#Shook: Why Do We Have to Listen to this Crap? Republicans Should Sit Down and Shut Up!
5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09
Why Do We Have to Listen to this Crap? Republicans Should Sit Down and
Shut Up!
How in the HELL did so many incredibly stupid people get to be in such a
position of power in this country? I'd really like to know.
More importantly, why do so many people not only VOTE against their own
personal interests, and the interests of their neighbors, but also
advocate for positions that apparently run counter to their stated belief
system. And why are people whose lives are obviously more messed up than
those whom they are lecturing, constantly hawk their self-righteous
bullshit to the rest of us with regard to ethics and morals? I've always
believed you clean out your own barn before you start talking about the
stench of someone else's.
And here's the ultimate question; why do they always seem to get a forum
that is equal to everyone else, and why doesn't anyone call them on their
rhetoric?
Now, if you listen to a right winger, wherever they live is a goddamn
paradise, where everyone lives a chaste, moral, Biblical life, and
everyone who lives in a "liberal" state might as well be living in a
jungle. Right wingers, of course, are all moral, peaceful and God-
fearing, while we liberals are all heathenous retches who kill babies and
coddle terrorists.
Of course, we know they're delusional. And yet, no matter how delusional
they are, the press gives them a soapbox, where they will get to say
whatever they want, and no one will ever call them on it.
And there's a lot to call them on. Have you ever bothered to look at the
relative safety, security and economic stability of the red states versus
the blue states? Well, I have. When you compare the red states with the
blue states, you end up with proof that right wingers are delusional
about their heroes, and are ultimately not worthy of any respect.
By almost every measure, the Republican leadership has let their own base
down, and apparently, their "base" is just too stupid to notice. And I
apologize in advance to the Democrats in these states; I know there are a
lot of you, and you hate having others point this out to you, but now you
can print this and hand it out to the redneck across the street the next
time he tells you what a great man George W. Bush was, and what a
socialist Barack Obama is. By most measures, his state is among the worst
in the country.
Another note; in the statistics below, I left Washington, DC out of the
mix on purpose. It's not a state, the city is largely run by Congress,
and its population for most of the day is mostly transient, which tends
to skew per capita figures to a very great degree. Plus, some
measurements included them others didn't.
Let's start this with some basic economics.
Here's a list of the ten states with the highest median incomes: 1.
Maryland, 2. New Jersey, 3. Connecticut, 4. Alaska, 5. Hawaii, 6. New
Hampshire, 7. Massachusetts, 8. California, 9. Virginia, 10. Minnesota.
Notice something about the above? Except for Alaska, whose numbers are
skewed because of their socialist economy, in which oil companies pay
their taxes for them, and pay them extra for living in Alaska, all of
them are blue, or at least a bluish purple, in the case of New Hampshire.
Just as interesting are the BOTTOM ten states; 50. Mississippi, 49. West
Virginia, 48. Arkansas, 47. Kentucky, 46. Alabama, 45. Louisiana, 44. New
Mexico, 43. Oklahoma, 42. Tennessee, 41. South Carolina.
Notice something about that list? Yeah, except for the purplish New
Mexico and West Virginia, they're all pretty reliably red.
The above statistics have been pretty much static for the last 40 years;
the groupings haven't changed much. And the poverty levels back that up.
The ten states with the highest number of residents living below the
poverty line are: 1. Mississippi, 21.6%, 2. Louisiana, 19.4%, 3. New
Mexico, 19.3%, 4. Arkansas, 17.9%, 5. West Virginia, 17.9%, 6. Kentucky,
17.4%, 7. Texas, 16.6%, 8. Alabama, 16.1%, 9. South Carolina, 15.7%, 10.
Oklahoma, 15.3%. It’s roughly the same group of states, and pretty much
all Red.
Again; why are these people are telling us how to put people to work, and
increase tax revenues? Why are they even given a forum to complain about
what "liberals" and Democrats do to the economy? They're running the
poorest states in the country, and they won't be satisfied until they've
done the same thing for everyone else.
So why is it, no matter how many times the Republican "base" votes for
their Republican heroes, and nothing changes, they continue to support
them? Oh, wait; the answers are below. I just haven't gotten to them yet.
The Republican base doesn't simply occupy the bottom, economically
speaking. No, there is lots more to look at.
You know how they're always posturing themselves as being "tough on
crime"? They always brag, because they throw a lot more people in jail,
and execute far more criminals than blue states. And they swear that such
measures make everyone safer. But I dare anyone to prove it based on
statistics.
The ten states with the highest violent crime rate are, according to the
FBI's Uniform Crime Statistics for 2006. 1. South Carolina, 2. Tennessee,
3. Nevada, 4. Florida, 5. Louisiana, 6. Alaska, 7. Delaware, 8. Maryland,
9. New Mexico, 10. Michigan.
Yes, you read that right. The states with the highest violent crime rate
are mostly RED, not blue. Seven of the top ten are run by Republicans. If
we dig down to the top 15, the only blue states added would be Illinois
and California, which are purple, at best. That's right, folks; ten of
the 15 states with the highest violent crime rates in the country are
mostly run by Republicans. Their violent crime rates are far higher than
New York, far higher than New Jersey, and a whole lot higher than that
bastion of liberalism, Massachusetts.
Nineteen states have crime rates higher than the US average, and only
five are blue. As a subset of violent crimes, murder rates follow the
same pattern; 1. South Carolina, 2. Florida, 3. Maryland, 4. Tennessee,
5. New Mexico, 6. Louisiana, 7. Alaska, 8. Nevada, 9. Delaware, 10.
California.
And they love the gun in those red states, don't they? They will swear
with their dying breath that the gun protects them. But check out the ten
states with the highest firearm death rate (by now, you should be able to
guess most of them); 1. Alaska, 2. Louisiana, 3. Wyoming, 4. Arizona, 5.
Nevada, 6. Mississippi, 7. New Mexico, 8. Arkansas, 9. Alabama, 10.
Tennessee.
Just for giggles, check out the states with the LOWEST firearm death
rate, mainly because some will surprise you. 50. Hawaii, 49.
Massachusetts, 48. Connecticut, 47. New Jersey, 46. New York, 45. Rhode
Island, 44 New Hampshire, 43. Minnesota, 42. Maine, 41. Iowa.
Yes, you read that right. You have a far greater chance of being shot and
killed in Caribou Barbie's Alaska than in New York or New Jersey.
Doesn't it seem strange that the states with the most guns also see the
most crime? If the mere presence of firearms makes everyone safer, as the
right wing loons claim, then perhaps they can explain why your odds of
being shot and killed are greater in the states with more guns? It's that
cognitive dissonance, folks; they can't help themselves.
Perhaps their cognitive dissonance is because of their lack of education.
I know it's hard to believe, but despite their efforts to force us to run
schools their way, they don't have a very good track record.
Let's start with the ten states with the highest graduation rates: 1. New
Jersey, 2. North Dakota, 3. Iowa, 4. Vermont, 5. Wisconsin, 6.
Connecticut, 7. Pennsylvania, 8. Minnesota, 9. Idaho, 10. Nebraska.
Now, a couple of red ones popped up in there, mostly in red states where
there really isn't anything to do if you drop out of high school. I mean,
what does a teenager do in North Dakota, Idaho or Nebraska if they aren't
going to school? Yet, seven of the top ten states are reliably red.
Now, check out the bottom ten. Again, you can almost guess who most of
them are. 50. South Carolina, 49. Nevada, 48. Georgia, 47. New Mexico,
46. Florida, 45, Louisiana, 44. Delaware, 43. Alabama, 42. Mississippi
and 41. Tennessee.
Again, most of the above states have been dominated by Republicans over
the years.
And have you noticed how right wing Republicans are always on about how
moral they are compared to us? I mean to hear them tell it, we
progressives are depraved, and they're all as pure as the driven snow.
They scoff at us "lib'rulls" and our so-called "lifestyles," and they're
so worried that same-sex couples might actually get married and ruin
theirs, you would think they valued marriage as a "sacred tradition."
Well, think again. The ten states with the highest divorce rates are as
follows; 1. Nevada, 2. Arkansas, 3. Alaska, 4. Oklahoma, 5. Wyoming, 6.
West Virginia, 7. Alabama, 8. Idaho, 9. Florida, 10. Tennessee.
In all fairness, we should probably leave Nevada off the above list,
because tacky people from all over the country get divorced there. but
all of the others are reliably red.
What about teen pregnancy? Surely, with so many right wingers teaching
all that “abstinence-only” education, their girls chaste and virtuous,
right? Well, you tell me; here are the ten states with the highest rates
of teen pregnancy; 1. Nevada, 2. Arizona, 3. Mississippi, 4. New Mexico,
5. Texas, 6. Florida, 7. California, 8. Georgia, 9. North Carolina, 10.
Arkansas. Once again, except for California, all of pretty reliably red
over the years.
It's pretty clear that the right wing Republicans' track record regarding
their pet issues is pretty poor. But it gets even better.
Have you noticed how the greatest whining about health care reform has
been coming from Republican lawmakers from red states? One would think
that the states with the largest numbers of uninsured would be most in
favor of creating a national health insurance system, right?
Not when one major party is dominated by hypocrites.
You can probably guess which states have the HIGHEST number of uninsured
citizens. These numbers are based on a two-year average for 2006-2007,
and the numbers are the percentage of the populations who can be found
without insurance at any given time. This one will curl your hair, folks.
(Keep in mind, the national average during the same period was 15.6%,
which is nothing to brag about). 50. Texas (24.8%) 49. New Mexico
(22.7%) 48. Florida (20.7%) 47. Louisiana (20.2%) 46. Mississippi
(19.8%) 45. Arizona (19.6%) 44. California (18.5%) 42 (T) Oklahoma and
Nevada (18.4%) 41. Arkansas (17.5%).
Now, check out the states with the LOWEST proportion of uninsured:
1. Massachusetts (7.9%) 2. Hawaii (8.2%) 3. Wisconsin (8.5%) 4. Minnesota
(8.8%) 5. Maine (9.1%) 6. Connecticut (9.4%) 7. Rhode Island (9.7%) 8.
Pennsylvania (9.8%) 9. Iowa (9.9%) 10. Vermont (10.7%)
Why do the people of Texas and Florida, who have the largest number of
uninsured, continuing to support politicians who are quite obviously
working against their best interests, while the politicians with the
least problem are leading the fight? Max Baucus' Montana is just below
the bottom ten, with an average of 16.7% of their population uninsured;
what the hell is he doing advocating against the people of his state, and
working against attempts to insure more of them? And Blanche Lincoln? if
you think Arkansas can get by without a public option, think again. Your
state is in the BOTTOM TEN.
By the way, the two states with the smallest proportion of uninsured also
have something akin to the health care plan being proposed by Congress.
Coincidence?
Right wing Republicans seem to never shut up about their alleged economic
independence from the federal government. Remember how they all screamed
about the stimulus bill, and how incredibly concerned they are about the
costs of the health insurance reform bills before Congress? Remember
their disgust over corporate bailouts, even though they've been huge fans
of such things, until President Obama came along? They've always claimed
to be advocates for states' rights, and as much autonomy from the
government as possible. And you've heard them all rail and whine and cry
about welfare, and they openly make fun of anyone who depends on the
government to get by.
Well, the hypocrisy cup runneth over, folks.
Meet the state welfare queens. These are the top ten states -- the ones
who get the most bang for the buck. Every single one of these states gets
more federal tax money than they pay in, which means other states get
less than they pay in. Now, if you were a right winger, would it seem
fair that some states get more tax money back than they pay in, while
others get less than they pay in?
Check out this list of the top ten states in federal largesse, and answer
that for yourself. Next to each state is how much money they get back for
every dollar in federal taxes they pay in; 1. New Mexico, $2.03 2.
Mississippi, $2.02, 3. Alaska, $1.84, 4. Louisiana, $1.78, 5. West
Virginia, $1.76, 6. North Dakota, $1.68, 7. Alabama, $1.66, 8. South
Dakota, $1.53, 9. Kentucky, $1.51, 10. Virginia, $1.51.
Yes, that's right, folks, the top ten federal welfare cases are all
states that have been reliably red for a long time, although the
inclusion of Virginia would seem to be somewhat unfair, since the
northern part of the state is practically federal territory, with several
federal agencies located there, which is where the federal spending
goes. But note that the same could be said of Maryland, and it's not on
that list. Of course, number 11 is Montana, anyway, so it almost doesn't
matter. Right wing red states are the greatest recipients of federal
welfare, contrary to what they want you to believe.
Now, based on right wing logic, the following states should be the ones
screaming the loudest about those Red State welfare queens. These are the
ten states who receive the LEAST federal money; 50. New Jersey, $0.61,
49. Nevada, $0.65, 48. Connecticut, $0.69, 47. New Hampshire, $0.71, 46.
Minnesota, $0.72, 45. Illinois, $0.75, 44. Delaware, $0.77, 43.
California, $0.78, 42. New York, $0.79, 41. Colorado, $0.81.
Basically, the blue and bluish-purple states are largely subsidizing many
of the red states, which have been run into the ground by Republicans
over the years. Then next time a right winger gets apoplectic at the very
thought that an undocumented immigrant pregnant woman might have a child
in a California hospital, remind him that California taxpayers spend a
hell of a lot more of their tax money effectively subsidizing their
states, because their right wing leadership can't lift their states out
of the economic dark ages.
Put simply, the current incarnation of the Republican Party are
hypocrites, their supporters are hypocrites and delusional, and if anyone
tries to convince you that neocons are better at doing anything with
regard to government, show them these stats. In fact, print this and hand
it out to any co-worker who argue that Democrats are screwing things up.
It might not shut them up, but it'll make you feel better.
--
Slavery: The belief that people can be property
Corporatism: The belief that property can be people.
edi...@netpath.net
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> And there's a lot to call them on. Have you ever bothered to look at the
> relative safety, security and economic stability of the red states versus
> the blue states?
Yes. Kalifornia is the economic and fiscal basket case state - the
ONLY state in the past 50 years where the state government had to pay
its bills in scrip that was worthless and with the highest foreclosure
rate of any state. Michigan is an economic basket case - as the auto
industry that long sustained it died over the past 30 years; see
latest issue of Fortune magazine for three stories on that.
http://www.redstate.com/erick/2009/08/04/where-is-your-townhall/ is
the all-states, continually-updated calendar of "town halls."
http://www.Internet-Gun-Show.com - your source for hard-to-find stuff!
Phlip
What state did you spend your childhood in?
And, yes Kalifornia is well on its way to the bottom of the Reds,
courtesy of its failed neocon governor...
Phlip
http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12940068
"SACRAMENTO — Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sunk to an all-time low
among Californians in a new survey that also finds that residents,
while strongly in favor of environmental regulations, want to slow
down on environmental reforms while the economy is still taking a
beating.
"Schwarzenegger's job approval rating is now at 28 percent, according
to a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, comparable to
the ratings faced by former Gov. Gray Davis before he was recalled in
2003."
Gee, do ya think we should hire an American college grad with some
law, economics, & business under his or her belt for this job??
edi...@netpath.net
> Hi editor.
> What state did you spend your childhood in?
Mostly right here of my life in North Carolina. Hopped all over
before due to my father's moving for jobs. Never lived longer than
3-4 years anywhere else prior to coming here - but have lived in this
same house since 1975.
Phlip
> On Oct 12, 4:23 pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi editor.
> > What state did you spend your childhood in?
>
> Mostly right here of my life in North Carolina. Hopped all over
> before due to my father's moving for jobs. Never lived longer than
> 3-4 years anywhere else prior to coming here - but have lived in this
> same house since 1975.
Aw, you're not giving me nothing to flame you about - except the NC
part!
A hidden point of Shook's screed was that the GOP attack on education
(defunding schools, preaching creationism & abstinence, segregation)
are all systems to prevent kids from learning too much civics. Such as
how democracy, taxes, or health care are _supposed_ to work; how they
work in more prosperous regions.
Your white politicians keep you down, and exploit racial bias, just
exactly the same way Saddam Hussein kept his populace down, by playing
Sunni off of Shi'a.
Oh, and I was born near Durham, but we moved north to get into better
schools. For all the good they did me!
Steve
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2009/10/whylistentothiscrap.html
>
>Why Do We Have to Listen to this Crap? Republicans Should Sit Down and
>Shut Up!
<ROTFL> Milt should get a job and move out of his dad's trailer....
>How in the HELL did so many incredibly stupid people get to be in such a
>position of power in this country? I'd really like to know.
It won't last long..
<snip Shook's ignorant gibberish>
--
Contrary to what liberals whine, nobody
owes you anything.
5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09
I feel a bit sorry for Arnie. The crisis wasn't of his making, and it
was horrible policies inflicted on the state by know-nothing Republicans
that pretty well made it impossible for him to address the crisis in any
meaningful way.
I expect the state government to collapse in the fairly near future, and
under the provision of the constitution guaranteeing a republican form of
government, we'll become a federal protectorate until a new state
constitution is forged. Then, and only then, will the state no longer be
held hostage by a minority of anti-government whack jobs.
Steve
The Democrats that dominate the California legislature have ruined
California...
You should probably move, Jamieson... Cuba might take you..
5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09
> Phlip <phli...@gmail.com> wrote in crayon...
> California has been a red state for a long time. I started going
> downhill when it elected a Democratic legislature. It started with
> Willie Brown.
I would have guessed you started going downhill long before then.
>
>
> -
>
>
>
> "Communism only works in Heaven, where they don't need it, it and in
> Hell, where they already have it"
>
> -President Ronald Reagan
nobody
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:26:06 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>
>> On Oct 12, 1:23�pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Hi editor.
>>>
>>> What state did you spend your childhood in?
>>>
>>> And, yes Kalifornia is well on its way to the bottom of the Reds,
>>> courtesy of its failed neocon governor...
>>
>> http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12940068
>>
>> "SACRAMENTO � Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sunk to an all-time low
>> among Californians in a new survey that also finds that residents, while
>> strongly in favor of environmental regulations, want to slow down on
>> environmental reforms while the economy is still taking a beating.
>>
>> "Schwarzenegger's job approval rating is now at 28 percent, according to
>> a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, comparable to the
>> ratings faced by former Gov. Gray Davis before he was recalled in 2003."
>>
>> Gee, do ya think we should hire an American college grad with some law,
>> economics, & business under his or her belt for this job??
>
>I feel a bit sorry for Arnie. The crisis wasn't of his making, and it
>was horrible policies inflicted on the state by know-nothing Republicans
>that pretty well made it impossible for him to address the crisis in any
>meaningful way.
Oh look, more uncited nonsense pulled out of Zippy's butt...
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>http://pleasecutthecrap.typepad.com/main/2009/10/whylistentothiscrap.html
>
>Why Do We Have to Listen to this Crap? Republicans Should Sit Down and
>Shut Up!
>
>How in the HELL did so many incredibly stupid people get to be in such a
>position of power in this country? I'd really like to know.
>
>
>
>More importantly, why do so many people not only VOTE against their own
>personal interests,
Who are you to decide what's in someone's personal interest?
JSL
[ snip ]
Milt
I should have brought that up in the article and I didn't, but it was
long enough. California is, at best, a purple state, and for a long
time, especially when I was there in the late 70s and the 80s,
Republicans dominated the state to a very great degree. George
Deukmejian and Pete Wilson were absolutely the worst governors in
California history, and the Republican legislature set the stage for
shit like the Enron mess. California's downturn in that area was
largely caused by deregulation uber alles, without concern for the
potential effects.
But seriously, WTF is wrong with California voters that they live in
state with more than 20 million people, but they would entrust the
executive branch of the state to a guy whose previous claim to fame
was as an action movie star? The next governor has to be a Democrat,
and he has to have experience dealing with the state political
apparatus, which is schizophrenic at best. Portions of LA and San
Francisco are liberal, but they're more than balanced out by the rest
of the state, which consists of moderate places like San Diego and
Sacramento, and the rest of the state, which can often be rightfully
be considered as something akin to Alabama.
Milt
You seriously don't get the concept of irony, do you?
5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09
I bet you don't even know what the crisis in California is.
Face it, bubbles. You have nothing to offer but empty gainsaying.
Milt
No, that would be Jeffrey Linder. He doesn't even have that to offer.
If I could figure out a way to block "nobody" I would have. I had a
formula for doing it at one time, but I can't remember what it was.
Shit.
Milt
This was too stupid to pass up...)
On Oct 13, 8:37 am, L...@alot.com wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:33:37 GMT, linder....@osu.edu
>
> (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
> >Who are you to decide what's in someone's personal interest?
Jesus Christ.
Jeffrey, why do you continue to get dumber?
Are you seriously arguing that it's in someone's "personal interest"
to vote in favor of continuing to live in a cesspool of crime,
violence and poverty as long as their politicians are in favor of
outlawing abortion and gay marriage? We used to consider that insane.
Are you actually arguing that it's now a valid lifestyle choice?
Tell you what; come up with a rational basis for such a concept and
I'll retract the "stupid" comment. Key word here: rational.
> I believe it was a founders creation, JeffyLoon.
>
> Originally, they didn't trust "people" and had set up
> elections in a much different manner.
He won't get it. You're wasting your bandwidth.
5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09
You're using Google, aren't you? That's a shame. Pan has all kinds of
good filters, such as "ignore all messages crossposted to X number of
groups, or "name contains" a certain string, Agent doesn't have as many
tools, but it does the job.
Is there any way you can use a news reader on Google? Do they have a
news.google.com option?
I've discovered the faster I eliminate the annoying time wasters, the
more I enjoy Usenet again.
5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09
Arnie only got 4.2 million votes and his closest opponent (aside from
Gray Davis) was the vile Cruz Bustamante. And by 2006, it was generally
agreed that Arnie was capable, if not outstanding, and not a complete
disgrace. Another weak Democratic candidate, so that was all it took.
Next election it's going to be either Jerry Brown (who definitely meets
your criteria of being " Democrat, and he has to have experience dealing
with the state political apparatus" or Gavin Newsom. Brown isn't
disqualified by term limits because his two terms a governor were before
the law was enacted. He would be a good governor again. The leading GOP
candidate is that vile HP CEO.
nobody
>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:31:50 -0400, nobody
><nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>Oh look, more uncited nonsense pulled out of Zippy's butt...
>
>>------------------------------�--------------------------------------
>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:Dana+author:Raffaniello&hl=e...
>
>>houston toilet for ladies
>
>>use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
>>can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
It's considered very poor form to attribute to someone something he
didn't say. Who is Dana Raffaniello?
nobody
wrote:
Since I don't normally make uncited claims, your "irony" is nonsense
(as usual).
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>(Sorry for answering this in your post, but I have Jeffrey blocked.
>This was too stupid to pass up...)
>
>On Oct 13, 8:37=A0am, L...@alot.com wrote:
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:33:37 GMT, linder....@osu.edu
>>
>> (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>> >Who are you to decide what's in someone's personal interest?
>
>Jesus Christ.
>
>Jeffrey, why do you continue to get dumber?
>
>Are you seriously arguing that it's in someone's "personal interest"
>to vote in favor of continuing to live in a cesspool of crime,
>violence and poverty as long as their politicians are in favor of
>outlawing abortion and gay marriage?
Do you know their heart and mind Milt?
>We used to consider that insane.
>Are you actually arguing that it's now a valid lifestyle choice?
Validity of someone's choice is YOUR opinion. You may disagree with
they way they wish to live but to call against their best interest is
they height of hypocrisy.
>Tell you what; come up with a rational basis for such a concept and
>I'll retract the "stupid" comment. Key word here: rational.
Rationality of someones personal interest is a distinction without a
difference. You've once again, set yourself up as the person best
able to determine what's in the best interest of someone else. Tell
us Milt, how do you feel about liberty? I think we all know the real
answer to that one.
>
>> I believe it was a founders creation, JeffyLoon.
>>
>> Originally, they didn't trust "people" and had set up
>> elections in a much different manner.
>
>He won't get it. You're wasting your bandwidth.
JSL
nobody
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:31:50 -0400, nobody wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:13:23 -0500, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:26:06 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 12, 1:23�pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi editor.
>>>>>
>>>>> What state did you spend your childhood in?
>>>>>
>>>>> And, yes Kalifornia is well on its way to the bottom of the Reds,
>>>>> courtesy of its failed neocon governor...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12940068
>>>>
>>>> "SACRAMENTO ? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sunk to an all-time low
>>>> among Californians in a new survey that also finds that residents,
>>>> while strongly in favor of environmental regulations, want to slow
>>>> down on environmental reforms while the economy is still taking a
>>>> beating.
>>>>
>>>> "Schwarzenegger's job approval rating is now at 28 percent, according
>>>> to a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, comparable to
>>>> the ratings faced by former Gov. Gray Davis before he was recalled in
>>>> 2003."
>>>>
>>>> Gee, do ya think we should hire an American college grad with some
>>>> law, economics, & business under his or her belt for this job??
>>>
>>>I feel a bit sorry for Arnie. The crisis wasn't of his making, and it
>>>was horrible policies inflicted on the state by know-nothing Republicans
>>>that pretty well made it impossible for him to address the crisis in any
>>>meaningful way.
>>
>> Oh look, more uncited nonsense pulled out of Zippy's butt...
>
>I bet you don't even know what the crisis in California is.
A bunch of people are trying to spend a bunch of money they don't
have.
>
>Face it, bubbles. You have nothing to offer but empty gainsaying.
You still didn't cite your nonsense claim.
Milt
Tell you what. Let's use your tactics on you.
Prove you're not Dana.
Milt
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
You just made an incited claim above. You don't see it?
First of all, he offered a generalized opinion, not a statement of
fact.
Then, you claim it's "nonsense," and claim he pulled it out of his
ass. Both of those are not opinions, they're statements of fact.
Please cite to something that proves your claim that Zepp's opinion is
"nonsense."
See how I just proved your claim that my "irony" claim is true?
That's how adults debate. Fucking idiot.
Milt
You just made an incited claim above. You don't see it?
First of all, he offered a generalized opinion, not a statement of
fact.
Then, you claim it's "nonsense," and claim he pulled it out of his
ass. Both of those are not opinions, they're statements of fact.
Please cite to something that proves your claim that Zepp's opinion is
"nonsense."
See how I just proved that my "irony" claim is true?
Milt
I think either one would be a stellar choice, frankly.
And anyone who beats Carly Fiorino is a winner in my book. I often
wonder how many dicks she had to suck to get to the top of HP. And to
anyone thinking that's a sexist remark, I wonder the same thing about
Michael Steele.
5203 Dead, 336 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On Oct 13, 1:15�pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Just for starters, it's not my opinion. Phlip and I are two different
people.
Milt
> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >(Sorry for answering this in your post, but I have Jeffrey blocked.
> >This was too stupid to pass up...)
>
> >On Oct 13, 8:37=A0am, L...@alot.com wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:33:37 GMT, linder....@osu.edu
>
> >> (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
> >> >Who are you to decide what's in someone's personal interest?
>
> >Jesus Christ.
>
> >Jeffrey, why do you continue to get dumber?
>
> >Are you seriously arguing that it's in someone's "personal interest"
> >to vote in favor of continuing to live in a cesspool of crime,
> >violence and poverty as long as their politicians are in favor of
> >outlawing abortion and gay marriage?
>
> Do you know their heart and mind Milt?
I unblocked you for this?
That's not even a response.
Please Jeffrey, explain to the class how ANYONE, regardless of their
"heart and mind" could consider gay marriage and abortion as big
enough issues to drown out issues that affect their families, and be
considered rational.
>
> >We used to consider that insane.
> >Are you actually arguing that it's now a valid lifestyle choice?
>
> Validity of someone's choice is YOUR opinion.
Ok, fine. Please explain how someone can rationally choose gay
marriage and abortion over their family and community.
> You may disagree with
> they way they wish to live but to call against their best interest is
> they height of hypocrisy.
No, asshole. That's where we draw the line. I'm not hypocritical, you
are. By YOUR ideology's standards; making lots of money, lots of
competition, low crime, high moral standards and all of that, you
people FAIL miserably, at the same time you're telling everyone else
how to live. Instead of snipping the fucking article, you should have
read it, you clown. Statistically speaking, when it comes to quality
of life, blue states are superior, in general, in every statistical
category that YOUR IDEOLOGY claims is important. You have a lot more
violent crime, more teen pregnancy, higher dropout rates, higher
poverty rates, and you people have to get more federal tax money than
you pay in just to survive. Yet, your side is always lecturing us on
morality, how to keep crime rates low and how to keep our kids chaste
and all of that bullshit.
Read the article, Jeffrey; don't just respond to what you THINK it
says. I used actual statistics to prove my point. Red states have
suffered greatly under the Republicans, and yet they keep on voting
them in, despite that.
Again; if you can explain how voting for people who have been fucking
you up the ass for 40 years is NOT "voting against their interests,"
then I'd love to hear it. But this inability I have to not read minds
can't be a basis for your assertion that I'm wrong, somehow.
>
> >Tell you what; come up with a rational basis for such a concept and
> >I'll retract the "stupid" comment. Key word here: rational.
>
> Rationality of someones personal interest is a distinction without a
> difference.
Oh, for fuck sakes, Jeffrey; you do have a college degree, right? That
sentence doesn't make sense. But even if it did, it's a very important
distinction.
Put it this way; if the voters were saying "I vote for Republicans
because, even though they keep screwing me in every other way, they're
the party that's best equipped to fight off the invading Klingons, I
think we'd both agree that such a statement was irrational.
In this case, replace "fight off the invading Klingons" with "protect
us from brown people, abortions and gays" and make it sound rational.
> You've once again, set yourself up as the person best
> able to determine what's in the best interest of someone else.
That's insane. I'm just stating the obvious. If you can provide a
rational foundation for voting for politicians who keep undermining
your family's fortunes, because they're protecting you from the gays
and abortion, please present it. I'm not posing as an authority here,
you are. You're claiming you can create a rational basis for such a
thing. Go ahead. Do so.
< Tell
> us Milt, how do you feel about liberty? I think we all know the real
> answer to that one.
And once again, you demonstrate your inability to understand the
concept of irony. You just said I was claiming authority on "people's
best interest," but now you're claiming authority on how I feel about
liberty.
Here's a clue, fucktard.
I'm pro-choice, because being anti-choice (like you) means giving the
government final authority to force a woman to stay pregnant against
her will. I am also NOT pro-abortion, even though you people always
tell me I must be.
I'm in favor of same-sex marriage because it's none of my fucking
business who anyone chooses to spend their life with. But you've spent
years advocating against it.
I think prohibition should end once and for all. Most drugs should be
legalized, regulated and taxed. But there should be restrictions on
WHERE you're allowed to use them, because others should have the
freedom to not have to deal with your sorry drug addled ass.
I think tobacco laws should continue to get stricter, because while
you have the right to pollute your lungs at will, you don't have the
right to pollute everyone else's.
I believe that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but
that the government has a sacred duty to protect the safety of
everyone, including those who do and do not own guns. Therefore, they
should all be registered and the owners licensed.
And health insurance should be universal, and everyone should be
required to carry it. because everyone has an ultimate right to
medical care, but you don't have the right to force the rest of us to
pay your bills when you get sick and have to use services you can't
afford.
Are you getting this down, Jeffrey? I believe in liberty, but no one's
liberty occurs in a fucking vacuum. That's the difference between your
side and mine, in a nutshell. Your side thinks we live in a nation of
300 million individuals, period. We believe we live in a nation of 300
individuals who all have to live together in the same society.
Now, deal with the irrationality issue.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
Nope.
>
>>
>>Face it, bubbles. You have nothing to offer but empty gainsaying.
>
>You still didn't cite your nonsense claim.
What claim is that, bubbles?
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
Ah. Now there's something I did say. I feel sorry for Arnie, and I
don't have to cite my personal feelings. The crisis predated him --
in fact its roots go back all the way to 1978 -- and some of the
policies, such as the supermajority for all budget votes -- are
horrible and did tie Arnies hands.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On Oct 13, 10:39�am, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
Or Michael Huffington, for that matter.
I don't know if Newsom is electable, but Jerry Brown is. The days of
"Governor Moonbeam" are long past, and his tenure as mayor of Oakland
and State A-G show that he's competent, capable, and honest. Been
years since we had a governor like that. Um, since the last one named
"Brown", in fact.
Phlip
>> was horrible policies inflicted on the state by know-nothing Republicans
>> that pretty well made it impossible for him to address the crisis in any
>> meaningful way.
Uh, except by raising taxes on the rich people who take so much Californian
resources (an educated workforce, heroic fire & water departments, etc.) and
give so little...
Steve
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:31:50 -0400, nobody wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:13:23 -0500, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:26:06 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Oct 12, 1:23�pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Hi editor.
>>>>>
>>>>> What state did you spend your childhood in?
>>>>>
>>>>> And, yes Kalifornia is well on its way to the bottom of the Reds,
>>>>> courtesy of its failed neocon governor...
>>>>
>>>> http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12940068
>>>>
>>>> "SACRAMENTO ? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sunk to an all-time low
>>>> among Californians in a new survey that also finds that residents,
>>>> while strongly in favor of environmental regulations, want to slow
>>>> down on environmental reforms while the economy is still taking a
>>>> beating.
>>>>
>>>> "Schwarzenegger's job approval rating is now at 28 percent, according
>>>> to a poll by the Public Policy Institute of California, comparable to
>>>> the ratings faced by former Gov. Gray Davis before he was recalled in
>>>> 2003."
>>>>
>>>> Gee, do ya think we should hire an American college grad with some
>>>> law, economics, & business under his or her belt for this job??
>>>
>>>I feel a bit sorry for Arnie. The crisis wasn't of his making, and it
>>>was horrible policies inflicted on the state by know-nothing Republicans
>>>that pretty well made it impossible for him to address the crisis in any
>>>meaningful way.
>>
>> Oh look, more uncited nonsense pulled out of Zippy's butt...
>
>I bet you don't even know what the crisis in California is.
>
>Face it, bubbles. You have nothing to offer but empty gainsaying.
I figure we can let you Californians take care of yourselves.... those
of you that are left after the productive people leave....
--
Contrary to what liberals whine, nobody
owes you anything.
Steve
wrote:
>On Oct 13, 8:56�am, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
<ROTFLMAO> It's pretty hard for Milt to "block" people using the
library's computer....
Steve
wrote:
>On Oct 13, 1:14�pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Prove that you don't sleep on the couch in your dad's trailer...
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
Even if he was willing to, he couldn't.
Milt
Yeah, I just don't have the time or energy to deal with Usenet very
often, and Google Groups works pretty well. But Firefox has some
awesome filtering, and I can block just about anyone. I had "nobody"
blocked on the old computer, but I can't remember how I did it. He
doesn't post as often as the others I block, though, and while his
posts are insipid, they're mercifully short, so I see it as more of a
challenge than anything.
>
> Is there any way you can use a news reader on Google? Do they have a
> news.google.com option?
No... it's pretty much the same as it was when it was Deja. But it's
okay... I just happen by here once in a while for shits and giggles.
Once in a while, I find a story here that I hadn't seen before, and I
write about it on the blog. That's generally the only reason I come in
here. That's why I block idiots like The Stalker, Clay, and (usually)
Linder. They never have anything interesting to say.
I unblocked Jeffrey earlier today, because of his response to my blog
post. Apparently, we can't possibly know what goes against people's
interests because we can't read their minds. Seriously, if you're
missing this, you're missing a gainsaying classic.
>
> I've discovered the faster I eliminate the annoying time wasters, the
> more I enjoy Usenet again.
Honestly, I almost never enjoy it. It's a time killer sometimes. It
stopped being fun a long time ago. And it's pretty much a non-entity
anymore. The Usenet population that comes in for something other than
illegal downloads has shrunk more than was imaginable 10 years ago.
5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09
I saw it. I chuckled and moved on. Some day, Jeffy will be real brave
and set forth an argument of his own, and people will stop laughing at
him and poking him with sticks.
>>
>> I've discovered the faster I eliminate the annoying time wasters, the
>> more I enjoy Usenet again.
>
> Honestly, I almost never enjoy it. It's a time killer sometimes. It
> stopped being fun a long time ago. And it's pretty much a non-entity
> anymore. The Usenet population that comes in for something other than
> illegal downloads has shrunk more than was imaginable 10 years ago.
And more and more carriers are dropping Usenet, citing child porn as the
excuse. It will probably be extinct soon enough. I've been on moderated
blogs more often lately, particularly the Guardian.
Steve
wrote:
>On Oct 13, 10:21�am, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
Oh Lord.... Shook has no job, no money, no income, he has absolutely
nothing to do...
>often, and Google Groups works pretty well. But Firefox has some
>awesome filtering, and I can block just about anyone. I had "nobody"
>blocked on the old computer, but I can't remember how I did it. He
>doesn't post as often as the others I block, though, and while his
>posts are insipid, they're mercifully short, so I see it as more of a
>challenge than anything.
>>
>> Is there any way you can use a news reader on Google? �Do they have a
>> news.google.com option?
>
>No... it's pretty much the same as it was when it was Deja. But it's
>okay... I just happen by here once in a while for shits and giggles.
>Once in a while, I find a story here that I hadn't seen before, and I
>write about it on the blog. That's generally the only reason I come in
>here. That's why I block idiots like The Stalker, Clay, and (usually)
>Linder. They never have anything interesting to say.
<LOL> Shook can't block anybody... He's using one of the
University of Arizona's computers..
>I unblocked Jeffrey earlier today, because of his response to my blog
>post. Apparently, we can't possibly know what goes against people's
>interests because we can't read their minds. Seriously, if you're
>missing this, you're missing a gainsaying classic.
>>
>> I've discovered the faster I eliminate the annoying time wasters, the
>> more I enjoy Usenet again. �
>
>Honestly, I almost never enjoy it. It's a time killer sometimes. It
>stopped being fun a long time ago. And it's pretty much a non-entity
>anymore. The Usenet population that comes in for something other than
>illegal downloads has shrunk more than was imaginable 10 years ago.
--
nobody
wrote:
>On Oct 13, 1:15�pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Zippy's claim is above.
>
>First of all, he offered a generalized opinion, not a statement of
>fact.
Why can't he support it?
>
>Then, you claim it's "nonsense," and claim he pulled it out of his
>ass. Both of those are not opinions, they're statements of fact.
Since he couldn't support what he said, it is a reasonable conclusion
upon which to arrive. Funny how libs work: libs make it a claim, it's
opinion that requires no supporting facts. If a conservative states
his opinion that the lib is full of it and can't support the
"opinion", *he* must support that opinion.
>
>Please cite to something that proves your claim that Zepp's opinion is
>"nonsense."
Read above.
>
>See how I just proved your claim that my "irony" claim is true?
>
>That's how adults debate. Fucking idiot.
Now *there's* irony...
nobody
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
Oh look, Zippy's lying again (how new...)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/a46e67f90bcfc5e1?dmode=source
nobody
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
So you always state your "opinions" without being able to base them
fact? That explains quite a bit.
nobody
wrote:
>On Oct 13, 1:14�pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
First of all, I didn't say in the above that I wasn't "Dana" -- can't
you read? I said that the message quotation added something I never
said and asked who "Dana" is. Here's the original post I made:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/6ea030832c2fbeae?dmode=source
The reply that contained something I never said was (better get it
soon - the loon who modified the quotation does not allow archiving of
his posts):
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/70be989c5ba4482d?dmode=source
However, in an attempt to humor you, here is a post by Dana.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/65dbf53cb81b7d6b?dmode=source
Please examine message headers and compare with mine. You will not
find any similiarities to support the idea we are the same person.
BTW, the post with the bogus quote has a link to google groups that
returns no results.
Phlip
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
Then lower services for the rich, not the poor.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
I'm, um, lying about feeling a bit sorry for Arnie?
OK, prove it.
This should be good.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/
a46e67f90bcfc5e1?dmode=source
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
Is the sock puppet asking me to prove that California is in a mess?
Or that it doesn't have a supermajority requirement for all revenue bills?
Or that the Republicans didn't press for that?
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
Uh huh. You can sometimes state opinions without basing them on facts.
That's why they are called opinions.
BTW, bubbles, I've -never- seen you provide a cite. Ever. I state
opinions. You just lie.
nobody
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:17:24 -0400, nobody wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:07:16 -0700, "5203 Dead, 336 since 1/20/09"
>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt....@gmail.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Oct 13, 1:15�pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> >On Oct 13, 3:31�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:13:23 -0500, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
>>>>>
>>>>> >> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:26:06 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >> On Oct 12, 1:23�pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> >> >>> Hi editor.
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>> What state did you spend your childhood in?
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>> And, yes Kalifornia is well on its way to the bottom of the
>>>>> >> >>> Reds, courtesy of its failed neocon governor...
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >>http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12940068
>>>>>
>>>>> >> >> "SACRAMENTO ? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sunk to an
No that the crisis was caused by horrible polices inflicted by
Republicans, but you knew that.
nobody
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:19:46 -0400, nobody wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:17:14 -0700, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:15:57 -0400, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt....@gmail.com>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>On Oct 13, 3:31�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:13:23 -0500, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:26:06 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> On Oct 12, 1:23�pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> >>> Hi editor.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>> What state did you spend your childhood in?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>> And, yes Kalifornia is well on its way to the bottom of the
>>>>>> >>> Reds, courtesy of its failed neocon governor...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >>http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12940068
>>>>>>
>>>>>> >> "SACRAMENTO ? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sunk to an all-time
Rather foolish to have an opinion that isn't based in reality...
>
>BTW, bubbles, I've -never- seen you provide a cite. Ever. I state
>opinions. You just lie.
Guess you don't know how to Google (your standard of proof, not mine).
BTW, what have I ever "lied" about?
nobody
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:10:52 -0400, nobody wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:27:14 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt....@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>On Oct 13, 1:15�pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 08:36:20 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> >On Oct 13, 3:31�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:13:23 -0500, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
>>>>
>>>> >> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:26:06 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>>>>
>>>> >> >> On Oct 12, 1:23�pm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>> Hi editor.
>>>>
>>>> >> >>> What state did you spend your childhood in?
>>>>
>>>> >> >>> And, yes Kalifornia is well on its way to the bottom of the
>>>> >> >>> Reds, courtesy of its failed neocon governor...
>>>>
>>>> >> >>http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12940068
>>>>
>>>> >> >> "SACRAMENTO ? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sunk to an all-
Not a sock puppet any more than you are (are you?). Prove that the
mess in California was caused by Republicans.
Milt
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 13:24:00 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Oct 13, 1:14 pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
> >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:58:21 -0600, L...@alot.com wrote:
> >> >On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:31:50 -0400, nobody
> >> ><nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>Oh look, more uncited nonsense pulled out of Zippy's butt...
>
> >> >>--------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> >> >>http://groups.google.com/groups?q=author:Dana+author:Raffaniello&hl=e...
>
> >> >>houston toilet for ladies
>
> >> >>use me as your toilet. will be toilet for female parties.
> >> >>can also be used as a rug, so you can walk on me.
>
> >> It's considered very poor form to attribute to someone something he
> >> didn't say. Who is Dana Raffaniello?
>
> >Tell you what. Let's use your tactics on you.
>
> >Prove you're not Dana.
>
> First of all, I didn't say in the above that I wasn't "Dana" -- can't
> you read? I said that the message quotation added something I never
> said and asked who "Dana" is. Here's the original post I made:
>
>
> The reply that contained something I never said was (better get it
> soon - the loon who modified the quotation does not allow archiving of
> his posts):
>
>
> However, in an attempt to humor you, here is a post by Dana.
>
>
> Please examine message headers and compare with mine. You will not
> find any similiarities to support the idea we are the same person.
> BTW, the post with the bogus quote has a link to google groups that
> returns no results.
I don't care whether you are or not Dana, nor do I give a shit who you
or anyone else is on here. I'm just using your very own "debating
style" on you. Don't worry if you don't recognize it; most people who
do what you do have no clue they're doing it.
But I do find it strange that you made that comment about the link
that returns no results, given your history of believing everything
that certain people say about me. I'll let you chew on that one for a
bit...
Milt
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:33:46 -0500, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
>
>
>
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:17:24 -0400, nobody wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:07:16 -0700, "5203 Dead, 336 since 1/20/09"
> >> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
It was. Specifically George Deukmejian, and the WORST governor in
California history, Pete Wilson. Go read up and get back to us.
Milt
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:35:10 -0500, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
>
>
>
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:10:52 -0400, nobody wrote:
>
Republicans ran the state from 1982-1998, when utility deregulation
was passed and poorly enacted.
Milt
Yeah, it's one thing Andrew Cuomo should receive a huge ass kick for.
I remember when I was on Verizon, without notice, they just shut down
access to the entire ALT. hierarchy, under pressure from Cuomo.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
Yeah, on that Arnie deserves to be run out of the state on a rail.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
You don't know what an opinion is, do you? No wonder you can't think.
>
>>BTW, bubbles, I've -never- seen you provide a cite. Ever. I state
>>opinions. You just lie.
>
> Guess you don't know how to Google (your standard of proof, not mine).
> BTW, what have I ever "lied" about?
Ah. So you demand cites from others, but provide none for yourself?
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
There was energy deregulation under Wilson. Boy, what a disaster that
turned out to be! We're still paying for it, and will for decades.
The big one, of course, was the millions they spend on creating a
requirement for a super-majority on all revenue votes. The idea was to
"make government small enough to drown it in the bathroom", and it
basically paralyzed the government ever since, at a cost of tens of
billions of dollars.
Have you ever noticed that Republicans always want to short circuit the
deliberative process? They want things like super-majorities, "tort
reform" (eliminating right to redress), term limits, zero tolerance and
balanced budget amendments. The result -- always -- is to make
government LESS flexible and adaptable.
Then they pretend that the only answers to that is to cut taxes for the
rich and cut spending on the poor.
Then they can't figure out why America is losing ground in the world
rapidly.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
The real issue, of course, is illegal downloads.
Milt
That was brutal, to be sure. And the entire country paid for it.
>
> The big one, of course, was the millions they spend on creating a
> requirement for a super-majority on all revenue votes. The idea was to
> "make government small enough to drown it in the bathroom", and it
> basically paralyzed the government ever since, at a cost of tens of
> billions of dollars.
>
> Have you ever noticed that Republicans always want to short circuit the
> deliberative process? They want things like super-majorities, "tort
> reform" (eliminating right to redress), term limits, zero tolerance and
> balanced budget amendments. The result -- always -- is to make
> government LESS flexible and adaptable.
They want to short circuit it, because they know they're always going
to be in the minority. Even when they had Dems on the ropes, they
could only manage 55 votes in the Senate, and about a 30-40 vote
majority in the House.
One of the reasons the filibuster thing in the US Senate is such a
sticky thing is because Republicans made it that way with the rules.
And it'll take 67 votes to reform the filibuster back to where it was
before they screwed with it.
>
> Then they pretend that the only answers to that is to cut taxes for the
> rich and cut spending on the poor.
>
> Then they can't figure out why America is losing ground in the world
> rapidly.
Yeah, they tried that with health insurance reform, too, remember?
Lindsay Graham got up one day and said Democrats would need 75 votes
to pass a bill. I'm not sure he noticed how much we were laughing at
him.
Steve
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 8:59�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
...as if a total loser like Shook would know such things...
"Money you are owed is most certainly a liability. "
--Milt Shook (sock puppet proven to be Milt)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.clinton/msg/9dac286dff4eadf2?hl=en
"Holding paper on a debt does not constitute an asset, ever. It's
always a liability"
--Milt Shook (sock puppet proven to be Milt)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.clinton/msg/00481f11d09a1837?hl=en
"Even sadder is the notion that lending someone $200,000, so that THEY
can buy a house is considered an "asset" by someone"
--Milt Shook (sock puppet proven to be Milt)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.clinton/msg/3fbb688146a927f6?hl=en
"I understand all of this quite well, given my training. That's all the
hint you get as to why you should know what you're talking about when
it comes to securities and the economy, because I will nail you,
fucktard."
--Milt Shook (sock puppet proven to be Milt)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.impeach.clinton/msg/3c2a13d88847667a?hl=en&
"When you lend someone else money, until that money is paid back,
it's a liability. I know what I'm talking about. In fact, if you
knew who I was, you'd be embarrassed to even be discussing this. "
--Milt Shook (sock puppet proven to be Milt)
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/eaeaa3648a3fb654?hl=en
Milt
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:36:43 -0500, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
>
>
>
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
> >On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:19:46 -0400, nobody wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:17:14 -0700, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
> >> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:15:57 -0400, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
Your identity, for one. I mean, unless you're really "nobody."
Do you even GET that YOU asking proof of ANYTHING is the ultimate
hypocrisy? It's not just about using a 'nym; I don't have a problem
with that. Other righties use 'nyms. But you're using one that can't
possibly be searched, so that no one can possibly look up anything
you're posting.
Like I said, if you understood the concept of irony, you wouldn't have
anything to post.
Milt
wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:01:32 -0400, nobody wrote:
> > On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:36:43 -0500, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
> > <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 06:19:46 -0400, nobody wrote:
>
> >>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:17:14 -0700, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
> >>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> >>>>On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 16:15:57 -0400, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
They have NO concept of fact.
They have no concept of right vs. wrong, just right vs. left.
They have no sense of humor.
They can't see anything but black and white; there are no shades of
grey. Nuance is a "gay French word" to these people.
They have no sense of irony.
All they have is a phony baloney "belief" system that is based on
nothing in particular, except what their heroes tell them they're
supposed to believe.
This is why the right is losing the health care debate. They're stuck
with "The United States has the greatest health care system in the
world," which is demonstrably absurd to anyone who has ever set foot
overseas, or even knows an immigrant or two. Our system is a joke, and
to defend it with such a sweeping and ridiculous
>
> >>BTW, bubbles, I've -never- seen you provide a cite. Ever. I state
> >>opinions. You just lie.
>
> > Guess you don't know how to Google (your standard of proof, not mine).
> > BTW, what have I ever "lied" about?
>
> Ah. So you demand cites from others, but provide none for yourself?
Well, of course. See above. :)
Milt
> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:56:36 -0500, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
>
>
>
> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>
> have.
>
Why the hell don't you google it, because that's not it. He even TOLD
you what the crisis is, and you still don't even get it. Apparently,
if it takes more than 14 words to explain, you can't.
That's not the problem. The state has the money. I mean, for shit's
sake; THEY are supporting much of the rest of the country. If it was
its own country, it would have the sixth largest economy in the world.
They actually account for about one-sixth of the entire US economy,
you schmuck.
But the Republicans created a mechanism that makes it impossible for
Democrats to pass a bill that fixes economic problems. They need a
supermajority to raise any tax, and Republicans in the state won't
push through a tax increase, even on just the riches Hollywood
celebrities. Add to that the fact that California is subsidizing
Republican-led states with their federal tax money.
See, if you have bothered to READ the article that started this
thread, and that you're taking potshots at, you would have seen this:
Meet the state welfare queens. These are the top ten states -- the
ones who get the most bang for the buck. Every single one of these
states gets more federal tax money than they pay in, which means other
states get less than they pay in. Now, if you were a right winger,
would it seem fair that some states get more tax money back than they
pay in, while others get less than they pay in?
Check out this list of the top ten states in federal largesse, and
answer that for yourself. Next to each state is how much money they
get back for every dollar in federal taxes they pay in; 1. New Mexico,
$2.03 2. Mississippi, $2.02, 3. Alaska, $1.84, 4. Louisiana, $1.78, 5.
West Virginia, $1.76, 6. North Dakota, $1.68, 7. Alabama, $1.66, 8.
South Dakota, $1.53, 9. Kentucky, $1.51, 10. Virginia, $1.51.
Yes, that's right, folks, the top ten federal welfare cases are all
states that have been reliably red for a long time, although the
inclusion of Virginia would seem to be somewhat unfair, since the
northern part of the state is practically federal territory, with
several federal agencies located there, which is where the federal
spending goes. But note that the same could be said of Maryland, and
it's not on that list. Of course, number 11 is Montana, anyway, so it
almost doesn't matter. Right wing red states are the greatest
recipients of federal welfare, contrary to what they want you to
believe.
Now, based on right wing logic, the following states should be the
ones screaming the loudest about those Red State welfare queens. These
are the ten states who receive the LEAST federal money; 50. New
Jersey, $0.61, 49. Nevada, $0.65, 48. Connecticut, $0.69, 47. New
Hampshire, $0.71, 46. Minnesota, $0.72, 45. Illinois, $0.75, 44.
Delaware, $0.77, 43. California, $0.78, 42. New York, $0.79, 41.
Colorado, $0.81.
-----------------------------------------
Got it? California is among those states financing the welfare queen
red states. That's not the whole problem, of course, but when you're
talking about one-sixth of the economy,..
The figures all come from the Census Bureau and the IRS, so yes, I
cited them.
>
> >Face it, bubbles. You have nothing to offer but empty gainsaying.
>
> You still didn't cite your nonsense claim.
Steve
wrote:
>
>
>Got it? California is among those states financing the welfare queen
>red states. That's not the whole problem, of course, but when you're
>talking about one-sixth of the economy,..
California can't even finance themselves... Hahahaha
nobody
So you don't inform yourself with facts to form your opinions? That
explains a lot.
>>
>>>BTW, bubbles, I've -never- seen you provide a cite. Ever. I state
>>>opinions. You just lie.
>>
>> Guess you don't know how to Google (your standard of proof, not mine).
>> BTW, what have I ever "lied" about?
>
>Ah. So you demand cites from others, but provide none for yourself?
Clearly you missed the point...
nobody
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 9:01�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>Your identity, for one. I mean, unless you're really "nobody."'
Guess you don't really understand the concept of a 'nym.
>
>Do you even GET that YOU asking proof of ANYTHING is the ultimate
>hypocrisy? It's not just about using a 'nym; I don't have a problem
>with that. Other righties use 'nyms. But you're using one that can't
>possibly be searched, so that no one can possibly look up anything
>you're posting.
I've searched on google groups to reference my posts. I have no
difficulty finding them. How come you can't?
nobody
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 9:03�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Which caused California's budget crisis how exactly? What party ran
the state after 1998 and why didn't they avert this disaster?
nobody
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 3:40�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
Guessed you missed the part where I stated I was humoring you...
>
>But I do find it strange that you made that comment about the link
>that returns no results, given your history of believing everything
>that certain people say about me. I'll let you chew on that one for a
>bit...
And Miltie tosses out another lie (whodda thunk it?).
nobody
wrote:
>On Oct 13, 1:17�pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
It should be quite simple for Zippy (and you) to cite the claim
instead of rambing on.
>
>That's not the problem. The state has the money. I mean, for shit's
>sake; THEY are supporting much of the rest of the country. If it was
>its own country, it would have the sixth largest economy in the world.
>They actually account for about one-sixth of the entire US economy,
>you schmuck.
And yet they seem to be unable to live within their means.
>
>But the Republicans created a mechanism that makes it impossible for
>Democrats to pass a bill that fixes economic problems. They need a
>supermajority to raise any tax, and Republicans in the state won't
>push through a tax increase, even on just the riches Hollywood
>celebrities.
Typical lib solution to every economic problem -- raise taxes.
>
> Add to that the fact that California is subsidizing
>Republican-led states with their federal tax money.
Are you claiming that California is the only state that pays more to
the Feds than they get back (cite missing BTW)? If not, are these
other states in the same shape as California?
>
>See, if you have bothered to READ the article that started this
>thread, and that you're taking potshots at, you would have seen this:
Why would I want to read pages of your foaming at the mouth?
Kurt Nicklas
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Got it? California is among those states financing the welfare queen
> >red states. That's not the whole problem, of course, but when you're
> >talking about one-sixth of the economy,..
>
> California can't even finance themselves... Hahahaha
California is about to get what it has richly deserved for some time.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
Ah, he's just trolling now. Plonk.
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 11:41�am, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09" <d...@dead.com>
Not just the health care debate. The racism, overt and otherwise, is
catching up to them. The GOP put up a new website, "gop.com", and
among the party accomplishments, the most recent listed was in 2004.
They don't stand FOR anything other than empty bumper sticker slogans,
and people have realized that the GOP is what fucked us up so badly.
>
>>
>> >>BTW, bubbles, I've -never- seen you provide a cite. �Ever. �I state
>> >>opinions. �You just lie.
>>
>> > Guess you don't know how to Google (your standard of proof, not mine).
>> > BTW, what have I ever "lied" about?
>>
>> Ah. �So you demand cites from others, but provide none for yourself?
>
>Well, of course. See above. :)
Oh, yeah, it's his typical game, and I just got done messing with him
for this round. He'll have to change his account name again now.
nobody
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 5:50�pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 14:44:48 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>No, I do understand the concept. It's to protect the identity. I get
>that. But you've made yourself unsearchable. That's a little
>different. Even the Stalker isn't that chickenshit.
I can search for my posts with no problem. Sorry you can't figure it
out.
nobody
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 5:54�pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:44:49 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>Humoring me with a post that doesn't exist? How odd.
You're confused. I provided a post from both myself and "Dana" for
your comparison. Someone misattributed a quote to me and included a
link to a search that doesn't exist.
>>
>> >But I do find it strange that you made that comment about the link
>> >that returns no results, given your history of believing everything
>> >that certain people say about me. I'll let you chew on that one for a
>> >bit...
>>
>> And Miltie tosses out another lie (whodda thunk it?).
>
>Click on the link that you claim is "Dana". The post doesn't exist.
The replies with quotes clipped the link but you knew that. Here it
is again.
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/65dbf53cb81b7d6b?dmode=source
>
>And you believe everything the Stalker says about me. Even though
>right around 99% of it is untrue, and unproven.
nobody
<ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
Last refuge of the lib loon who can't support what he says...
nobody
wrote:
>Check this out: it's from the article Zepp posted to start this
>thread:
It's uncited or supported so it's little more than a rambling rant.
nobody
Steve
...and it will show the rest of the country what terrible things
happen when you let tax spend liberals run the government..
Steve
wrote:
>Check this out: it's from the article Zepp posted to start this
>thread:
>
>======================================
>
>California taxpayers, among others, have been subsidizing the red
>states for many years.
>
>What is it you think they deserve?
Same thing that happened to Shook.. ie, massive debt, poor credit
rating, inadequate services, despair, and unhappiness....
Steve
wrote:
>On Oct 14, 5:54�pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 10:44:49 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>Humoring me with a post that doesn't exist? How odd.
>>
>> >But I do find it strange that you made that comment about the link
>> >that returns no results, given your history of believing everything
>> >that certain people say about me. I'll let you chew on that one for a
>> >bit...
>>
>> And Miltie tosses out another lie (whodda thunk it?).
>
>Click on the link that you claim is "Dana". The post doesn't exist.
>
>And you believe everything the Stalker says about me. Even though
>right around 99% of it is untrue, and unproven.
So... Milt can try to disprove anything I've ever said about him...
That's the tactic he always takes....
He can't disprove any of that, of course, nor can he prove most of his
claims...
--
"I am the Director of Research and Analysis for a growing start-up"
--Milt Shook Sep 21,2009
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.society.liberalism/msg/6cb372d60fc1b779?hl=en
Kurt Nicklas
> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:07:32 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
Just what I'd expect from an admitted Usenet liar.
--------------------------------
"And you can keep calling me that, if it makes you feel better, but
I'm
really not Milt. Sorry."
---------- Milt Shook posting, unknown to himself, as
milt....@gmail.com,
9/26/08
Baron_Mind
>
> On Oct 14, 5:54 pm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> writhed in denials:
>>
>> Milt wrote:
---
>>> But I do find it strange that you made that comment about the link
>>> that returns no results, given your history of believing everything
>>> that certain people say about me. I'll let you chew on that one for a
>>> bit...
>>
>> And Miltie tosses out another lie (whodda thunk it?).
>
You don't seem surprised by that now, do you?
> And you believe everything the Stalker says about me
Milt, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck..
--Seems like the ankle bracelet on Cason is weighing kinda heavy, no?
Jeffrey Scott Linder
>On Oct 13, 1:24=A0pm, linder....@osu.edu (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>> Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >(Sorry for answering this in your post, but I have Jeffrey blocked.
>> >This was too stupid to pass up...)
>>
>> >On Oct 13, 8:37=3DA0am, L...@alot.com wrote:
>> >> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 14:33:37 GMT, linder....@osu.edu
>>
>> >> (Jeffrey Scott Linder) wrote:
>> >> >Who are you to decide what's in someone's personal interest?
>>
>> >Jesus Christ.
>>
>> >Jeffrey, why do you continue to get dumber?
>>
>> >Are you seriously arguing that it's in someone's "personal interest"
>> >to vote in favor of continuing to live in a cesspool of crime,
>> >violence and poverty as long as their politicians are in favor of
>> >outlawing abortion and gay marriage?
>>
>> Do you know their heart and mind Milt?
>
>I unblocked you for this?
>
>That's not even a response.
>
>Please Jeffrey, explain to the class how ANYONE, regardless of their
>"heart and mind" could consider gay marriage and abortion as big
>enough issues to drown out issues that affect their families, and be
>considered rational.
I don't need to Milt. If they consider those issues important to them
then those issues are important to them. There are many single issues
voters out there on both sides of the spectrum. You position reeks of
elitism.
>>
>> >We used to consider that insane.
>> >Are you actually arguing that it's now a valid lifestyle choice?
>>
>> Validity of someone's choice is YOUR opinion.
>
>Ok, fine. Please explain how someone can rationally choose gay
>marriage and abortion over their family and community.
I don't need to as I've never said their choice was rational in my
eyes. However, it is their choice, not mine.
>>=A0You may disagree with
>> they way they wish to live but to call against their best interest is
>> they height of hypocrisy.
>
>No, asshole. That's where we draw the line.
"we"?
>I'm not hypocritical, you
>are. By YOUR ideology's standards; making lots of money, lots of
>competition, low crime, high moral standards and all of that, you
>people FAIL miserably,
"you people"?
So it "we" against "you people". And of course your "we" are the
thoughtful, rational, compassionate people who will look out for "you
people". Does that about sum it up Milt?
>at the same time you're telling everyone else
>how to live.
I am? Provide some quotes of me telling people how to live Milt.
>Instead of snipping the fucking article, you should have
>read it, you clown. Statistically speaking, when it comes to quality
>of life, blue states are superior, in general, in every statistical
>category that YOUR IDEOLOGY claims is important.
I don't care.
>You have a lot more
"You"?
>violent crime, more teen pregnancy, higher dropout rates, higher
>poverty rates, and you people have to get more federal tax money than
>you pay in just to survive. Yet, your side is always lecturing us on
>morality, how to keep crime rates low and how to keep our kids chaste
>and all of that bullshit.
>
>Read the article, Jeffrey; don't just respond to what you THINK it
>says. I used actual statistics to prove my point.
Your statistics are meaningless and self serving. Would you rather
live in suburban "red state" area or in urban "blue state" area?
Anyone can cherry-pick stats.
>Red states have
>suffered greatly under the Republicans, and yet they keep on voting
>them in, despite that.
Suffered? Maybe they're happy "suffering" than living in a guilded
cage.
>Again; if you can explain how voting for people who have been fucking
>you up the ass for 40 years is NOT "voting against their interests,"
Because, unlike you Milt, I can't and won't determine what's in a
free-thinking adults best interest. You see, I believe in liberty.
>then I'd love to hear it. But this inability I have to not read minds
>can't be a basis for your assertion that I'm wrong, somehow.
>
>>
>> >Tell you what; come up with a rational basis for such a concept and
>> >I'll retract the "stupid" comment. =A0Key word here: rational.
>>
>> Rationality of someones personal interest is a distinction without a
>> difference.
>
>Oh, for fuck sakes, Jeffrey; you do have a college degree, right? That
>sentence doesn't make sense. But even if it did, it's a very important
>distinction.
No. You're just so blinded by your opinion that you can't even
contemplate someone else's.
>
>Put it this way; if the voters were saying "I vote for Republicans
>because, even though they keep screwing me in every other way, they're
>the party that's best equipped to fight off the invading Klingons, I
>think we'd both agree that such a statement was irrational.
So you're saying they should, instead, vote for Democrats to fight off
the invading Klingons?
>In this case, replace "fight off the invading Klingons" with "protect
>us from brown people, abortions and gays" and make it sound rational.
I guess you would rather have them vote for Democrats as you aren't
going to change the reason why they are voting.
>
>> You've once again, set yourself up as the person best
>> able to determine what's in the best interest of someone else.
>
>That's insane. I'm just stating the obvious. If you can provide a
>rational foundation for voting for politicians who keep undermining
>your family's fortunes, because they're protecting you from the gays
>and abortion, please present it. I'm not posing as an authority here,
>you are. You're claiming you can create a rational basis for such a
>thing. Go ahead. Do so.
When did I ever claim I could create a rational basis for such a
thing?
Why do you resort to making things up Milt?
JSL
>
>< Tell
>> us Milt, how do you feel about liberty? =A0I think we all know the real
>> answer to that one.
>
>And once again, you demonstrate your inability to understand the
>concept of irony. You just said I was claiming authority on "people's
>best interest," but now you're claiming authority on how I feel about
>liberty.
>
>Here's a clue, fucktard.
>
>I'm pro-choice, because being anti-choice (like you) means giving the
>government final authority to force a woman to stay pregnant against
>her will. I am also NOT pro-abortion, even though you people always
>tell me I must be.
>
>I'm in favor of same-sex marriage because it's none of my fucking
>business who anyone chooses to spend their life with. But you've spent
>years advocating against it.
>
>I think prohibition should end once and for all. Most drugs should be
>legalized, regulated and taxed. But there should be restrictions on
>WHERE you're allowed to use them, because others should have the
>freedom to not have to deal with your sorry drug addled ass.
>
>I think tobacco laws should continue to get stricter, because while
>you have the right to pollute your lungs at will, you don't have the
>right to pollute everyone else's.
>
>I believe that individuals have the right to keep and bear arms, but
>that the government has a sacred duty to protect the safety of
>everyone, including those who do and do not own guns. Therefore, they
>should all be registered and the owners licensed.
>
>And health insurance should be universal, and everyone should be
>required to carry it. because everyone has an ultimate right to
>medical care, but you don't have the right to force the rest of us to
>pay your bills when you get sick and have to use services you can't
>afford.
>
>Are you getting this down, Jeffrey? I believe in liberty, but no one's
>liberty occurs in a fucking vacuum. That's the difference between your
>side and mine, in a nutshell. Your side thinks we live in a nation of
>300 million individuals, period. We believe we live in a nation of 300
>individuals who all have to live together in the same society.
>
>Now, deal with the irrationality issue.
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I believe it was a founders creation, JeffyLoon.
>>
>> >> Originally, they didn't trust "people" and had set up
>> >> elections in a much different manner.
>>
>> >He won't get it. You're wasting your bandwidth.
>>
>> JSL
>
Steve
wrote:
>On Oct 15, 2:51�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 20:06:00 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/talk.politics.misc/msg/65dbf53cb81b7d6...
>>
>I still don't care. Why do you?
>>
>> >And you believe everything the Stalker says about me. Even though
>> >right around 99% of it is untrue, and unproven.
>>
>> And Miltie tosses out another lie (whodda thunk it?).
>
>Where's the lie? You respond to just about everythng the Stalker says
>about me as if it's true. And I know for a fact that most of the shit
>he says about me is NOT true.
Prove it, Shook.... Fact is that Shook is a poseur.. here's an
example of his many lies...
Steve
wrote:
>On Oct 15, 2:52�am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:24:04 -0700, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
>>
>>
>>
>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:01:38 -0400, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>What part of "he already told you" are you not getting? You even
>responded to it, so I know you saw it.
Shook thinks that repeating something is proof...
5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09
> On Oct 15, 2:52 am, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:24:04 -0700, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
>>
>>
>>
>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>> >On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:01:38 -0400, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>> >>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
> What part of "he already told you" are you not getting? You even
> responded to it, so I know you saw it.
Yup, and that was the point where I decided to plonk him again. He's
just here to waste other people's time and be annoying, which fits his
emotional age, which is about 13.
Not that I -have- plonked him, I bet Canyon goes into a fresh round of
raving that I'm a werewolf or whatever. Funny how that works.
Phlip
wrote:
> > Then lower services for the rich, not the poor.
>
> Yeah, on that Arnie deserves to be run out of the state on a rail.
In an ancient Roman city, an aqueduct would deliver water to a public
fountain, public baths, and private estates of the rich.
During times of drought, the city would turn the water off to the
private estates first. Then the baths, leaving only the public
fountain.
Seems Arnie has this technique in reverse.
Steve
<de...@dead.com> wrote:
>On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:05:33 -0700, Milt wrote:
>
>> On Oct 15, 2:52�ｿｽam, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:24:04 -0700, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>> >On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 21:01:38 -0400, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 15:25:08 -0700 (PDT), Milt <milt.sh...@gmail.com>
>>> >>wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>On Oct 13, 1:17�ｿｽpm, nobody <nob...@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 10:56:36 -0500, "5213 Dead, 346 since 1/20/09"
>>>
>>> >>>> <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> >On Tue, 13 Oct 2009 06:31:50 -0400, nobody wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> >> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 20:13:23 -0500, "5213 Dead, 346 since
>>> >>>> >> 1/20/09" <ze...@finestplanet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> >>>On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 13:26:06 -0700, Phlip wrote:
>>>
>>> >>>> >>>> On Oct 12, 1:23�ｿｽpm, Phlip <phlip2...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >>>> >>>>> Hi editor.
>>>
>>> >>>> >>>>> What state did you spend your childhood in?
>>>
>>> >>>> >>>>> And, yes Kalifornia is well on its way to the bottom of the
>>> >>>> >>>>> Reds, courtesy of its failed neocon governor...
>>>
>>> >>>> >>>>http://www.mercurynews.com/topstories/ci_12940068
>>>
>>> >>>> >>>> "SACRAMENTO ? Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has sunk to an
>>> >>>> >>>> all-time low among Californians in a new survey that also
>>> >>>> >>>> finds that residents, while strongly in favor of
>>> >>>> >>>> environmental regulations, want to slow down on environmental
>>> >>>> >>>> reforms while the economy is still taking a beating.
>>>
>>> >>>> >>>> "Schwarzenegger's job approval rating is now at 28 percent,
>>> >>>> >>>> according to a poll by the Public Policy Institute of
>>> >>>> >>>> California, comparable to the ratings faced by former Gov.
>>> >>>> >>>> Gray Davis before he was recalled in 2003."
>>>
>>> >>>> >>>> Gee, do ya think we should hire an American college grad with
>>> >>>> >>>> some law, economics, & business under his or her belt for
>>> >>>> >>>> this job??
>>>
>>> >>>> >>>I feel a bit sorry for Arnie. �ｿｽThe crisis wasn't of his making,
>>> >>>> >>>and it was horrible policies inflicted on the state by
>>> >>>> >>>know-nothing Republicans that pretty well made it impossible
>>> >>>> >>>for him to address the crisis in any meaningful way.
>>>
>>> >>>> >> Oh look, more uncited nonsense pulled out of Zippy's butt...
>>>
>>> >>>> >I bet you don't even know what the crisis in California is.
>>>
>>> >>>> A bunch of people are trying to spend a bunch of money they don't
>>> >>>> have.
>>>
>>> >>>Why the hell don't you google it, because that's not it. He even
>>> >>>TOLD you what the crisis is, and you still don't even get it.
>>> >>>Apparently, if it takes more than 14 words to explain, you can't.
>>>
>>> >>It should be quite simple for Zippy (and you) to cite the claim
>>> >>instead of rambing on.
>>>
>>> >Ah, he's just trolling now. �ｿｽPlonk.
>>>
>>> Last refuge of the lib loon who can't support what he says...
>>
>> What part of "he already told you" are you not getting? You even
>> responded to it, so I know you saw it.
>
>Yup, and that was the point where I decided to plonk him again. He's
>just here to waste other people's time and be annoying, which fits his
>emotional age, which is about 13.
>
>Not that I -have- plonked him, I bet Canyon goes into a fresh round of
>raving that I'm a werewolf or whatever. Funny how that works.
<ROTFLMAO>
They're all a bunch of plonkers....
******************************************************
Definition of plonker
plonker
* British origin. Popularised by U.K. sitcom 'Only Fools and
Horses'. Means penis, used as a derogatory term or an idiot, but also
often used affectionately.
You're an idiot, such a plonker.
http://onlineslangdictionary.com/definition+of/plonker
******************************************************
plonker
Noun
Brit slang a stupid person [origin unknown]
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/plonker
******************************************************
plonker
noun
plonk?er [See pronunciation table in "How to use dictionary" pages]
[countable] British English informal not polite
an offensive word for a stupid person
http://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/plonker
******************************************************
plonker
1. 1) noun, slang a stupid person
Collins English Electronic Dictionary - Digital Edition: 2008
�ｿｽ HarperCollins Publishers 2008
Baron_Mind
>
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009 07:05:33 -0700, Milt wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> On Wed, 14 Oct 2009 18:24:04 -0700, "5219 Dead, 352 since 1/20/09"
>>>>
-----
>>>>> It should be quite simple for Zippy (and you) to cite the claim
>>>>> instead of rambing on.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, he's just trolling now. Plonk.
>>>
>>> Last refuge of the lib loon who can't support what he says...
>>
>> What part of "he already told you" are you not getting? You even
>> responded to it, so I know you saw it.
>
> Yup, and that was the point where I decided to plonk him again.
> He's just here to waste other people's time and be annoying,
> which fits his emotional age, which is about 13.
I reckon that ankle bracelet is weighing heavy on him again..
> Not that I -have- plonked him, I bet Canyon goes into a fresh round
> of raving that I'm a werewolf or whatever. Funny how that works.
Yup, he's been bragging about a 60 mile bicycle ride he was going
to take, now he's raving like a loon about everything you've said..
--Knee-jerking like an organ grinder's monkey..