OT- DUH!!!! What happened, Petey?
David H
F*ck you!
I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like.....VICTORY!"
ROTFLMAO!
--
David Hageman
What shall I love, if not the enigma?
"Don't argue with 'em dear, they're beneath our dignity". W.C. Fields
Charles Supha
now. Anything that goes wrong, they'll get blamed for, but obviously
whatever goes right, they'll get credit for. I'm just happy that I don't
have to live under a KKT govenorship!!! I probably would've moved to VA if
she did. :P
C.
"David H" <dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:aqb8hv$e3d$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
David H.
news:zaay9.60$NI6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> Be careful of what you wish for David. The Republicans have no scapegoats
> now. Anything that goes wrong, they'll get blamed for, but obviously
> whatever goes right, they'll get credit for. I'm just happy that I don't
> have to live under a KKT govenorship!!! I probably would've moved to VA
if
> she did. :P
>
If another September 11th occurs, all bets are off.
But, with all 3 Branches under Bush's control, they have the opportunity to
advance their agenda with no obstructionism from the now-defunct Democratic
Party.
The Liberals took no stance (because it would prove suicidal) on the
Economy, or Homeland Security.
They have no constituency except the special interest groups.
They got a asswhupping. Richly deserved.
Hold on tight, Charles.
Just hope that nobody dies suspiciously any time soon.
Wouldn't put it past the Clintons.
David H.
Jeremy Olson
"David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:aqcfuo$q5v$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
> "Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:zaay9.60$NI6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> > Be careful of what you wish for David. The Republicans have no
scapegoats
> > now. Anything that goes wrong, they'll get blamed for, but obviously
> > whatever goes right, they'll get credit for. I'm just happy that I
don't
> > have to live under a KKT govenorship!!! I probably would've moved to VA
> if
> > she did. :P
> >
>
> If another September 11th occurs, all bets are off.
>
> But, with all 3 Branches under Bush's control, they have the opportunity
to
> advance their agenda with no obstructionism from the now-defunct
Democratic
> Party.
Please! The Dems lost, and you know why? Because they have to
deal with a republican President who happens to be in the middle of a war.
If Gore had won, the Democrats would be controlling just about everything.
Jeremy Olson
David Marc Nieporent
>> > Be careful of what you wish for David. The Republicans have no scapegoats
>> > now. Anything that goes wrong, they'll get blamed for, but obviously
>> > whatever goes right, they'll get credit for. I'm just happy that I don't
>> > have to live under a KKT govenorship!!! I probably would've moved to VA
>> > if she did. :P
>> If another September 11th occurs, all bets are off.
>> But, with all 3 Branches under Bush's control, they have the opportunity to
>> advance their agenda with no obstructionism from the now-defunct Democratic
>> Party.
Education, Hageman: the three branches of government are executive,
legislative, and judicial. "All three" are not "under Bush's control."
Only one is under Bush's control; two are under Republican control.
> Please! The Dems lost, and you know why? Because they have to
>deal with a republican President who happens to be in the middle of a war.
>If Gore had won, the Democrats would be controlling just about everything.
In 1942, just a year after Pearl Harbor, Democrats lost 55 seats in the
House and 9 in the Senate.
---------------------------------------------
David M. Nieporent niep...@alumni.princeton.edu
Pearly Soames
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>Education, Hageman: the three branches of government are executive,
>legislative, and judicial. "All three" are not "under Bush's control."
>Only one is under Bush's control; two are under Republican control.
Er, how did the judicial branch happen to come under Republican
control?
__________
Smell my feet
David Marc Nieporent
rante...@yahoo.com (Pearly Soames) wrote:
>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>>Education, Hageman: the three branches of government are executive,
>>legislative, and judicial. "All three" are not "under Bush's control."
>>Only one is under Bush's control; two are under Republican control.
>Er, how did the judicial branch happen to come under Republican
>control?
Er, it didn't. That was my point.
David Hageman
"David Marc Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-2C7F6F...@news-east.giganews.com...
> In article <aqd5gg$c20$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> "Jeremy Olson" <lor...@halcyon.com> wrote:
> >"David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
> >> "Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> >> > Be careful of what you wish for David. The Republicans have no
scapegoats
> >> > now. Anything that goes wrong, they'll get blamed for, but obviously
> >> > whatever goes right, they'll get credit for. I'm just happy that I
don't
> >> > have to live under a KKT govenorship!!! I probably would've moved to
VA
> >> > if she did. :P
>
> >> If another September 11th occurs, all bets are off.
> >> But, with all 3 Branches under Bush's control, they have the
opportunity to
> >> advance their agenda with no obstructionism from the now-defunct
Democratic
> >> Party.
>
> Education, Hageman: the three branches of government are executive,
> legislative, and judicial. "All three" are not "under Bush's control."
> Only one is under Bush's control; two are under Republican control.
Sorry about that.
Both Houses of Congress and the White House are under Republican control.
While I didn't specify or define "Branch", you're right.
Although, Bush might have a lot of say into how the Supreme Court is
flavored for the next generation.
>
> > Please! The Dems lost, and you know why? Because they have to
> >deal with a republican President who happens to be in the middle of a
war.
> >If Gore had won, the Democrats would be controlling just about
everything.
>
> In 1942, just a year after Pearl Harbor, Democrats lost 55 seats in the
> House and 9 in the Senate.
>
Here's a nice read from Ann Coulter, about just that....
http://anncoulter.org/columns/2002/110602e.htm
David H.
Charles Supha
"David Hageman" <dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
news:aqefa6$626$1...@bob.news.rcn.net...
Ann Coulter is a little extreme for my taste, but she's still a hottie. :-)
C.
MR. PHP
I like her politics and her brain and her legs and...
<ahem> etc.
LOL!
MR. PHP
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <aqd5gg$c20$1...@brokaw.wa.com>,
> "Jeremy Olson" <lor...@halcyon.com> wrote:
>>"David H." <dhag...@erols.com> wrote in message
>>> "Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
>>> > Be careful of what you wish for David. The Republicans have no scapegoats
>>> > now. Anything that goes wrong, they'll get blamed for, but obviously
>>> > whatever goes right, they'll get credit for. I'm just happy that I don't
>>> > have to live under a KKT govenorship!!! I probably would've moved to VA
>>> > if she did. :P
>
>>> If another September 11th occurs, all bets are off.
>>> But, with all 3 Branches under Bush's control, they have the opportunity to
>>> advance their agenda with no obstructionism from the now-defunct Democratic
>>> Party.
>
>Education, Hageman: the three branches of government are executive,
>legislative, and judicial. "All three" are not "under Bush's control."
>Only one is under Bush's control; two are under Republican control.
>
The New Jersey Supreme Court is still controlled by the Democrats.....
LOL!
>> Please! The Dems lost, and you know why? Because they have to
>>deal with a republican President who happens to be in the middle of a war.
>>If Gore had won, the Democrats would be controlling just about everything.
>
>In 1942, just a year after Pearl Harbor, Democrats lost 55 seats in the
>House and 9 in the Senate.
Good point Dave. The Dems reason detre used to be "workers" and
"labor." Of course, they won all of those battles 80 years ago. Even
back then, they were not seen as being very strong with foreign
policy. They got everything they wanted, but now they're picking all
the wrong fights.
Peggy Noonan has a nice related ditty here: ... just FYI
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002591
My favorite line in the column is: "Republicans used to oppose
mandatory Social Security. Now on the stump they are its loving
defenders. They would change it very slightly but keep it forever.
They would marry it and have children with it if they could."
ROFL!
You have to admit that THAT is a good line!
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>To all you Socialist Liberal scumbags out there.
>
>F*ck you!
>
>I love the smell of napalm in the morning. It smells like.....VICTORY!"
>
>ROTFLMAO!
Y'know, I bet you really are rolling around on the floor, laughing.
Anyway, I'm not crying about anything. I'm just glad Hollywood and
the San Fernando Valley are still part of L.A.. The Democrats
deserved to lose for refusing to do anything that might make them look
unpatriotic. So now our unwanted children will be forced (at their
teachers' gunpoint) to recite the pledge of allegiance before learning
about how everything in the Bible is true. Oh well.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>"Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:zaay9.60$NI6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
>> Be careful of what you wish for David. The Republicans have no scapegoats
>> now. Anything that goes wrong, they'll get blamed for, but obviously
>> whatever goes right, they'll get credit for. I'm just happy that I don't
>> have to live under a KKT govenorship!!! I probably would've moved to VA
>if
>> she did. :P
>>
>
>If another September 11th occurs, all bets are off.
>
>But, with all 3 Branches under Bush's control, they have the opportunity to
>advance their agenda with no obstructionism from the now-defunct Democratic
>Party.
>
Obstructionism? And the Democratic Party is definitely not
defunct--they're just kind of rebuilding.
>The Liberals took no stance (because it would prove suicidal) on the
>Economy, or Homeland Security.
I don't think it would have proved suicidal.
>They have no constituency except the special interest groups.
What do you mean by special interest groups? Did you pick it up from
Limbaugh and think that you could apply it yourself? It makes no
sense. The special interest groups vote for fringe parties. You and
Mr. PCP are such raving fanatics that you think anyone to the left of
you is a Commie traitor.
>
>They got a asswhupping. Richly deserved.
You take more pleasure in seeing people don't like lose, rather than
seeing people you do like win. You're a troubled man. I bet you wet
the bed.
>
>Hold on tight, Charles.
>
>Just hope that nobody dies suspiciously any time soon.
>
>Wouldn't put it past the Clintons.
You shouldn't smoke weed when you're watching your huge stack of Vince
Foster conspiracy videos.
>
>David H.
>
Pete Foosis
<dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
>
>Here's a nice read from Ann Coulter, about just that....
>
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Excuse me, but... Ann Coulter! Ha ha ha
ha ha ha ha!
David Hageman
news:886nsu0mi4mlg4ooj...@4ax.com...
Yeah, she *does* resemble Olive Oyle...from the Popeye Cartoons, but she
kicks Liberal Ass.
Maybe you'd like to read Peggy Noonan's piece, instead?
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002591
Fact is, Pete.....you have as much knowledge or grasp of the pulse of
politics and the country....as you do about baseball. You know NOTHING!
And, howza bout that Salma Hayek, huh?
Best looking woman on the planet and she's about to get an Oscar Nomination
(Frida)
The hits just keep on coming, I tell ya!
David H.
David H.
> On Wed, 6 Nov 2002 20:34:21 -0500, "David H." <dhag...@erols.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >news:zaay9.60$NI6....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net...
> >> Be careful of what you wish for David. The Republicans have no
scapegoats
> >> now. Anything that goes wrong, they'll get blamed for, but obviously
> >> whatever goes right, they'll get credit for. I'm just happy that I
don't
> >> have to live under a KKT govenorship!!! I probably would've moved to
VA
> >if
> >> she did. :P
> >>
> >
> >If another September 11th occurs, all bets are off.
> >
> >But, with all 3 Branches under Bush's control, they have the opportunity
to
> >advance their agenda with no obstructionism from the now-defunct
Democratic
> >Party.
> >
> Obstructionism? And the Democratic Party is definitely not
> defunct--they're just kind of rebuilding.
Most things are built from the ground upward.
*They* need to be rebuilt at the top.
They have no cause for existing, since the GOP have kidnapped Social
Security, and Welfare Reform.
Peggy Noonan writes:
"...Republicans used to oppose mandatory Social Security. Now on the stump
they are its loving defenders. They would change it very slightly but keep
it forever. They would marry it and have children with it if they could.
"...When Ronald Reagan became president, he set about trying to right the
welfare state's worst wrongs. He lowered taxes; he tried to cut spending. He
launched the great economic prosperity of the past 20 years.
"...Since him there has been relative stasis. No big directional changes.
Bush One tilted moderate-liberal and got clobbered, Bill Clinton tilted
moderate-conservative and thrived, Bush Two tilts
conservative-but-for-big-government and thrives.
"...The stasis ended Tuesday.
http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
> >The Liberals took no stance (because it would prove suicidal) on the
> >Economy, or Homeland Security.
>
> I don't think it would have proved suicidal.
Well, we'll never know now, will we?
Remember Bush's statement that caused Dasshole to become unglued on the
Senate Floor about a month ago?
He said that the Democratic Senate Leadership was not interested in the
American People's Security because they refused to pass something for
Homeland Security.
What was that? A union problem, because Bush wanted to be able to move
large contingents of said employees anywhere at a moment's notice....to meet
a crisis.
The Dems refused to segregate Homeland Security folk from the Federal
Contract.
The White House bully pulpit is very powerful.
Even moreso, with the advent of FOX News Cable, and the exposure of Liberal
bias in the media.
>
> >They have no constituency except the special interest groups.
>
> What do you mean by special interest groups? Did you pick it up from
> Limbaugh and think that you could apply it yourself? It makes no
> sense. The special interest groups vote for fringe parties. You and
> Mr. PCP are such raving fanatics that you think anyone to the left of
> you is a Commie traitor.
Not at all, Pete.
By special-interest groups I mean African-American and other minority
groups.
They dissed them bigtime in Maryland, by Kennedy-Townsend, and they stayed
home. Or, voted for Steele....a Conservative African-American Republican.
The yuks just keep on coming.
>
> >
> >They got a asswhupping. Richly deserved.
>
> You take more pleasure in seeing people don't like lose, rather than
> seeing people you do like win. You're a troubled man. I bet you wet
> the bed.
Once again, you're reduced to making ad hominem attacks when confronted with
your losing Ideology.
Another Special Interst Group is the Tree Hugger Environmentalist.
Wait until the 1st nuke goes off in Iraq next year...because Hussein went
with Scorched Earth and dispenses weapons of mass destruction on our troops
or Israel.
We're going to see oil wells at Ocean City, Maryland about a mile off shore.
Blue Crab and Rockfish be damned.
> >Hold on tight, Charles.
> >
> >Just hope that nobody dies suspiciously any time soon.
> >
> >Wouldn't put it past the Clintons.
>
> You shouldn't smoke weed when you're watching your huge stack of Vince
> Foster conspiracy videos.
>
LOL!
You probably *do* think he committed suicide, don't you?
Ron Brown, too, huh?
You're so naive.
You deserve this Far Lefty as your new House MINORITY Leader.
At least she has the guts to tell us who she is and what she stands for.
You can't be just a little bit pregnant, Pete.
"Standing up for the Little Guy" rings hollow
when you can't even vote to protect us from our enemies.
David H.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
Do you realize that the split in Congress is pretty close to 50-50,
don't you?
>
>Peggy Noonan writes:
>"...Republicans used to oppose mandatory Social Security. Now on the stump
>they are its loving defenders. They would change it very slightly but keep
>it forever. They would marry it and have children with it if they could.
>
>"...When Ronald Reagan became president, he set about trying to right the
>welfare state's worst wrongs. He lowered taxes; he tried to cut spending. He
>launched the great economic prosperity of the past 20 years.
>
>"...Since him there has been relative stasis. No big directional changes.
>Bush One tilted moderate-liberal and got clobbered, Bill Clinton tilted
>moderate-conservative and thrived, Bush Two tilts
>conservative-but-for-big-government and thrives.
>
>"...The stasis ended Tuesday.
We'll see what happens over the next couple years. Unless Bush can
create a couple new wars before 2004, I think things will balance out
again at the next elections. As Peggy Noonal unintentionally pointed
out, people prefer a moderate government. I think Bush was given the
boost of power becuase we're at war and people don't want to see his
hands tied. So like I said, we'll see what's going on in two years.
>
>http://opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/
>
>> >The Liberals took no stance (because it would prove suicidal) on the
>> >Economy, or Homeland Security.
>>
>> I don't think it would have proved suicidal.
>
>Well, we'll never know now, will we?
No, and who cares?
>
>Remember Bush's statement that caused Dasshole to become unglued on the
>Senate Floor about a month ago?
No. I really don't pay that much attention. But I bet yopu heard
about it on talk radio.
>
>He said that the Democratic Senate Leadership was not interested in the
>American People's Security because they refused to pass something for
>Homeland Security.
Well, he *is* The Great Orator...
>
>What was that? A union problem, because Bush wanted to be able to move
>large contingents of said employees anywhere at a moment's notice....to meet
>a crisis.
>The Dems refused to segregate Homeland Security folk from the Federal
>Contract.
I don't know what any of that means.
>
>The White House bully pulpit is very powerful.
>Even moreso, with the advent of FOX News Cable, and the exposure of Liberal
>bias in the media.
>
>>
>> >They have no constituency except the special interest groups.
>>
>> What do you mean by special interest groups? Did you pick it up from
>> Limbaugh and think that you could apply it yourself? It makes no
>> sense. The special interest groups vote for fringe parties. You and
>> Mr. PCP are such raving fanatics that you think anyone to the left of
>> you is a Commie traitor.
>
>Not at all, Pete.
>
>By special-interest groups I mean African-American and other minority
>groups.
Except in a small fraction of communities, no one is going to target a
campaign at the black community. There are more Hispanics, and six
times as many white people. And they vote less, too. But you happen
to live in a area where there's a high percentage of black people,
where they represent much more than a special interest group. If you
don't like it, move to Idaho. They'd like you there.
>
>They dissed them bigtime in Maryland, by Kennedy-Townsend, and they stayed
>home. Or, voted for Steele....a Conservative African-American Republican.
>
>The yuks just keep on coming.
>>
>> >
>> >They got a asswhupping. Richly deserved.
>>
>> You take more pleasure in seeing people don't like lose, rather than
>> seeing people you do like win. You're a troubled man. I bet you wet
>> the bed.
>
>Once again, you're reduced to making ad hominem attacks when confronted with
>your losing Ideology.
>
My ideology is not represented by the Democratic Party. You need to
get it through your skull that hating Republicans doesn't make someone
a Democrat, or even a libreal.
>Another Special Interst Group is the Tree Hugger Environmentalist.
>
>Wait until the 1st nuke goes off in Iraq next year...because Hussein went
>with Scorched Earth and dispenses weapons of mass destruction on our troops
>or Israel.
>
>We're going to see oil wells at Ocean City, Maryland about a mile off shore.
>Blue Crab and Rockfish be damned.
Hey, and who cares? We'll all be long dead before the shit hits the
fan. Let our grandkids deal with it.
>
>> >Hold on tight, Charles.
>> >
>> >Just hope that nobody dies suspiciously any time soon.
>> >
>> >Wouldn't put it past the Clintons.
>>
>> You shouldn't smoke weed when you're watching your huge stack of Vince
>> Foster conspiracy videos.
>>
>
>LOL!
>
>You probably *do* think he committed suicide, don't you?
Of course. I also believe we really landed on the moon and that Elvis
really is dead. Call me crazy.
>Ron Brown, too, huh?
No, I think he died in a plane crash.
>
>You're so naive.
Or just not paranoid. You decide.
>You deserve this Far Lefty as your new House MINORITY Leader.
>
>At least she has the guts to tell us who she is and what she stands for.
I don't know who you're talking about, but good for her.
>
>You can't be just a little bit pregnant, Pete.
>
>"Standing up for the Little Guy" rings hollow
As does "compassionate conservative" when it comes from the mouth of
someone who likes to execute retarded people.
>when you can't even vote to protect us from our enemies.
Who? What? Are you gonna blame 9/11 on the Democrats, now?
Pete Foosis
<dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
>"Pete Foosis" <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:886nsu0mi4mlg4ooj...@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 7 Nov 2002 14:35:34 -0500, "David Hageman"
>> <dhag...@erols.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >Here's a nice read from Ann Coulter, about just that....
>> >
>>
>> Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! Excuse me, but... Ann Coulter! Ha ha ha
>> ha ha ha ha!
>
>Yeah, she *does* resemble Olive Oyle...from the Popeye Cartoons, but she
>kicks Liberal Ass.
She's a filthy hack yellow-journalist, the lowest sort of scum this
side of Rupert Murdoch.
>
>Maybe you'd like to read Peggy Noonan's piece, instead?
>
>http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/pnoonan/?id=110002591
>
No, not really. The only right-winger I enjoy reading is Pat
Buchanan. Except for the fact that he's an incredible racist, I can
often respect what he has to say, because he believes what he believes
and refuses to be a shill for the GOP.
>Fact is, Pete.....you have as much knowledge or grasp of the pulse of
>politics and the country....as you do about baseball. You know NOTHING!
Okay. Sorry to hear that.
>
>And, howza bout that Salma Hayek, huh?
>
>Best looking woman on the planet and she's about to get an Oscar Nomination
>(Frida)
Most irritatting accent on the the planet and who cares if she gets an
Oscar nomination?
>
>The hits just keep on coming, I tell ya!
Great. You're a genius, and everything you touch turns to gold. I'm
awfully happy for you, and even moreso because there's nothing I like
more than to see a braggart succeed.
>
>David H.
>
David H.
> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:46:42 -0500, "David Hageman"
> >
> >The hits just keep on coming, I tell ya!
>
> Great. You're a genius, and everything you touch turns to gold. I'm
> awfully happy for you, and even moreso because there's nothing I like
> more than to see a braggart succeed.
>
Gee thanks.
One more while this racist, braggart has your attention......
Just notified that I am a "Top Ten" Agent in State of Maryland for the 1st
three quarters of 2002.
#5 in Montgomery County.
#1 in Gaithersburg/Germantown/Rockville
#1 in number of transactions.
*You* have a nice day, Petey.
And, remember......"It's the Pitching, stupid"!
David H.
Stephen Mack
<fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Unless Bush can
> create a couple new wars before 2004,
I'd bet the bank on that.
--
Smack
"Homo sum, humani nihil a me alienum puto." -Publius Terentius Afer
nob...@junk.min.net
>> Here's a nice read from Ann Coulter, about just that....
>>
>> http://anncoulter.org/columns/2002/110602e.htm
>Ann Coulter is a little extreme for my taste, but she's still a hottie.
>:-)
She also doesn't mind lying to make her point. People trying to ban the
Pledge of Allegiance? Wrong - some people are trying to get the
unConstitutional addition of the words "under God" removed, not ban the
entire Pledge. Republicans frown on adultery? Then why did they trot out
Rudy Giuliani to boost Republican candidates' campaigns? Rudy moved his
mistress into the mayoral residence!
Alan
--
---------------------------------------------------------------------
**** Please use address al...@min.net to reply via e-mail. ****
Posted using registered MR/2 ICE Newsreader #564
---------------------------------------------------------------------
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>"Pete Foosis" <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:o61psu4arpapjht55...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:46:42 -0500, "David Hageman"
>
>> >
>> >The hits just keep on coming, I tell ya!
>>
>> Great. You're a genius, and everything you touch turns to gold. I'm
>> awfully happy for you, and even moreso because there's nothing I like
>> more than to see a braggart succeed.
>>
>
>Gee thanks.
>
>One more while this racist, braggart has your attention......
>
>Just notified that I am a "Top Ten" Agent in State of Maryland for the 1st
>three quarters of 2002.
>
>#5 in Montgomery County.
>#1 in Gaithersburg/Germantown/Rockville
>#1 in number of transactions.
I'm so jealous I can hardly breathe. You're a classy guy, Hageman.
I'm sure we're all impressed.
>
>*You* have a nice day, Petey.
I don't know how I possibly could, never having sold a house in
Germantown.
>And, remember......"It's the Pitching, stupid"!
Yes, as you've so ably demonstrated.
Pete Foosis
wrote:
>In article <eruosuge6ts26ibsi...@4ax.com>, Pete Foosis
><fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Unless Bush can
>> create a couple new wars before 2004,
>
>I'd bet the bank on that.
I don't know. I've been holding out hope for the last couple months
that we won't "have to" go to war in Iraq, but even if we don't I
think the people will be more wary the next time the possibility
arises. And after Iraq, who's really left anyway? Unless they really
provoke us, I don't see us going after N. Korea. Iran's becoming
moderate on its own. And it would be hard to justify to the Security
Council our attacking France.
MR. PHP
>In <YuEy9.454$Aq5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, on 11/08/02
> at 01:32 AM, "Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> said:
>
>>> Here's a nice read from Ann Coulter, about just that....
>>>
>>> http://anncoulter.org/columns/2002/110602e.htm
>
>
>>Ann Coulter is a little extreme for my taste, but she's still a hottie.
>>:-)
>
>She also doesn't mind lying to make her point. People trying to ban the
>Pledge of Allegiance? Wrong - some people are trying to get the
>unConstitutional addition of the words "under God" removed, not ban the
>entire Pledge. Republicans frown on adultery? Then why did they trot out
>Rudy Giuliani to boost Republican candidates' campaigns? Rudy moved his
>mistress into the mayoral residence!
>
>
Dude! The words "under God" are simply a line of attack. Do you think
that anyone who would otherwise say the pledge is only objecting to
the words "under God?" Those sort of people would never say the pledge
to begin with!
Those with such stupid claims should back up words with action and
refuse to accept any US currency which states: "In God We Trust"
They could barter their way through life.
On principle of course.
LOL
There is not ONE place in the US that forces you to say the pledge.
You don't have to pledge to anything!
Instead of bitching about those who choose to say the pledge, the
whiney atheists could just STFU!
Hmmm! There's a novel idea! Don't say the pledge!
No one is forcing you to attend a church or a temple.
You should not try force anyone else to give up what they believe in
and that is what you whiney protesters demand! We leave you alone.
Do use the same favor.
There is no state religion and your petty claims are worthless.
Get a hobby. Model trains are fun.... painting... fishing...
>
>
>
>Alan
David Marc Nieporent
<D5A4DE20D7A3F162.DBB7A873...@lp.airnews.net>,
MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> wrote:
>On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 19:11:21 -0500, nob...@junk.min.net wrote:
>> at 01:32 AM, "Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> said:
>>>Ann Coulter is a little extreme for my taste, but she's still a hottie.
>>>:-)
>>She also doesn't mind lying to make her point. People trying to ban the
>>Pledge of Allegiance? Wrong - some people are trying to get the
>>unConstitutional addition of the words "under God" removed, not ban the
>>entire Pledge. Republicans frown on adultery? Then why did they trot out
>>Rudy Giuliani to boost Republican candidates' campaigns? Rudy moved his
>>mistress into the mayoral residence!
>Dude! The words "under God" are simply a line of attack. Do you think
>that anyone who would otherwise say the pledge is only objecting to
>the words "under God?"
Yes.
> Those sort of people would never say the pledge to begin with!
What sort of people? Atheists? People who believe in the Constitution?
Judges? People who don't think the government should endorse bizarre
superstitions?
Catfish
> >
> >> Unless Bush can
> >> create a couple new wars before 2004,
> >
> >I'd bet the bank on that.
>
> I don't know. I've been holding out hope for the last couple months
> that we won't "have to" go to war in Iraq, but even if we don't I
> think the people will be more wary the next time the possibility
> arises. And after Iraq, who's really left anyway? Unless they really
> provoke us, I don't see us going after N. Korea. Iran's becoming
> moderate on its own. And it would be hard to justify to the Security
> Council our attacking France.
In case you missed it, the UN security council voted 15-0 to impose the
ultimatum on Iraq. Yes votes included Syria, Russia and France.
GHWB didn't get unanimous consent on the 1990 resolution.
We don't have all the facts, but something is going on that made all of
those countries line up with the US.
Also, as a reminder, Bush didn't start the current conflicts, terrorists
did. He has gained in stature politically from events he did not seek.
That stature was part of what translated into Republican gains on Tuesday.
I also think that the do-nothing Senate and the Wellstone memorial/lovefest
had something to do with energizing the Republican base. The Dems had
nothing to use to stir up their base, and paid the price at the ballot box.
It will be interesting to see if the strategy of moving to the base helps
them. With the election of Nancy Pelosi (a native Marylander, BTW, daughter
of former B'More mayor Tommy D'Allesandro) the Democrats have signaled a
move away from the centrist/new Democrat stance that gave them their first
two-term President since FDR.
Finally, a Maryland note: I believe that Martin O'Malley would have won the
Maryland governor's race in a walk. However, he was "talked" out of the
race by the national party organization, which was trying to groom KKT for
bigger things. The effect of this move went beyond just the loss of the
governorship. The Dems lost a number of seats in the Maryland General
Assembly due to Ehrlich's coattails, including the Speaker and the chair of
the Judicial Proceedings Committee.
m...@raybradley.com
>. And it would be hard to justify to the Security
> Council our attacking France.
But, really, aren't they the easiest country *TO* justify attacking?
Where's a warlike Germany when we need them?
Seriously, though, I've noticed that France always defends Iraq in the
UN and international stage, even when they invaded Kuwait and when
Hussein used poison gas on his own people. Wondering what exactly
France is trying to hide for the past twenty years?
- Ray Bradley
David H.
news:3dcda5ad$1$nynaurff$mr2...@news.md.comcast.giganews.com...
> In <YuEy9.454$Aq5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, on 11/08/02
> at 01:32 AM, "Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> said:
>
> >> Here's a nice read from Ann Coulter, about just that....
> >>
> >> http://anncoulter.org/columns/2002/110602e.htm
>
>
> >Ann Coulter is a little extreme for my taste, but she's still a hottie.
> >:-)
>
> She also doesn't mind lying to make her point. People trying to ban the
> Pledge of Allegiance? Wrong - some people are trying to get the
> unConstitutional addition of the words "under God" removed, not ban the
> entire Pledge. Republicans frown on adultery? Then why did they trot out
> Rudy Giuliani to boost Republican candidates' campaigns? Rudy moved his
> mistress into the mayoral residence!
>
"...Rudy moved his mistress into the mayoral residence!"......
BFD! At least he didn't keep Yasar Arafat waiting while he played "hide the
cigar" with that cow Monica, the slut, Lewinsky...in the OVAL OFFICE!
Uh, the Republican voter ousted Hutchinson for his marital indiscretions.
The "power-above-all-costs" Liberals and the Demoncratic Party however,
failed to convict Bill Clinton for his.
Uncle....it's time for the Jewish voter to take stock of where their
priorities are, too.
A little confession is good for the soul, they say.
David H.
Pete Foosis
<mdd...@nospameclipsetel.com> wrote:
>
>"Pete Foosis" <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>news:nf2ssuk7nq97afpn0...@4ax.com...
>> >
>> >> Unless Bush can
>> >> create a couple new wars before 2004,
>> >
>> >I'd bet the bank on that.
>>
>> I don't know. I've been holding out hope for the last couple months
>> that we won't "have to" go to war in Iraq, but even if we don't I
>> think the people will be more wary the next time the possibility
>> arises. And after Iraq, who's really left anyway? Unless they really
>> provoke us, I don't see us going after N. Korea. Iran's becoming
>> moderate on its own. And it would be hard to justify to the Security
>> Council our attacking France.
>
>In case you missed it, the UN security council voted 15-0 to impose the
>ultimatum on Iraq. Yes votes included Syria, Russia and France.
>GHWB didn't get unanimous consent on the 1990 resolution.
>We don't have all the facts, but something is going on that made all of
>those countries line up with the US.
Yes, and now the pressure is on Iraq to comply. Either that or commit
suicide. Even Bush is now saying that war is the last thing he wants.
Also, please note that the UNSC resolution does NOT pave the way for
regiime change.
>Also, as a reminder, Bush didn't start the current conflicts, terrorists
>did.
Iraqi terrorists? I don't doubt that Hussein's up to no good, but
we've still been presented with no credible link between Iraq and al
Qaeda, and I haven't even heard anyone claim that removing Saddam will
cripple al Qaeda .
Pete Foosis
(No...@Notraybradley.com) wrote:
France has hated us for literally hundreds of years. In the 1700s
they disparaged our plants and wildlife as inferior to those of
Europe, in the 1800s they sided with the Confederacy. They've changed
their language to remove American influence (while we don't think
twice about using French words and expressions), and they've opposed
and contradicted us every chance they've had. It may be a good sign,
though that two of the top selling books there at the moment explore
why they hate us so much, and both apparently come to the same
conclusion: because they're bitter, jealous, and insane. The ones
I've met have all been very nice, but maybe I've just been lucky.
>
>- Ray Bradley
MR. PHP
" We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
Rights..."
Wow! What bizarre bunch of superstious folk wrote that!?!?!
Hmm, I also recall that someone said this:
" Of all the dispositions and habits, which lead to political
prosperity, Religion and Morality are indispensable supports. In vain
would that man claim the tribute of Patriotism, who should labor to
subvert these great pillars of human happiness, these firmest props of
the duties of Men and Citizens. The mere Politician, equally with the
pious man, ought to respect and to cherish them. A volume could not
trace all their connexions with private and public felicity. Let it
simply be asked, Where is the security for property, for reputation,
for life, if the sense of religious obligation desert the oaths, which
are the instruments of investigation in Courts of Justice? And let us
with caution indulge the supposition, that morality can be maintained
without religion. Whatever may be conceded to the influence of refined
education on minds of peculiar structure, reason and experience both
forbid us to expect, that national morality can prevail in exclusion
of religious principle."
George Washington
1796
Me thinks he directed that comment to people like you...
Then again, what would long-dead George know about the United States
or the Constitution? After all, we have those with the "influence of
refined education" to tell us what he REALLY meant!
LOL!
MR. PHP
(No...@Notraybradley.com) wrote:
How about millions of Arab who have poured into the country.....
Oh! And don't forget that France will never miss an opportunity to
surrender!
MR. PHP
<mdd...@nospameclipsetel.com> wrote:
Damn!
Well said Cat!
Awesome!
Dennis Shea
MR. PHP wrote:
> On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 19:11:21 -0500, nob...@junk.min.net wrote:
>
>
>>In <YuEy9.454$Aq5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, on 11/08/02
>> at 01:32 AM, "Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> said:
>>
>>
>>>>Here's a nice read from Ann Coulter, about just that....
>>>>
>>>>http://anncoulter.org/columns/2002/110602e.htm
>>>>
>>
>>>Ann Coulter is a little extreme for my taste, but she's still a hottie.
>>>:-)
>>>
>>She also doesn't mind lying to make her point. People trying to ban the
>>Pledge of Allegiance? Wrong - some people are trying to get the
>>unConstitutional addition of the words "under God" removed, not ban the
>>entire Pledge. Republicans frown on adultery? Then why did they trot out
>>Rudy Giuliani to boost Republican candidates' campaigns? Rudy moved his
>>mistress into the mayoral residence!
>>
>>
>>
>
> Dude! The words "under God" are simply a line of attack. Do you think
> that anyone who would otherwise say the pledge is only objecting to
> the words "under God?" Those sort of people would never say the pledge
> to begin with!
Yes. I have no problem with God or the pledge. I'm not an atheist. I
do have a problem with a state employee leading children in using those
words.
> There is not ONE place in the US that forces you to say the pledge.
> You don't have to pledge to anything!
>
> Instead of bitching about those who choose to say the pledge, the
> whiney atheists could just STFU!
>
> Hmmm! There's a novel idea! Don't say the pledge!
Pretty tough for your average 6 year old to do that.
Mark Stahl
"MR. PHP" <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> wrote in message
news:D5A4DE20D7A3F162.DBB7A873...@lp.airnews.net...
> On Sat, 09 Nov 2002 19:11:21 -0500, nob...@junk.min.net wrote:
>
> >In <YuEy9.454$Aq5....@newsread2.prod.itd.earthlink.net>, on 11/08/02
> > at 01:32 AM, "Charles Supha" <cli...@hotmail.com> said:
> >
> >>> Here's a nice read from Ann Coulter, about just that....
> >>>
> >>> http://anncoulter.org/columns/2002/110602e.htm
> >
> >
> >>Ann Coulter is a little extreme for my taste, but she's still a hottie.
> >>:-)
> >
> >She also doesn't mind lying to make her point. People trying to ban the
> >Pledge of Allegiance? Wrong - some people are trying to get the
> >unConstitutional addition of the words "under God" removed, not ban the
> >entire Pledge. Republicans frown on adultery? Then why did they trot
out
> >Rudy Giuliani to boost Republican candidates' campaigns? Rudy moved his
> >mistress into the mayoral residence!
> >
> >
>
> Dude! The words "under God" are simply a line of attack.
indeed they are. they are a line of attack on the freedom of religion that
we are supposed to enjoy in this country.
> Do you think
> that anyone who would otherwise say the pledge is only objecting to
> the words "under God?"
i not only think this, i know this for a fact. personally, i have had this
discussion with several atheist veterans under my care at the VA hospital
for whom this is one of their fondest wishes. contrary to your simpleminded
bluster, there is a difference between patriotism and religious conviction.
> Those sort of people would never say the pledge
> to begin with!
>
please define "those sort of people" and then describe the characteristics
which you suppose would preclude them from saying the pledge. for many, i
wouldn't be surprised if the false piety and fealty to imaginary sky daddies
so pervasive in this nation were the reason they'd be less than enthusiastic
about pledging their allegience.
> Those with such stupid claims should back up words with action
so far, you're the one making stupid claims. the people who are suggesting
that the 'under god' phrase be removed from the POA and the 'in god we
trust' line from our currency (not to mention the many other religious icons
and influences in government) are asking only that we follow our own laws,
as established in the constitution. but you, as an unpatriotic rube, clearly
either don't care about our nation's laws or are incapable of undertanding
them. how sad.
> and
> refuse to accept any US currency which states: "In God We Trust"
a good many people have recently been taking black ink to the offending
line, yes.
> They could barter their way through life.
> On principle of course.
>
or just use credit cards...
> LOL
>
> There is not ONE place in the US that forces you to say the pledge.
>
> You don't have to pledge to anything!
>
many people want to do so, without having their religious freedom trampled
on by groupthink fascists such as yourself.
> Instead of bitching about those who choose to say the pledge, the
> whiney atheists could just STFU!
>
or we could return the pledge to its original form which didn't mention your
fairy godmother.
> Hmmm! There's a novel idea! Don't say the pledge!
many people don't. many would like to be able to.
> No one is forcing you to attend a church or a temple.
you're turning public places into houses of worship with this 'under god'
tripe.
> You should not try force anyone else to give up what they believe in
indeed. perhaps you should re-read this line, fool. not mentioning something
doesn't force someone to give anything up. forcing someone to choose between
their religious belief (or lack thereof) and joining in the pledge would be
forcing someone to give something up.
> and that is what you whiney protesters demand! We leave you alone.
ok, that is the most ridiculous line i have ever read on the USENET. you
just described yourself how xians have forced their superstitious slogans
onto the money and into our patriotic songs and pledge. we have this
religious iconography in our courts and a buffoon in the president's office
who would replace public services with "faith-based initiatives". we have
been told by this buffoon's daddy while he was the president that "atheists
aren't citizens". this is the mere tip of the iceberg, and yet you claim
while wiping the drool from your brainwashed mouth that you "leave us
alone"? the mind boggles.
> Do use the same favor.
atheists as a group are far too kind to treat theists with the same disdain
and lack of respect that you have shown us, but if i were to return the
favor in this department, so to speak, i might change the currency to read,
"in Allah we trust" and see how you enjoy that.
>
> There is no state religion
bullshit there isn't.
> and your petty claims are worthless.
and yours, being demonstrably wrong, are less than that.
> Get a hobby. Model trains are fun.... painting... fishing...
>
>
i like baseball, but unfortunately peter and syd have wrecked the franchise.
Mark Stahl
> "Pete Foosis" <fake_emai...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:o61psu4arpapjht55...@4ax.com...
> > On Fri, 8 Nov 2002 12:46:42 -0500, "David Hageman"
>
> > >
> > >The hits just keep on coming, I tell ya!
> >
> > Great. You're a genius, and everything you touch turns to gold. I'm
> > awfully happy for you, and even moreso because there's nothing I like
> > more than to see a braggart succeed.
> >
>
> Gee thanks.
>
> One more while this racist, braggart has your attention......
>
> Just notified that I am a "Top Ten" Agent in State of Maryland for the 1st
> three quarters of 2002.
>
> #5 in Montgomery County.
> #1 in Gaithersburg/Germantown/Rockville
> #1 in number of transactions.
>
ROTFLMAO... you actually brag about being a *real estate agent*? one could
almost see it if you did something useful or remotely interesting, but....
BWAHAHAHA!!
this is too much.
Michael Noon LC
"Mark Stahl" <st...@aecom.yu.edu> wrote in message
news:9yadne-LjYm...@giganews.com...
Hey now, in school he was the top student in "Signing Here 101".
James Gibson
"MR. PHP" <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> wrote in message
>
>
> " We hold these Truths to be self-evident, that all Men are created
> equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable
> Rights..."
>
> Wow! What bizarre bunch of superstious folk wrote that!?!?!
Thomas Jefferson, who was a Deist, had a lot to do with for sure. The same
folks also put a freedom of religion clause in the first amendment.
nob...@junk.min.net
>> Dude! The words "under God" are simply a line of attack. Do you think
>> that anyone who would otherwise say the pledge is only objecting to
>> the words "under God?" Those sort of people would never say the pledge
>> to begin with!
>Yes. I have no problem with God or the pledge. I'm not an atheist. I
>do have a problem with a state employee leading children in using those
>words.
If a public school system or other state entity doesn't require recitation
of the Pledge, there's no problem. Private groups can say whatever they
like, however they wish.
>> Hmmm! There's a novel idea! Don't say the pledge!
>Pretty tough for your average 6 year old to do that.
That's a good age to start brainwashing kids.
Stephen Mack
<5F5ECC0C29C09F8F.847B8487...@lp.airnews.net>,
MR. PHP <mr...@planet.gong.rgi> wrote:
> Then again, what would long-dead George know about the United States
> or the Constitution?
Well, hell, we've totally spit on George's advice concerning political
partisanship and foreign affairs. Why should we start listening to him
now?
Stephen Mack
<dgs...@adelphia.net> wrote:
> Hmmm! There's a novel idea! Don't say the pledge!
>
>
> Pretty tough for your average 6 year old to do that.
When I was growing up in public school, not saying the pledge was
grounds for missing two weeks worth of recess. Small beans in the
grand scheme of things, but to a 6 year-old, pretty damned important.
No one ever made that mistake twice in my elementary school.
On a totally uninteresting note, I don't think in my years of public
schooling I ever knew the full text of the pledge of allegiance. I was
pretty good at mouthing things like "Adothuredudlik, fourwitchibands. .
."
I also used to mouth "edelemopee" in the middle of the alphabet song in
kindergarten. . . ;)
David Marc Nieporent
>> Hmmm! There's a novel idea! Don't say the pledge!
>> Pretty tough for your average 6 year old to do that.
>When I was growing up in public school, not saying the pledge was
>grounds for missing two weeks worth of recess. Small beans in the
>grand scheme of things, but to a 6 year-old, pretty damned important.
>No one ever made that mistake twice in my elementary school.
Unless you're older than I think you are, Stephen, I would hope not. The
Supreme Court outlawed mandatory honoring of the flag in West Virginia v.
Barnette, in 1943.
They could force you to be quiet, and possibly even to stand, while the
pledge was given. They couldn't punish you for refusal to say the pledge.
David H.
To some people, it is "too much".
Six years ago, I couldn't/wouldn't get out of bed.
The *average* income of a "Top 20" RE/MAX agent is $1 Million per year.
How much do *you* earn per year, asswipe?
;^)
David H.
>
Stephen Mack
David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
> Unless you're older than I think you are, Stephen,
Most likely, I'm younger than you think I am. Care to guess? ;)
> I would hope not. The
> Supreme Court outlawed mandatory honoring of the flag in West Virginia v.
> Barnette, in 1943.
>
> They could force you to be quiet, and possibly even to stand, while the
> pledge was given. They couldn't punish you for refusal to say the pledge.
I'm not quite sure if there was ever a case where a kid got in trouble
for standing up, putting his hand on his heart and not reciting the
words. Not standing up, twiddling your thumbs, or being otherwise
distracted, however, were serious offenses. I don't recall anyone
actually being "punished" for not putting his hand on his heart, but
they would certainly be uncompromisingly told to do so if caught with
the right hand elsewhere.
Of course, there was no one in the classroom to make sure that the law
was being upheld. I'm not sure how much of it had to do with the
school in general and how much of it had to do with individual
teachers. I can't really remember which teachers were or weren't
strict about it. Except my 4th grade teacher, a real nutball who was
downright militant about it. She was probably the meanest teacher I
ever had in school, and I don't think I ever saw her madder than when
this kid Jeremy was playing a computer game during the pledge. He
actually made a half-assed attempt to rise and recite the pledge, but
apparently she didn't deem it enough. He went something like two
months without recess as I recall.
Naturally the average elementary schooler doesn't know that he/she has
the right not to say the pledge (though believe me, we would've loved
to have had that information at the time). At any rate, it was never
treated or looked at as an optional activity. When the loudspeaker
said, "Please rise for the pledge of allegiance," you rose and followed
along if you knew what was good for you.
I feel kind of silly having written three paragraphs about this, but oh
well.
Pearly Soames
<niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>In article <3dcaa532...@news.bellatlantic.net>,
> rante...@yahoo.com (Pearly Soames) wrote:
>>David Marc Nieporent <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>>>Education, Hageman: the three branches of government are executive,
>>>legislative, and judicial. "All three" are not "under Bush's control."
>>>Only one is under Bush's control; two are under Republican control.
>
>>Er, how did the judicial branch happen to come under Republican
>>control?
>
>Er, it didn't. That was my point.
>
Er, I read "the other" in your post where you didn't type it. I'll
try to read these one word at a time from now on.
___________
You can never have too much overkill
ofic
"Stephen Mack" <sm...@zzappspam.org> wrote in message
news:121120021902448105%sm...@zzappspam.org...
> I don't recall anyone
> actually being "punished" for not putting his hand on his heart, but
> they would certainly be uncompromisingly told to do so if caught with
> the right hand elsewhere.
And then there's the real old farts who recall saying the pledge with hands
raised high nazi style. I don't recall when the change came about, probably
at the start of WWII.