A Portrait of the Right
Ashburn
Archer070 wrote:
>
> Big, powerful, angry, religious, and armed.
that's a start...
what's the left?
little, impotent, pussies, satan worshipers, and
begging for somebody else to protect them.
Bp825
Ashburn <eggs...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:38CF1A6D...@yahoo.com...
And don't forget baby killers, drug addicts, and HIV-infected vermin.
Glenworthy@xteleport.com Henry Glenworthy
Archer070 wrote in message <20000314214945...@ng-bg1.aol.com>...
>Big, powerful, angry, religious, and armed.
>>>>
Portrait of the "Left":
Lying, whining, baby-killing, immoral, butt-fucking, weak.
-----------------------------------------------
Archer070
King Pineapple
Just curious, what is your "definition" of what "right" means?
Does it mean "conservative"? Does it mean "Republican"?
The reason I ask is because another famous political bigot,
Idiot19, accuses *me* of being a "right wing loon" based upon my
repeated castigation of CLinton/Gore in these NGS. This despite
the fact that I'm pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-marijuana, and am
probably more "liberal" on many issues than he is. I simple
can't stand Clinton/Gore. I was a proud member of the Democratic
Party from when I was old enough to vote. I left the party in
disgust in 1999 after seeing the Democrats in the House and
Senate behave like Nazis with their lock-step votes to let
Clinton remain in office to raise funds for two more years.
Feingold of Wisconsin had the balls to break with his party and
was treated like he should be sent to the "Russian Front". The
issue here isn't whether or not what Slick did was enough to
remove him from office, but rather the refusal of every single
Democrat in the Senate to even consider the possibility that he
might have done something wrong. They were just as partisan as
their "colleagues" across the aisle.
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
john q public
Pro-Abortion?
Left a political party because the party refused to march in lock step with
your opinion?
Does a bridge come with this?
"King Pineapple" <craigseu...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
news:07bef0a1...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com...
King Pineapple
<kysd...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Why don't I believe this?
Beacuse you're an arrogant idiot?
>Pro-Abortion?
That's me.
>Left a political party because the party refused to march in
lock step with
>your opinion?
No, because they refused to even *consider* the possibility that
Slick may have done something bad. Feingold had the balls to do
so, and was treated as a traitor by his party. You'll notice I
never said I had been a Republican. They were partisan too. But
at least a greater number of THEM were willing to defy THEIR
party leadership and vote against the articles of impeachment.
Didn't happen that way on the Democrat side. In addition, I
watched the entire impeachment on C-SPAN, the Dems came off as
whining kids the entire time. To wit: Wexler from Florida, Frank
from Mass, Nadler from NY, the list goes on and on.
>Does a bridge come with this?
The bridge to the 21st century. bwahahahaha
Frank Logullo
>You're a political BIGOT.
>
>Just curious, what is your "definition" of what "right" means?
>Does it mean "conservative"? Does it mean "Republican"?
>
>The reason I ask is because another famous political bigot,
>Idiot19, accuses *me* of being a "right wing loon" based upon my
>repeated castigation of CLinton/Gore in these NGS. This despite
>the fact that I'm pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-marijuana, and am
>probably more "liberal" on many issues than he is. I simple
>can't stand Clinton/Gore. I was a proud member of the Democratic
>Party from when I was old enough to vote. I left the party in
>disgust in 1999 after seeing the Democrats in the House and
>Senate behave like Nazis with their lock-step votes to let
>Clinton remain in office to raise funds for two more years.
>Feingold of Wisconsin had the balls to break with his party and
>was treated like he should be sent to the "Russian Front". The
>issue here isn't whether or not what Slick did was enough to
>remove him from office, but rather the refusal of every single
>Democrat in the Senate to even consider the possibility that he
>might have done something wrong. They were just as partisan as
>their "colleagues" across the aisle.
>
>* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
>The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!
>
intelligencia.
Frank
WU...@webtv.net
You're a political BIGOT.
Just curious, what is your "definition" of what "right" means? Does it
mean "conservative"? Does it mean "Republican"?
The reason I ask is because another famous political bigot, Idiot19,
accuses *me* of being a "right wing loon" based upon my repeated
castigation of CLinton/Gore in these NGS. This despite the fact that I'm
pro-abortion, anti-gun, pro-marijuana, and am probably more "liberal" on
many issues than he is. I simple can't stand Clinton/Gore. I was a proud
member of the Democratic Party from when I was old enough to vote. I
left the party in disgust in 1999 after seeing the Democrats in the
House and Senate behave like Nazis with their lock-step votes to let
Clinton remain in office to raise funds for two more years. Feingold of
Wisconsin had the balls to break with his party and was treated like he
should be sent to the "Russian Front". The issue here isn't whether or
not what Slick did was enough to remove him from office, but rather the
refusal of every single Democrat in the Senate to even consider the
possibility that he might have done something wrong. They were just as
partisan as their "colleagues" across the aisle.
...................................................................
If you look at the vote count by party, you will see that the Democrats
were more partisan than the Republicans.
john q public
"King Pineapple" <craigseu...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <8aotm5$1cb$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "john q pubic"
> <kysd...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
> >Why don't I believe this?
>
> Beacuse you're an arrogant idiot?
Oh, so if one doesn't believe every piece of propaganda that spews forth
from your oral cavity, then one is ignorant?
Talks about marching lockstep in sheep's clothing!
>
> >Pro-Abortion?
>
> That's me.
So you're pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
Does that mean that abortion should be mandatory?
If so, might I suggest a retroactive policy!
>
> >Left a political party because the party refused to march in
> lock step with
> >your opinion?
>
>
> No, because they refused to even *consider* the possibility that
> Slick may have done something bad.
They considered, just didn't take their marching orders from your fearless
leader Rush!
Feingold had the balls to do
> so, and was treated as a traitor by his party.
And you think he's a hero because he is marching in lockstep with you. Duh!
You'll notice I
> never said I had been a Republican. They were partisan too. But
> at least a greater number of THEM were willing to defy THEIR
> party leadership and vote against the articles of impeachment.
> Didn't happen that way on the Democrat side. In addition,
So if it had been a split decision, you'd be happy with it?
Right.
I
> watched the entire impeachment on C-SPAN, the Dems came off as
> whining kids the entire time. To wit: Wexler from Florida, Frank
> from Mass, Nadler from NY, the list goes on and on.
You see exactly what Rush tells you to see. Hut two three four!
>
> >Does a bridge come with this?
>
>
> The bridge to the 21st century. bwahahahaha
Didn't the republicans cut the funding for that and give that money to the
NRA!
LOL.
>
> >"King Pineapple" <craigseu...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote
> in message
> >news:07bef0a1...@usw-ex0101-008.remarq.com...
King Pineapple
<kysd...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>Oh, so if one doesn't believe every piece of propaganda that
>spews forth
>from your oral cavity, then one is ignorant?
I'm right and you know it.
>Talks about marching lockstep in sheep's clothing!
Actually, I march to the beat of a different drummer. Gene
Krupa. Of course you wouldn't know anything about him, being
born in 1979.
>> >Pro-Abortion?
>>
>> That's me.
>
>So you're pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
>Does that mean that abortion should be mandatory?
No. "Pro-abortion" in my case means anyone who wants an abortion
should be able to get one. If that's the same as "pro-choice",
so be it. In any event, I'm just using it as an example that I'm
not a "right winger". Nothing more.
>If so, might I suggest a retroactive policy!
Nice try, but no cigar.
>> >Left a political party because the party refused to march in
>> lock step with
>> >your opinion?
>>
>>
>> No, because they refused to even *consider* the possibility
>hat
>> Slick may have done something bad.
>
>They considered, just didn't take their marching orders from
>your fearless
>leader Rush!
Rush who? Sorry, never listened to the man. I happen to be
working for a living during those hours. You *may* find a post
or two of mine in "alt.rus.limbaugh" or whatever it's called,
but that's simply me replying to a cross post from another
group. I have no tolerance for Rush's selected butt boy GW Bush.
At all. I'm a registered Independent who voted for John McCain.
Guess that makes me a real dittohead, doesn't it? bwahahahaha
>Feingold had the balls to do
>> so, and was treated as a traitor by his party.
>
>And you think he's a hero because he is marching in lockstep
>with you. Duh!
No, he's a hero because he stood up to his party. He put
principle above politics. Something the majority of Democrats
could not see clear to do.
>You'll notice I
>> never said I had been a Republican. They were partisan too.
But
>> at least a greater number of THEM were willing to defy THEIR
>> party leadership and vote against the articles of impeachment.
>> Didn't happen that way on the Democrat side. In addition,
>
>So if it had been a split decision, you'd be happy with it?
>Right.
It WAS a split decision on obstruction of justice. 50-50. While
the Clintoons like yourself will keep pointing out that a
majority was needed to "convict", the fact that an equal number
thought Slick was guilty AND innocent is very interesting. I
respect the decisions in any case. Just remember a few things:
Slick's "trial" was a political one, NOT a criminal one or a
civil one. The "prosecutors" in the "trial" hadn't "prosecuted"
anyone (or even practiced law) in 20 years. When they ran up
against the highest priced lawyers in DC, they didn't have a
chance. Slick got himself the best lawyers someone else's money
could buy. As with OJ Simpson, if one has enough high priced
legal talent defending them, one can quite literally get away
with murder. If *you* had $10 million to spend on lawyers in
*your* defense, I bet you'd get off, too.
>> watched the entire impeachment on C-SPAN, the Dems came off as
>> whining kids the entire time. To wit: Wexler from Florida,
>rank
>> from Mass, Nadler from NY, the list goes on and on.
>
>You see exactly what Rush tells you to see. Hut two three four!
You really are dumber n' dirt, aren't you?
D.G. Porter
>
> Conservatives "think" and Liberals "feel". Welcome to the ranks of the
> intelligencia.
> Frank
Conservatives think alright, they think about how good it was thirty,
forty, ninety years ago! And how awful the modern times are! "Them
uppity niggers!" "Them dirty hippies!" "Back in my day you didn't have
microwave ovens and you could understand the words to songs!"
"So a good many citizens voted | as grandpa always did | or thought a
change back to the regular thing | seemed natural enough. | 'It's
raining! Let's throw out the weatherman! | KICK HIM OUT! KICK HIM OUT
KICK HIM!' | Prejudice and politics | and the stand-patters came in
strong | and yelled, 'Slide back, now you're safe. | That's the easy
way.' | Then the timid smiled and looked relieved...."
As far as "feeling," this used-to-be-liberal-now-I'm-a-radical is
"feeling" PISSED OFF at you cultural Luddites!!
john q public
"King Pineapple" <craigseu...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote in message
> In article <8ar1o2$n8$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>, "john q pubic"
> <kysd...@bellatlantic.net> wrote:
>
>
> >Oh, so if one doesn't believe every piece of propaganda that
> >spews forth
> >from your oral cavity, then one is ignorant?
>
> I'm right and you know it.
Actually that is the problem! You continue to try to tell me and what we
know. You haven't a clue what I know!
>
>
> >Talks about marching lockstep in sheep's clothing!
>
> Actually, I march to the beat of a different drummer. Gene
> Krupa. Of course you wouldn't know anything about him, being
> born in 1979.
LOL in 79 I wasn't inhaling to the smooth sounds out the Eagles while trying
to find a legal way to kill the BeeGees(sp) I failed at both!
>
> >> >Pro-Abortion?
> >>
> >> That's me.
> >
> >So you're pro-abortion, not pro-choice.
> >Does that mean that abortion should be mandatory?
>
> No. "Pro-abortion" in my case means anyone who wants an abortion
> should be able to get one. If that's the same as "pro-choice",
> so be it. In any event, I'm just using it as an example that I'm
> not a "right winger". Nothing more.
>
> >If so, might I suggest a retroactive policy!
>
>
> Nice try, but no cigar.
Hey you can't blame a guy for trying.
>
> >> >Left a political party because the party refused to march in
> >> lock step with
> >> >your opinion?
> >>
> >>
> >> No, because they refused to even *consider* the possibility
> >hat
> >> Slick may have done something bad.
> >
> >They considered, just didn't take their marching orders from
> >your fearless
> >leader Rush!
>
> Rush who? Sorry, never listened to the man. I happen to be
> working for a living during those hours. You *may* find a post
> or two of mine in "alt.rus.limbaugh" or whatever it's called,
> but that's simply me replying to a cross post from another
> group. I have no tolerance for Rush's selected butt boy GW Bush.
> At all. I'm a registered Independent who voted for John McCain.
> Guess that makes me a real dittohead, doesn't it? bwahahahaha
>
>
> >Feingold had the balls to do
> >> so, and was treated as a traitor by his party.
> >
> >And you think he's a hero because he is marching in lockstep
> >with you. Duh!
>
> No, he's a hero because he stood up to his party. He put
> principle above politics. Something the majority of Democrats
> could not see clear to do.
Boy you could have just said, "yea I guess you're right"
>
> >You'll notice I
> >> never said I had been a Republican. They were partisan too.
> But
> >> at least a greater number of THEM were willing to defy THEIR
> >> party leadership and vote against the articles of impeachment.
> >> Didn't happen that way on the Democrat side. In addition,
> >
> >So if it had been a split decision, you'd be happy with it?
> >Right.
>
> It WAS a split decision on obstruction of justice. 50-50. While
> the Clintoons like yourself will keep pointing out that a
> majority was needed to "convict", the fact that an equal number
> thought Slick was guilty AND innocent is very interesting. I
> respect the decisions in any case. Just remember a few things:
> Slick's "trial" was a political one, NOT a criminal one or a
> civil one.
Mostly because the root of the charges was a political one, not a criminal
or civil one!
The "prosecutors" in the "trial" hadn't "prosecuted"
> anyone (or even practiced law) in 20 years. When they ran up
> against the highest priced lawyers in DC, they didn't have a
> chance.
Stop with the bloody excuses, now Lawyer has experience in that type of
trial, so it makes no difference.Nice try though!
Slick got himself the best lawyers someone else's money
> could buy. As with OJ Simpson, if one has enough high priced
> legal talent defending them, one can quite literally get away
> with murder. If *you* had $10 million to spend on lawyers in
> *your* defense, I bet you'd get off, too.
Not if the prosecutor had 40 Million to spend on the prosecution. Do the
math!
>
> >> watched the entire impeachment on C-SPAN, the Dems came off as
> >> whining kids the entire time. To wit: Wexler from Florida,
> >rank
> >> from Mass, Nadler from NY, the list goes on and on.
> >
> >You see exactly what Rush tells you to see. Hut two three four!
>
> You really are dumber n' dirt, aren't you?
Now that would mud calling the sand dirty wouldn't it!
Archer070
>King Pineapple wrote:
>
>You're a political BIGOT.
>Just curious, what is your "definition" of what "right" means?
A liberal looks up at the sky and wonders. A Conservative looks up at the sky
and KNOWS. And he wants a gun.
Mort Isrigor
>In article <38D153...@pacbell.net>,
>From your response to my post, it is obvious that you are not a clear
>thinker.
>Frank
>
That's an understatemnt!
frank....@dol.net
Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/
Before you buy.
.50 cal
"Archer070" <arch...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20000314214945...@ng-bg1.aol.com...
> Big, powerful, angry, religious, and armed.
I ain't very big.
My power will get cut if I don't pay my electric bill.
I'm in a pretty good mood most of the time due to this amazing klintin
economy !
I'm an atheist.
I got more guns and bullets than you can shake a stick at !
Again, a bigoted, mean spirited liberal tries to use hatespeach to corral
certain groups of people under narrowly defined terms that can apply to the
populace at large and basically just wasted some bandwidth looking foolish.
Your post above reminded me of the dirty, stupid little trailer trash kid in
jr. high that was not accepted into any of the cliques.
Clean up your act Archer and yes, you too can become one of those bastions
of intelligence you are oh so jealous of !
D.G. Porter
My thinking is quite clear, usually, but your post hit me at too many
levels by its sheer obtuseness.
First I was reminded of what it is about the past that "conservatives"
want to keep.
Then I was reminded of a poem with lines applicable.
Then my emotion kicked in.
Finally I had to stop.
You guys are dicks. You should invent a time machine and go back to
your "golden age" and leave the real world for those of us who can
handle progress.
frank....@dol.net
of them.
D.G. Porter
I ain't no liberal. At least not in the squishy '90s sense.
What the fuck IS so damn god about the past -- the '50s, the '20s, the
1890s -- that "conservatives" love these decades so much? Blacks
couldn't vote most of the time, Prohibition was in effect (but those
Model Ts were places to fuck in), and women couldn't vote, respectively.
Yeah, yeah, you guys talk about "family values" (harping on that for 100
years at least), "respect for the Oval Orifice" (big deal, a fucking
office -- we need to bring the "Imperial Presidency" down a notch or
two, its gotten too big for its britches), and "a loss of innocence,"
but aren't those realy reflections of an earlier age of ignorance? I've
heard old people tell me that Nixon and Ike had a right to lie to us,
"Because he's the President, and he knows more than you do or will!!"
(Hey, lady, I'D like to know what he knows, and I'm not afraid to!)
Everything about modern "conservatism" smacks of wanting to go back to
some mythical time when you and I could never find out what we can
today. Also wanting a King more than a President. And a really cloying
love of pomp, form over substance, and ritual.
Mathew
Who said the lord is a man?
;)
frank....@dol.net
<Pine.BSD/.3.91.10003210014...@saba.kuentos.guam.net>,
I refer to God the Father - you know of "Father, Son and Holy Ghost".
Not sure about gender of Holy Ghost. Obviously you are a thinking man
which makes your Liberal postings suspect.
Frank