.Com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 11:50:29 -0800 (PST), Sri Bodhi Prana
>> <bo...@mail2bombay.com> wrote:
>> >On Dec 27, 11:40 am, Ayatollah Obama
>> ><osama.obabma.by.anyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Not with the likes of Fruits and Loons like you... but of course, you
>> >> have the "Fruit of the Loon" President to worship!!
>> >We Indians...
>> Which ones, Fraud?
>> From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com>
>> NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
>You don't even have the right posting host.
You mean this one: 71.218.164.153
From: Sri Bodhi Prana
Date: Sat, 27 Dec 2008
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.164.153
Let's see:
http://groups.google.com/group/dfw.politics/msg/e5669b9936fcd442?hl=en&dmode=source
From: Baldin Lee Pramer
Date: Fri, 26 Dec 2008 11:12:01 -0800 (PST)
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.164.153
Yep, I DEFINITELY have the CORRECT FRAUD!
Hahahahahahahha!!!
>How can anyone believe you
>even modified a script to search for identical posting hosts if you
>can't find out directly?
As I have demonstrated above ANYONE ON EARTH can verify using
Google...
Hahahahahahahahahah!!!
>You should ask Clay to help you out. He knows my true identity.
As a PROVEN FRAUD your "true identity" is now and forever will be
irrelevant.
Let's recap:
You TRIED to CAST DOUBT on my claim WHILE KNOWING IT WAS ACCURATE.
You FAILED to CAST DOUBT on my claim and are NOW A PROVEN LIAR.
As a PROVEN LIAR your "true identity" is now: LIAR.
Buster Norris
On Fri, 20 Mar 2009 19:43:00 -0700 (PDT), Baldin Lee Pramer
<baldinl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>In any case, this is an interesting dynamic we have here -- PG in a
>frothing rage about his inability to prove even the simplest of his
>accusations
"Inability?" Are you SURE it was "inability?"
Or perhaps was it my ALLOWING YOU to dig a hole DEEP ENOUGH for BOTH
YOURSELF and THE SHIT I WILL NOW EXCRETE UPON YOU?
On Mon, 8 Sep 2008 09:38:21 -0700 (PDT), Baldin Lee Pramer
<baldinl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>Re: "My Muslim Faith"
>See my comment above. You should learn to understand the English
>language.
>Obama said no such thing.
Source:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.politics/msg/f65fe13f4f92a070?hl=en
-----------------------------------
Date: Mon, 8 Sep 2008 07:28:49 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: "my Muslim Faith"
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
On Sep 8, ayatollah obama <osama.obabma.by.anyn...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> obamaramadingdong let it sliip during an ABC interview that he is
> indeed muslim...
Obama said no such thing.
Pramer
-----------------------------------
Obama: "My Muslim Faith"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bMUgNg7aD8M
Liar.
Busted liar.
>trying *desperately* to get Google to ban me
"Desperately?" Since 'Lickin' Ass & Fakin' Names' WAS BANNED FOREVER
by Google there is ZERO reason for me to have ANY desperation with
regard to YOUR ULTIMATE future with Google.
>(even if they did, I have free news service from my ISP, so big whoop).
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
63.225.11.38 = Albuquerque, NM.
Host: wl-63-225-11-38.sdc.org
SDC Internet, Providing Superior Internet Solutions since 1996
http://www.sdc.org/about/
No mention of USENET service.
>And
>what is with Patriot Games hiding out after his big revelation about
>his sexuality...
Hiding? Me?
>The plot thickens!
You probably have Special Olympics practice to get to so I'll make
this short.
Claim #1: You said I was unable to prove an accusation. YOU WERE
WRONG.
Claim #2: You said you get free USENET from your ISP. Your ISP says
YOU ARE WRONG.
Claim #3: You attempted to put your special-needs emotions on others
claiming I am "desperately" trying to get you banned by Google. Since
'Lickin' Ass & Fakin' Names' WAS BANNED FOREVER by Google there is
simply ZERO reason for me to have ANY desperation regarding YOUR
ULTIMATE future with Google. Again, YOU WERE WRONG.
Claim #4 You said I was hiding. YOU WERE (very) WRONG.
This now concludes the total internet destruction of the FRAUD:
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterG...@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 129.138.19.107
129.138.19.107 = Socorro, NM.
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Sri Bodhi Prana <bo...@mail2bombay.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tater Gumfries <TaterG...@usa.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.225.11.38
63.225.11.38 = Albuquerque, New Mexico.
From: Baggi <BaggiBum...@gmail.com>
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
From: Tartarus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.170.32
71.218.170.32 = Denver, CO.
From: Baggi B <BaggiBum...@gmail.com>
From: Baldin Lee Pramer <baldinl...@yahoo.com>
From: Monsignor Tartarus Sanctus <tart...@rome.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 71.218.181.110
71.218.181.110 = Boulder, CO.
Buster Norris
"Baldin Lee Pramer" <baldinl...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:ba76b1b2-d125-45a0...@i12g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Feb 19, 12:01 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> "Balding Lee Pramer" <baldingleepra...@yahoo.com> wrote in messagenews:b0de0bb7-e804-4621...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>> > On Feb 17, 4:25 pm, "Patriot Games" <Patr...@America.com> wrote:
>> >> "Baldin Lee Pramer" <baldinleepra...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>> >> > How so, PG? The fact is, you look like a fool with your "blue state"
>> >> > crap.
>> >> There isn't anything foolish about the pattern. Its real. It exists.
>> >> Its
>> >> dangerous. It will, if it hasn't already, destroy this country if it
>> >> remains hidden or hushed up.
>> > What a load of crap. Try using facts next time.
>> >http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0004912.html
>> Using YOUR CITE:
>> Violent Crimes
>> Blue: 7,679.8
>> Red: 6,884.4
>> Purple: 6,588.4
>> Murder
>> Blue: 103.7
>> Red: 81.8
>> Purple: 81.1
>> Robbery
>> Blue: 2,327.5
>> Purple: 1,736.6
>> Red: 1,528.9
> I see you had to adjust things to make them come out your way. By
> "red" and "blue" states (no purple -- that's just your phony fudge
> factor)
Blue State: TWO Democrat Senators.
Red State: TWO Republican Senators.
Purple State: ONE Democrat Senator, ONE Republican Senator.
Simple.
> factor) every one of those categories was worse in "red" states.
You're a LIAR.
> You went through a lot of trouble just to prove how dishonest you are.
YOU are NOW a PROVEN LIAR.
I'm done with you.