Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
'The Ghost Writer' (2010)
34 views
Skip to first unread message
calvin
May 11, 2013, 6:18:14 PM5/11/13
to
A fine mystery thriller from Roman Polanski. I do willing
suspensions of disbelief easily, and so had no problem
with the obvious anti-Blair/Bush theme, for the sake of
enjoying an excellent movie, as most Polanski films are.
I didn't much like 'The Ninth Gate' (1999), but that's just
an exception.
The director has his detractors, though I've never been one
of them, and it's always a treat when he is seen and heard
in the extra features of a DVD. He is a real charmer.
suspensions of disbelief easily, and so had no problem
with the obvious anti-Blair/Bush theme, for the sake of
enjoying an excellent movie, as most Polanski films are.
I didn't much like 'The Ninth Gate' (1999), but that's just
an exception.
The director has his detractors, though I've never been one
of them, and it's always a treat when he is seen and heard
in the extra features of a DVD. He is a real charmer.
Gil Gamesh
May 11, 2013, 6:20:24 PM5/11/13
to
"calvin" wrote in message
news:9e410511-9905-4d56...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>The director has his detractors, though I've never been one
of them, and it's always a treat when he is seen and heard
in the extra features of a DVD. He is a real charmer.
Mack A. Damia
May 11, 2013, 6:28:54 PM5/11/13
to
--
trotsky
May 11, 2013, 6:32:46 PM5/11/13
to
On 5/11/13 5:18 PM, calvin wrote:
> A fine mystery thriller from Roman Polanski. I do willing
> suspensions of disbelief easily,
Yeah, we already know you're a Republican.
> A fine mystery thriller from Roman Polanski. I do willing
> suspensions of disbelief easily,
--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.
Gil Gamesh
May 11, 2013, 6:55:24 PM5/11/13
to
"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
news:pghto8p8fuapcot8t...@4ax.com...
>>Just ask any of the children he fucked!
>Was it good?
Mack A. Damia
May 11, 2013, 7:35:21 PM5/11/13
to
Highway, eh, boy?
How's the fudge packing these days?
--
--
Gil Gamesh
May 11, 2013, 7:40:55 PM5/11/13
to
"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>>Why don't you tell us, since you are clearly a pedophile.
>You've been inviting too many lads for a brisk stroll on the Hershey Highway,
>eh, boy?
>How's the fudge packing these days?
Mack A. Damia
May 11, 2013, 8:02:02 PM5/11/13
to
Russell Watson
May 11, 2013, 8:05:31 PM5/11/13
to
my own Conservative leanings) but have yet to see the movie. I need to
look it up.
Gil Gamesh
May 11, 2013, 8:06:43 PM5/11/13
to
"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
Mack A. Damia
May 11, 2013, 8:08:03 PM5/11/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:40:55 -0400, "Gil Gamesh" <gil@gam.> wrote:
>
>
>"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>news:u6lto8p9jqka1tfff...@4ax.com...
>
>>>Why don't you tell us, since you are clearly a pedophile.
>
>>You've been inviting too many lads for a brisk stroll on the Hershey Highway,
>>eh, boy?
>
>That's your department.
Not according to the history books.
>
>
>"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>news:u6lto8p9jqka1tfff...@4ax.com...
>
>>>Why don't you tell us, since you are clearly a pedophile.
>
>>You've been inviting too many lads for a brisk stroll on the Hershey Highway,
>>eh, boy?
>
>That's your department.
http://www.antiessays.com/free-essays/328379.html
>>How's the fudge packing these days?
>
>You tell us.
dicks.
--
Mack A. Damia
May 11, 2013, 8:14:53 PM5/11/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 20:06:43 -0400, "Gil Gamesh" <gil@gam.> wrote:
>
>
>"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>news:btmto89k81q44t9k3...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:40:55 -0400, "Gil Gamesh" <gil@gam.> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>>news:u6lto8p9jqka1tfff...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>Why don't you tell us, since you are clearly a pedophile.
>>
>>>You've been inviting too many lads for a brisk stroll on the Hershey Highway,
>>>eh, boy?
>>
>>That's your department.
>
>
>>
>>>How's the fudge packing these days?
>>
>>You tell us.
>
>Stumped for an answer, eh you old pedophile?
http://get-free-essay-online.blogspot.mx/2013/03/homosexuality-between-gilgamesh-and.html
>
>
>"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>news:btmto89k81q44t9k3...@4ax.com...
>
>On Sat, 11 May 2013 19:40:55 -0400, "Gil Gamesh" <gil@gam.> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>>news:u6lto8p9jqka1tfff...@4ax.com...
>>
>>>>Why don't you tell us, since you are clearly a pedophile.
>>
>>>You've been inviting too many lads for a brisk stroll on the Hershey Highway,
>>>eh, boy?
>>
>>That's your department.
>
>
>>
>>>How's the fudge packing these days?
>>
>>You tell us.
>
>Stumped for an answer, eh you old pedophile?
--
Gil Gamesh
May 11, 2013, 8:37:12 PM5/11/13
to
"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>Your boyfriends report that you're soft and flabby from too many dicks.
Mack A. Damia
May 11, 2013, 8:41:04 PM5/11/13
to
Gil Gamesh
May 11, 2013, 8:41:40 PM5/11/13
to
"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>http://get-free-essay-online.blogspot.mx/2013/03/homosexuality-between-gilgamesh-and.html
You seem to be obsessed with homosexuality. Denial ain't just a river in Egypt.
It's OK to be gay these days you know, so why not come out of the closet?
Gil Gamesh
May 11, 2013, 8:43:10 PM5/11/13
to
"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>The submissive one?
Mack A. Damia
May 11, 2013, 8:47:18 PM5/11/13
to
noted by many.
--
Mack A. Damia
May 11, 2013, 8:47:55 PM5/11/13
to
--
Gil Gamesh
May 11, 2013, 8:53:06 PM5/11/13
to
"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>Read it and weep, fudgepacker. Your proclivity for anus has been noted by
>many.
juvenile.
But hey, you've got your reputation as the group's village idiot to protect, I
suppose.
Gil Gamesh
May 11, 2013, 8:53:49 PM5/11/13
to
"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
Mack A. Damia
May 11, 2013, 8:55:39 PM5/11/13
to
you approve of it - in writing.......
Gilgamesh Offline
King of Heroes
*****
Religious Views: I don't believe in things without evidence Posts:
778
Joined: 12th October 2012
Reputation: 12
RE: Should pedophilia be legal?
For everyone in this thread who's asserted that pedophilia = child
rape; you're wrong.
Pedophilia should be legal, yes. Having sex with prepubescents (if
you're not a young'n yourself (I'm not going to suggest what ages
these laws should all go by to allow flexibility)) should not be
legal.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-17405-page-4.html
***************************************
Didgusting little man. I'm finished with you, fucking creep.
-- \
Mack A. Damia
May 11, 2013, 8:56:53 PM5/11/13
to
Mack A. Damia
May 11, 2013, 9:01:56 PM5/11/13
to
On Sat, 11 May 2013 17:55:39 -0700, Mack A. Damia
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Didgusting little man. I'm finished with you, fucking creep.
Oops, that should be "DISGUSTING".
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Didgusting little man. I'm finished with you, fucking creep.
http://atheistforums.org/thread-17405-page-4.html
--
Gil Gamesh
May 11, 2013, 9:45:21 PM5/11/13
to
"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
Gil Gamesh
May 11, 2013, 9:46:24 PM5/11/13
to
"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
>Didgusting little man.
calvin
May 11, 2013, 10:03:28 PM5/11/13
to
Note to readers: The wit in this movie is better than the
wit in this thread.
wit in this thread.
nick
May 11, 2013, 11:25:44 PM5/11/13
to
On May 11, 6:18 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> A fine mystery thriller from Roman Polanski. I do willing
> suspensions of disbelief easily, and so had no problem
> with the obvious anti-Blair/Bush theme, for the sake of
> enjoying an excellent movie, as most Polanski films are.
> I didn't much like 'The Ninth Gate' (1999), but that's just
> an exception.
>
> The director has his detractors, though I've never been one
> of them, and it's always a treat when he is seen and heard
> in the extra features of a DVD. He is a real charmer.
Have you seen the Criterion release of Rosemary's Baby yet?
> A fine mystery thriller from Roman Polanski. I do willing
> suspensions of disbelief easily, and so had no problem
> with the obvious anti-Blair/Bush theme, for the sake of
> enjoying an excellent movie, as most Polanski films are.
> I didn't much like 'The Ninth Gate' (1999), but that's just
> an exception.
>
> The director has his detractors, though I've never been one
> of them, and it's always a treat when he is seen and heard
> in the extra features of a DVD. He is a real charmer.
calvin
May 11, 2013, 11:36:49 PM5/11/13
to
least 10 years ago. I take it you're recommending
the DVD extra features? Or maybe a Polanski commentary
track?
Message has been deleted
nick
May 11, 2013, 11:48:29 PM5/11/13
to
of documentary I don't remember from previous DVDs. Especially
interesting, I thought, is the material about William Castle and his
involvement in the production, along with some trivia like how the
producers wanted Redford but got John Cassavetes, the weak link in the
movie according to Polanski and co.
calvin
May 12, 2013, 1:03:26 AM5/12/13
to
On May 11, 11:46 pm, super70s <super...@super70s.invalid> wrote:
> ...
> Coincidentally I watched my copy of Frantic last night. Did I spot the
> director making a cameo as a bellhop at the start of the film, or was
> that a lookalike?
Don't know. All I remember about 'Frantic' was watching the
scene of Harrison Ford in the bathroom, from which he and we
could see his wife in the hotel room, several times, trying to pin
down exactly when and how she made her exit.
> ...
> Coincidentally I watched my copy of Frantic last night. Did I spot the
> director making a cameo as a bellhop at the start of the film, or was
> that a lookalike?
Don't know. All I remember about 'Frantic' was watching the
scene of Harrison Ford in the bathroom, from which he and we
could see his wife in the hotel room, several times, trying to pin
down exactly when and how she made her exit.
trotsky
May 12, 2013, 8:15:31 AM5/12/13
to
On 5/11/13 9:03 PM, calvin wrote:
> Note to readers: The wit in this movie is better than the
> wit in this thread.
I don't believe you're qualified to judge such a thing.
> Note to readers: The wit in this movie is better than the
> wit in this thread.
--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.
calvin
May 12, 2013, 11:29:31 AM5/12/13
to
Undoubtedly one of the great movies of the 1960's.
After all that Polanski had been through, I wonder how he felt
about John Lennon having been killed at the Dakota Hotel. I
mean, if anyone might have had reason to suspect demonic
forces at work in the world, he did, and the circumstances of
the Lennon murder might fit right in.
Sol L. Siegel
May 12, 2013, 12:34:19 PM5/12/13
to
Russell Watson <russell...@comcast.net> wrote in news:kmmm5d$j7e$1
@dont-email.me:
> I enjoyed the novel (despite the anti-Blair/Bush theme you cite, given
> my own Conservative leanings) but have yet to see the movie. I need to
> look it up.
Haven't read the novel, but I loved the movie - deliciously nasty, in
all the right ways. His plays up his own paranoia - to say nothing of
his recurring theme of life as a long journey to a dead end - and pokes
fun at them at the same time.
The picture also underscores why Polanski drives me nuts. He really
should have done his time and had it done with 35 years ago. When he
won the Oscar - which, "artistically", was the right decision that
year - it made me acutely uncomfortable. At the same time, at this
stage of his life, I just want him to keep making movies - even a
bagatelle like "Carnage" will do nicely. So as much as I liked
"The Ghost Writer", I couldn't help squirming, just a little, at
its implication (brought on, at least in part, by the extradition
attempt while the picture was in post-production) that the US
government wants to crush him for doodling a girl half a lifetime
ago while all the time it's been busily screwing entire nations.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
@dont-email.me:
> I enjoyed the novel (despite the anti-Blair/Bush theme you cite, given
> my own Conservative leanings) but have yet to see the movie. I need to
> look it up.
all the right ways. His plays up his own paranoia - to say nothing of
his recurring theme of life as a long journey to a dead end - and pokes
fun at them at the same time.
The picture also underscores why Polanski drives me nuts. He really
should have done his time and had it done with 35 years ago. When he
won the Oscar - which, "artistically", was the right decision that
year - it made me acutely uncomfortable. At the same time, at this
stage of his life, I just want him to keep making movies - even a
bagatelle like "Carnage" will do nicely. So as much as I liked
"The Ghost Writer", I couldn't help squirming, just a little, at
its implication (brought on, at least in part, by the extradition
attempt while the picture was in post-production) that the US
government wants to crush him for doodling a girl half a lifetime
ago while all the time it's been busily screwing entire nations.
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Gil Gamesh
May 12, 2013, 1:30:32 PM5/12/13
to
"Sol L. Siegel" wrote in message
news:XnsA1BE7FE3E70...@130.133.4.11...
>the US government wants to crush him for doodling a girl half a lifetime ago
>while all the time it's been busily screwing entire nations.
liking?
calvin
May 12, 2013, 2:00:34 PM5/12/13
to
On May 12, 1:30 pm, "Gil Gamesh" <gil@gam.> wrote:
> >the US government wants to crush him for doodling a girl half a lifetime ago
> >while all the time it's been busily screwing entire nations.
>
> So, you're OK with child molestation because the government isn't to your
> liking?
People complain about me taking over threads, but
> >the US government wants to crush him for doodling a girl half a lifetime ago
> >while all the time it's been busily screwing entire nations.
>
> So, you're OK with child molestation because the government isn't to your
> liking?
that's what you seem to be doing lately, not just
in this thread. Why must every thread about
Polanski movies turn into an argument about this
issue? The woman (the girl in question grown up)
said publicly years ago that Polanski should be left
alone. There is plenty of evidence that a hostile and
vindictive judge is what left Polanski without any
hope for fairness, so he left the country. The man has
paid enough for what he did, and has the support of
his victim. What more do you want, or are you like
that judge? (Or are you an 'attention whore' like me?)
Message has been deleted
Russell Watson
May 12, 2013, 3:06:19 PM5/12/13
to
a little liberty to places like the Middle East where the "war on women"
isn't just a specious construct of the left but a real thing and where
"tolerance" of any alternative lifestyle or religion is all but
non-existent.
Not one whit of which has an iota to with a very specific criminal case
of statutory rape committed by a very high-profile individual who simply
become that much more of media "darling" as a result of his heinous
"exile", when he was never an American to start with.
calvin
May 12, 2013, 4:08:30 PM5/12/13
to
On May 12, 3:06 pm, Russell Watson <russell-wat...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Yeah, it's what we do. Billions of $$$ in "foreign aid", trying to bring
> a little liberty to places like the Middle East where the "war on women"
> isn't just a specious construct of the left but a real thing and where
> "tolerance" of any alternative lifestyle or religion is all but
> non-existent.
> Not one whit of which has an iota to with a very specific criminal case
> of statutory rape committed by a very high-profile individual who simply
> become that much more of media "darling" as a result of his heinous
> "exile", when he was never an American to start with.
As long as you're here, I wonder if you would care to
> Yeah, it's what we do. Billions of $$$ in "foreign aid", trying to bring
> a little liberty to places like the Middle East where the "war on women"
> isn't just a specious construct of the left but a real thing and where
> "tolerance" of any alternative lifestyle or religion is all but
> non-existent.
> Not one whit of which has an iota to with a very specific criminal case
> of statutory rape committed by a very high-profile individual who simply
> become that much more of media "darling" as a result of his heinous
> "exile", when he was never an American to start with.
respond to this. In a current thread with an obscene
title, a regular poster here asserted this:
"One thing Muslim terrorists and right wingers have in common is
they both want Americans to die to advance their political agenda."
I requested an example of this re. 'right wingers',
but the only response to my request was a URL from
another regular who indicated that he would not
reply to anything I might say:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rationale_for_the_Iraq_War
I haven't followed the link because the title makes it clear
what he has in mind. Any thoughts on this comparison
between Muslim terrorists and 'right wingers'?
Message has been deleted
Russell Watson
May 12, 2013, 5:19:58 PM5/12/13
to
from the left, previously only from basement-dwelling bloggers but more
and more openly espoused by the likes of MSNBC, no. I think it pretty
well speaks for itself. That someone would come up with something like
this in the midst of the Benghazi hearings, which is more of a case of
Americans dying and it being swept under the rug by the left to further
THEIR political agenda (specifically re-electing Obama and protecting
Hilary from any of the stink getting on her)just shows how out of touch
with reality they really are.
I would love to think that they are only speaking to each other with
this sort of drivel, but unfortunately they have a corps of people in
academia who are "teaching" these notions to our youth every day, and
it's bound to stick with some of them.
calvin
May 12, 2013, 5:57:41 PM5/12/13
to
Mack A. Damia
May 12, 2013, 6:29:19 PM5/12/13
to
The only reason the Benghazi affair is front page news is because the
Republicans are desperate to paint Hillary in the poorest light
possible. They are terrified of the 2016 Presidential election,
because from all indications, the election is hers to lose.
Again, the Republicans are manufacturing a crisis in a manner only
they can do. If Benghazi is an issue, then surely the dishonesty and
the nonsense orchestrated by the Republican administration that
entangled us in Iraq are as well.
--
nick
May 12, 2013, 6:53:55 PM5/12/13
to
Harbor and up rises our new security state. Benghazi happens and it's
an excuse for Republicans to start calling for the impeachment of
Obama. The Boston Marathon bombing, a couple of idiot thugs mixing
the worst of school shooters and Islamic terrorist cliches mash-up
style, and Lindsey Graham is on Twitter babbling about depriving
people of their rights as citizens and sending up the drones. While I
didn't much care for Iron Man 3, the "plot twist" and what that plot
twist is satirizing has a point.
nick
May 12, 2013, 7:00:32 PM5/12/13
to
On May 12, 12:34 pm, "Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.com> wrote:
> Russell Watson <russell-wat...@comcast.net> wrote in news:kmmm5d$j7e$1
legacy filmmakers.
As far as his personal shortcomings, Polanski lost his mother in the
Holocaust, his wife was murdered by the Mansons, what he did he did in
the seventies in Hollywood (different times, different social
attitudes), it's so far divorced from any personal frame of reference,
I'll shrug and let it go, since at least he's not a hypocrite. He's
not Ted Nugent dodging the draft in the sixties and turning into a
vicious, nasty red, white and blue patriot in the 21st century.
> Russell Watson <russell-wat...@comcast.net> wrote in news:kmmm5d$j7e$1
> @dont-email.me:
>
> > I enjoyed the novel (despite the anti-Blair/Bush theme you cite, given
> > my own Conservative leanings) but have yet to see the movie. I need to
> > look it up.
>
> Haven't read the novel, but I loved the movie - deliciously nasty, in
> all the right ways. His plays up his own paranoia - to say nothing of
> his recurring theme of life as a long journey to a dead end - and pokes
> fun at them at the same time.
>
Yeah, there was a lightness of touch you don't normally get with
>
> > I enjoyed the novel (despite the anti-Blair/Bush theme you cite, given
> > my own Conservative leanings) but have yet to see the movie. I need to
> > look it up.
>
> Haven't read the novel, but I loved the movie - deliciously nasty, in
> all the right ways. His plays up his own paranoia - to say nothing of
> his recurring theme of life as a long journey to a dead end - and pokes
> fun at them at the same time.
>
legacy filmmakers.
As far as his personal shortcomings, Polanski lost his mother in the
Holocaust, his wife was murdered by the Mansons, what he did he did in
the seventies in Hollywood (different times, different social
attitudes), it's so far divorced from any personal frame of reference,
I'll shrug and let it go, since at least he's not a hypocrite. He's
not Ted Nugent dodging the draft in the sixties and turning into a
vicious, nasty red, white and blue patriot in the 21st century.
nick
May 12, 2013, 7:13:56 PM5/12/13
to
recent viewing (the Criterion disc) I was struck by Polanski's
incredibly skilled, confident direction and Mia Farrow's performance.
Howard Brazee
May 12, 2013, 7:33:33 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 15:29:19 -0700, Mack A. Damia
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The only reason the Benghazi affair is front page news is because the
>Republicans are desperate to paint Hillary in the poorest light
>possible. They are terrified of the 2016 Presidential election,
>because from all indications, the election is hers to lose.
>
>Again, the Republicans are manufacturing a crisis in a manner only
>they can do. If Benghazi is an issue, then surely the dishonesty and
>the nonsense orchestrated by the Republican administration that
>entangled us in Iraq are as well.
If *everything* is a conspiracy that the president has against the
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>The only reason the Benghazi affair is front page news is because the
>Republicans are desperate to paint Hillary in the poorest light
>possible. They are terrified of the 2016 Presidential election,
>because from all indications, the election is hers to lose.
>
>Again, the Republicans are manufacturing a crisis in a manner only
>they can do. If Benghazi is an issue, then surely the dishonesty and
>the nonsense orchestrated by the Republican administration that
>entangled us in Iraq are as well.
U.S., then the vast majority of people stop listening. Oh, it's the
Birthers again.
The big problem the Republican party has in building for the future is
to stop the irrational Right from defining them to everybody else.
--
Anybody who agrees with one side all of the time or disagrees with the
other side all of the time is equally guilty of letting others do
their thinking for them.
Mack A. Damia
May 12, 2013, 7:48:05 PM5/12/13
to
On Sun, 12 May 2013 17:33:33 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 May 2013 15:29:19 -0700, Mack A. Damia
><mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The only reason the Benghazi affair is front page news is because the
>>Republicans are desperate to paint Hillary in the poorest light
>>possible. They are terrified of the 2016 Presidential election,
>>because from all indications, the election is hers to lose.
>>
>>Again, the Republicans are manufacturing a crisis in a manner only
>>they can do. If Benghazi is an issue, then surely the dishonesty and
>>the nonsense orchestrated by the Republican administration that
>>entangled us in Iraq are as well.
>
>If *everything* is a conspiracy that the president has against the
>U.S., then the vast majority of people stop listening. Oh, it's the
>Birthers again.
>
>The big problem the Republican party has in building for the future is
>to stop the irrational Right from defining them to everybody else.
And in that vein, perhaps the Fourth Estate is the "Guardian of
Democracy", after all.
I can only hope.
--
wrote:
>On Sun, 12 May 2013 15:29:19 -0700, Mack A. Damia
><mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>The only reason the Benghazi affair is front page news is because the
>>Republicans are desperate to paint Hillary in the poorest light
>>possible. They are terrified of the 2016 Presidential election,
>>because from all indications, the election is hers to lose.
>>
>>Again, the Republicans are manufacturing a crisis in a manner only
>>they can do. If Benghazi is an issue, then surely the dishonesty and
>>the nonsense orchestrated by the Republican administration that
>>entangled us in Iraq are as well.
>
>If *everything* is a conspiracy that the president has against the
>U.S., then the vast majority of people stop listening. Oh, it's the
>Birthers again.
>
>The big problem the Republican party has in building for the future is
>to stop the irrational Right from defining them to everybody else.
Democracy", after all.
I can only hope.
--
calvin
May 12, 2013, 8:19:18 PM5/12/13
to
be no significant 'building for the future' (as Mr. B says above)
for the Republicans, as conservatives.. All we can do for a
while longer is report, investigate, and comment. Once you
have us all cut off and shut up it will be smooth sailing for
your agenda, at least internally. Externally, you still have Islam
to contend with. That's where maybe you should be concentrating
your hope.
Mack A. Damia
May 12, 2013, 8:28:48 PM5/12/13
to
always thought in terms of "us and them", but, in fact, we are "one
nation under God indivisible", and when the conservatives begin
thinking along those terms, we might begin to solve many of the deep
issues presently dividing this nation.
--
calvin
May 12, 2013, 9:04:27 PM5/12/13
to
and replace one conservative on the Supreme Court, it will be
child's play to shut down FOX News and conservative talk radio,
and declare the Tea Party, the NRA, and other conservative
organizations to be 'treasonous hate groups'. Then it will be
"one nation under Hillary indivisible".
Gil Gamesh
May 12, 2013, 10:05:43 PM5/12/13
to
"calvin" wrote in message
news:4a3757c8-1b77-4557...@r3g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>We won't be divided much longer. Once you take back the House
and replace one conservative on the Supreme Court, it will be
child's play to shut down FOX News and conservative talk radio,
and declare the Tea Party, the NRA, and other conservative
organizations to be 'treasonous hate groups'. Then it will be
"one nation under Hillary indivisible".
Gee you're bat shit crazy!
and replace one conservative on the Supreme Court, it will be
child's play to shut down FOX News and conservative talk radio,
and declare the Tea Party, the NRA, and other conservative
organizations to be 'treasonous hate groups'. Then it will be
"one nation under Hillary indivisible".
Sol L. Siegel
May 12, 2013, 11:00:09 PM5/12/13
to
"Gil Gamesh" <gil@gam.> wrote in news:PkQjt.1820$gO1....@newsfe16.iad:
>>the US government wants to crush him for doodling a girl half a
> lifetime ago
>>while all the time it's been busily screwing entire nations.
>
> So, you're OK with child molestation because the government isn't to
> your liking?
>
If you had actually read my post, you would have understood that I was
paraphrasing what I believed to be *his* viewpoint.
In fact, the only reason I'm responding to you is (paradoxically) to
make it plain that I do not consider you worth responding to.
>>the US government wants to crush him for doodling a girl half a
> lifetime ago
>>while all the time it's been busily screwing entire nations.
>
> So, you're OK with child molestation because the government isn't to
> your liking?
>
paraphrasing what I believed to be *his* viewpoint.
In fact, the only reason I'm responding to you is (paradoxically) to
make it plain that I do not consider you worth responding to.
Gil Gamesh
May 13, 2013, 7:10:49 AM5/13/13
to
"Sol L. Siegel" wrote in message
>In fact, the only reason I'm responding to you is (paradoxically) to make it
>plain that I do not consider you worth responding to.
Well thank you so much Milord Sol.
>plain that I do not consider you worth responding to.
moviePig
May 13, 2013, 9:21:51 AM5/13/13
to
On May 12, 11:00 pm, "Sol L. Siegel" <vod...@aol.com> wrote:
> "Gil Gamesh" <gil@gam.> wrote innews:PkQjt.1820$gO1....@newsfe16.iad:
> ...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
> "Gil Gamesh" <gil@gam.> wrote innews:PkQjt.1820$gO1....@newsfe16.iad:
> ...
> In fact, the only reason I'm responding to you is (paradoxically) to
> make it plain that I do not consider you worth responding to.
I.e., "This page intentionally left blank."
> make it plain that I do not consider you worth responding to.
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Russell Watson
May 13, 2013, 1:37:12 PM5/13/13
to
between laughing or crying one's self to death. The sort of venomous
hatred for anything "conservative" or even remotely traditionally
"American" by almost anyone more than 3-degrees left of center is
unheard of on the right from all but the most extreme fringe groups, and
we don't subscribe to their views any more than we do yours. The claim
that trying to get to bottom of what happened in Benghazi is nothing
more than political maneuvering by the GOP is redolent of the same
stench that covered Hilary's claim of a "vast right-wing conspiracy"
regarding Bill's Oval Office trysts with Monica... until he finally
admitted it AFTER committing perjury. The difference is that the only
thing that died in THAT scandal was a few of Bill's sperm cells, and the
poor custodian at the Sudanese aspirin factory he had bombed as
wag-the-dog distraction move. Sadly, that was about the only nod to
taking Al Qaeda seriously in his entire 2 terms, despite the original
WTC bombing attempt, a couple of embassy bombings and the USS Cole
attack in Yemen.
moviePig
May 13, 2013, 1:52:25 PM5/13/13
to
bugle pursuit of Clinton's blowjob *wasn't* 'political maneuvering by
the GOP'?
Mack A. Damia
May 13, 2013, 2:08:47 PM5/13/13
to
millions of dollars wasted on investigations and an impeachment
proceeding, and guess what? Bill Clinton is one of the most respected
statesmen in the world.
By the way, Bill was acquitted of the perjury charge. If you don't
understand that, it means he was found not guilty of all charges.
Don't you dare say that it was a political acquittal by the Senate, or
you will wind up with egg on your face.
The conservative- right wing is willing to stoop to any lengths to
discredit a liberal Democratic president; that much is obvious. All
one needs to do is listen to Faux Snooze for ten minutes and be
thoroughly nauseated with their grade-school tactics.
It's absolutely true what has been said by the president and others.
For example, if there was IRS misconduct (under a Republican
administrator, too) then there will be an accountability. The
president - Republican or Democrat - cannot be expected to personally
supervise the tens of thousands of government workers; this is why he
"delegates" - and the former president had delegated this
responsibility to a Republican, too. Also, Presidetn Obama delegated
matters of state to Hillary Clinton, and.......
"Thomas Pickering: Benghazi Call Did Not Come From Hillary Clinton"
http://brycedewitt.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18214725-thomas-pickering-benghazi-call-did-not-come-from-hillary-clinton
You don't need anymore evidence to stop your witch hunt againt Obama
and Hillary. Your motives are transparent and crystal clear.
--
calvin
May 13, 2013, 5:30:01 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 1:52 pm, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> So, the call-to-hounds that was our national, full-regalia, twenty-one
> bugle pursuit of Clinton's blowjob *wasn't* 'political maneuvering by
> the GOP'?
The controversial assertion was:
> So, the call-to-hounds that was our national, full-regalia, twenty-one
> bugle pursuit of Clinton's blowjob *wasn't* 'political maneuvering by
> the GOP'?
"One thing Muslim terrorists and right wingers have in common is
they both want Americans to die to advance their political agenda."
Talk about a 'thread quagmire'.
I think you're going to find, as Islamic influence gains traction
in the U.S., that Muslims are going to be a lot less forgiving
of Presidential blow jobs in the Oval Office than right wingers.
Russell Watson
May 13, 2013, 5:32:35 PM5/13/13
to
and political (due to the leverage that could be brought to bear against
an elected official by using it, i.e. the "Profumo Affair" in Britain)
concern.
If conservatives are "guilty" of anything in this case it is nothing so
much as not always recognizing that to much of the American public and
the world at large the moral pendulum has swung to where it no longer
does matter, and treating it accordingly. Of course you have to be a
moral relativist to be willing to do that and some people still have
traditional principles to contend with.
Russell Watson
May 13, 2013, 5:46:32 PM5/13/13
to
nominal fellow human beings.
>
> By the way, Bill was acquitted of the perjury charge. If you don't
> understand that, it means he was found not guilty of all charges.
> Don't you dare say that it was a political acquittal by the Senate, or
> you will wind up with egg on your face.
tell the truth), but he was acquitted anyway. Like Perot said, "There's
a feller over here with a knot on his head and one over there with a
rock in his hand: you figger it out!"
>
> The conservative- right wing is willing to stoop to any lengths to
> discredit a liberal Democratic president; that much is obvious. All
> one needs to do is listen to Faux Snooze for ten minutes and be
> thoroughly nauseated with their grade-school tactics.
Good God: it's even worse than I thought. When is the Mothership coming
for you weird bastards?
>
> It's absolutely true what has been said by the president and others.
> For example, if there was IRS misconduct (under a Republican
> administrator, too) then there will be an accountability. The
> president - Republican or Democrat - cannot be expected to personally
> supervise the tens of thousands of government workers; this is why he
> "delegates" - and the former president had delegated this
> responsibility to a Republican, too. Also, Presidetn Obama delegated
> matters of state to Hillary Clinton, and.......
>
> "Thomas Pickering: Benghazi Call Did Not Come From Hillary Clinton"
>
> http://brycedewitt.newsvine.com/_news/2013/05/12/18214725-thomas-pickering-benghazi-call-did-not-come-from-hillary-clinton
>
> You don't need anymore evidence to stop your witch hunt againt Obama
> and Hillary. Your motives are transparent and crystal clear.
>
Clinton's "You'll have to talk to Janet Reno about Waco". After Enron
the Federal Government passed Sarbannes-Oxley so that CEOs couldn't
point at CFOs and claim they had no idea their company was going tits
up, but it doesn't apply to the Government itself. Hey, an American
Embassy in a Middle eastern hot spot was under attack on the anniversary
of 9/11, but it was too small for us, so we had some some low-level
people looking at that while Obama went to get his beauty rest for the
next day's campaign stop in Vegas (you know: the place he derided
corporations for having their conventions) and Hilary took to her sick
bed with a stomach virus that led to a faint that led to a blood clot in
the head that was followed by a trip out of the country that had been
scheduled for months.
Thanks for helping my diet: I certainly have no appetite after reading
your BS.
moviePig
May 13, 2013, 6:20:46 PM5/13/13
to
today's. But all I'm deploring here is anyone's claim that morality
trumps politics even a tenth as often as the card is played. And, in
this context, I specifically cite the GOP breast-beating over Monica's
lip service ...a sanctimonious "outrage" exemplifying a still-
prevalent hypocrisy and demagoguery far more disturbing than any
Presidential peccadilloes ever.
( http://tinyurl.com/bwfhtf8 )
( http://news.discovery.com/history/us-history/presidential-mistresses-history-politics-120208.htm
)
Mack A. Damia
May 13, 2013, 6:45:32 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:46:32 -0400, Russell Watson
It says this sexual indiscretions are not important in the grand
scheme of governing the most powerful nation in the history of the
world; such dalliances have been going on in politics and government
since Eve tempted Adam, and for the Republicans to suddenly take an
holier than thou "wide stance" on Clinton has to be the depths of
hypocrisy.
>> By the way, Bill was acquitted of the perjury charge. If you don't
>> understand that, it means he was found not guilty of all charges.
>> Don't you dare say that it was a political acquittal by the Senate, or
>> you will wind up with egg on your face.
>
>How so? He lied, everyone knows it (because he was eventually forced to
>tell the truth), but he was acquitted anyway. Like Perot said, "There's
>a feller over here with a knot on his head and one over there with a
>rock in his hand: you figger it out!"
Ross Perot? Living proof that money will buy anything - even the
respect of ignorant people. That he endorsed Mitty is enough to cast
doubt on his political acumen.
>> The conservative- right wing is willing to stoop to any lengths to
>> discredit a liberal Democratic president; that much is obvious. All
>> one needs to do is listen to Faux Snooze for ten minutes and be
>> thoroughly nauseated with their grade-school tactics.
>
>With MSNBC as the flagship of leftist lunacy you can still type that?
>Good God: it's even worse than I thought. When is the Mothership coming
>for you weird bastards?
Oh, the entire mainstream media is one big liberal conspiracy. We've
heard it all before, and it's too ancient and worn-out to be taken
seriously.
Try blaming Koresh for Waco. The powers-that-be, regardless of
persuasion, are willing to sacrifice anything - including their own -
to keep themselves in power. Don't you realize this yet?
>Thanks for helping my diet: I certainly have no appetite after reading
>your BS.
No wonder. It was elephant shit.
--
scheme of governing the most powerful nation in the history of the
world; such dalliances have been going on in politics and government
since Eve tempted Adam, and for the Republicans to suddenly take an
holier than thou "wide stance" on Clinton has to be the depths of
hypocrisy.
>> By the way, Bill was acquitted of the perjury charge. If you don't
>> understand that, it means he was found not guilty of all charges.
>> Don't you dare say that it was a political acquittal by the Senate, or
>> you will wind up with egg on your face.
>
>How so? He lied, everyone knows it (because he was eventually forced to
>tell the truth), but he was acquitted anyway. Like Perot said, "There's
>a feller over here with a knot on his head and one over there with a
>rock in his hand: you figger it out!"
respect of ignorant people. That he endorsed Mitty is enough to cast
doubt on his political acumen.
>> The conservative- right wing is willing to stoop to any lengths to
>> discredit a liberal Democratic president; that much is obvious. All
>> one needs to do is listen to Faux Snooze for ten minutes and be
>> thoroughly nauseated with their grade-school tactics.
>
>With MSNBC as the flagship of leftist lunacy you can still type that?
>Good God: it's even worse than I thought. When is the Mothership coming
>for you weird bastards?
heard it all before, and it's too ancient and worn-out to be taken
seriously.
persuasion, are willing to sacrifice anything - including their own -
to keep themselves in power. Don't you realize this yet?
>Thanks for helping my diet: I certainly have no appetite after reading
>your BS.
--
calvin
May 13, 2013, 7:09:39 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 6:45 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> ...
What does Bill say to Hillary after sex?
"I'll be home in 30 minutes."
That was my favorite joke about Bill's running
around, years before Monica. Everybody knew
about Bill's infidelity since his time as Governor.
Nobody cared much. It was just a subject for
workplace and late-night jokes.
It became serious for some people when Bill
was doing stuff with a White House intern in the
Oval Office. There were two things wrong with
it: (1) disrespect for the Presidential Office
and (2) the top man having sex with a low-level
employee.
Feminists had been making a big thing about
businessmen abusing low-level employees
that way, but had no problem with it when the
top man was a Democrat President. Talk about
hypocrisy.
The left continues to claim that the right was
outraged over a few blowjobs. No, it was (1)
and (2) above that were upsetting.
> ...
> It says this sexual indiscretions are not important in the grand
> scheme of governing the most powerful nation in the history of the
> world; such dalliances have been going on in politics and government
> since Eve tempted Adam, and for the Republicans to suddenly take an
> holier than thou "wide stance" on Clinton has to be the depths of
> hypocrisy.
> ...
> scheme of governing the most powerful nation in the history of the
> world; such dalliances have been going on in politics and government
> since Eve tempted Adam, and for the Republicans to suddenly take an
> holier than thou "wide stance" on Clinton has to be the depths of
> hypocrisy.
What does Bill say to Hillary after sex?
"I'll be home in 30 minutes."
That was my favorite joke about Bill's running
around, years before Monica. Everybody knew
about Bill's infidelity since his time as Governor.
Nobody cared much. It was just a subject for
workplace and late-night jokes.
It became serious for some people when Bill
was doing stuff with a White House intern in the
Oval Office. There were two things wrong with
it: (1) disrespect for the Presidential Office
and (2) the top man having sex with a low-level
employee.
Feminists had been making a big thing about
businessmen abusing low-level employees
that way, but had no problem with it when the
top man was a Democrat President. Talk about
hypocrisy.
The left continues to claim that the right was
outraged over a few blowjobs. No, it was (1)
and (2) above that were upsetting.
Russell Watson
May 13, 2013, 7:16:32 PM5/13/13
to
compound at exactly the same time every day and made the exact same
rounds of post office and coffee shop, but couldn't be picked up on the
street but required a full frontal assault with tanks and shit to nab?
Not to mention the 0400 full body armor and automatic weapons
"take-down" of Elian Gonzalez' aunt and uncle's house.
>
>> Thanks for helping my diet: I certainly have no appetite after reading
>> your BS.
>
> No wonder. It was elephant shit.
record that I have been a registered Democrat since 1980 when i changed
my affiliation from the original Independent in order to vote AGAINST
Teddy Kennedy when he challenged Carter for the nomination. Also,
because I live in the South a lot of local elections didn't even have a
Republican in the race so I had to register as a Dem because it's a
closed primary state so the "primary" was often the actual election back
then. I don't vote party, I vote ideology, just happens that the
elephants are usually a little closer to what I'm for than the donkeys
are, though not as much so as they would be if the Tea Party could run
the RINOs out.
Mack A. Damia
May 13, 2013, 8:16:14 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:16:32 -0400, Russell Watson
Let's just consider just how "righteous" conservatives really are.
They just voted an admitted liar and adulterer back into office in
South Carolina. When it's their guy, let's ignore the nature of his
character and sweep the dirt under the carpet, but when it's the other
party's guy........well, how dare the scumbag!
--
They just voted an admitted liar and adulterer back into office in
South Carolina. When it's their guy, let's ignore the nature of his
character and sweep the dirt under the carpet, but when it's the other
party's guy........well, how dare the scumbag!
--
calvin
May 13, 2013, 8:35:44 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 8:16 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Let's just consider just how "righteous" conservatives really are.
> They just voted an admitted liar and adulterer back into office in
> South Carolina. When it's their guy, let's ignore the nature of his
> character and sweep the dirt under the carpet, but when it's the other
> party's guy........well, how dare the scumbag!
Each party forgives its own sexual scumbags and
> Let's just consider just how "righteous" conservatives really are.
> They just voted an admitted liar and adulterer back into office in
> South Carolina. When it's their guy, let's ignore the nature of his
> character and sweep the dirt under the carpet, but when it's the other
> party's guy........well, how dare the scumbag!
despises those of the other party. These charges
and counter-charges of hypocrisy cancel each
other out, and I'm being generous in saying that
since your side has had Teddy, Bill, and Barney to
explain and forgive.
Mack A. Damia
May 13, 2013, 9:02:27 PM5/13/13
to
It's the "holier than thou" hypocrisy of the right-wing that turns
many a stomach.
--
Tom
May 13, 2013, 9:10:06 PM5/13/13
to
of Buz Lukens.
Tom
Howard Brazee
May 13, 2013, 9:59:50 PM5/13/13
to
important to it.
A better example is when leftist politicians are caught in the pocket
of Big Business and still are reelected.
calvin
May 13, 2013, 9:59:46 PM5/13/13
to
you're not. Instead I'll have to say you must be blind,
deaf, and dumb. 'Holier than thou' is what we get
from the left with every breath you take. You're holier
because you care more about the poor, you care more
about the gay, you care more about the illegal immigrants,
you care more about women's right to choose, you care
more about the environment, more about endangered
species, more about gun violence. We get this from
the left 24 by 7. You care more about the hell of war,
more about loving and sharing, more about global warming,
more about the homeless and jobless; more about minorities,
and more about Muslims
There is no facet of life that the left are not sanctimonious
about, except perhaps sexual activity. But even there
you're holier in your advocacy of dangerous practices
and non-reversible alternatives.
What turns my stomach more than any of that is the
arrogance of the left's self-righteousness in wanting to
bring down the high achievers by over-regulation and
redistribution, and reward low achievers with outrageous
handouts for life, because they say they care about need,
not greed, when what they really care about is votes.
'Holier than thou', you call us? Open your eyes and look
in a mirror.
Bastette
May 13, 2013, 10:02:51 PM5/13/13
to
Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>Each party forgives its own sexual scumbags and
>>despises those of the other party. These charges
>>and counter-charges of hypocrisy cancel each
>>other out, and I'm being generous in saying that
>>since your side has had Teddy, Bill, and Barney to
>>explain and forgive.
> The left isn't as hypocritical about this value which isn't as
> important to it.
I agree - sexual morality has always been a far bigger issue for
conservatives than for liberals.
> A better example is when leftist politicians are caught in the pocket
> of Big Business and still are reelected.
Or simply "caught in the pocket of Big Business" - regardless of whether
they're reelected.
If you want to point fingers at liberal/left self-righteousness and
hypocrisy, sexual behavior is not the best place to look.
Bastette
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>Each party forgives its own sexual scumbags and
>>despises those of the other party. These charges
>>and counter-charges of hypocrisy cancel each
>>other out, and I'm being generous in saying that
>>since your side has had Teddy, Bill, and Barney to
>>explain and forgive.
> The left isn't as hypocritical about this value which isn't as
> important to it.
conservatives than for liberals.
> A better example is when leftist politicians are caught in the pocket
> of Big Business and still are reelected.
they're reelected.
If you want to point fingers at liberal/left self-righteousness and
hypocrisy, sexual behavior is not the best place to look.
Bastette
Mack A. Damia
May 13, 2013, 10:11:23 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:59:46 -0700 (PDT), calvin
Hey Calvin! I really don't care about the poor, the gay, illegal
immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
Whatever it takes, laddie.
Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
--
immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
Whatever it takes, laddie.
Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
--
Mack A. Damia
May 13, 2013, 10:14:43 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:59:50 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:35:44 -0700 (PDT), calvin
><cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>>On May 13, 8:16�pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Let's just consider just how "righteous" conservatives really are.
>>> They just voted an admitted liar and adulterer back into office in
>>> South Carolina. �When it's their guy, let's ignore the nature of his
>>> character and sweep the dirt under the carpet, but when it's the other
>>> party's guy........well, how dare the scumbag!
>>
>>Each party forgives its own sexual scumbags and
>>despises those of the other party. These charges
>>and counter-charges of hypocrisy cancel each
>>other out, and I'm being generous in saying that
>>since your side has had Teddy, Bill, and Barney to
>>explain and forgive.
>
>The left isn't as hypocritical about this value which isn't as
>important to it.
>
>A better example is when leftist politicians are caught in the pocket
>of Big Business and still are reelected.
...........he proclaims, as the nation officially distances itself
from money in politics with the Republican-led Citizens United
decision.
--
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 17:35:44 -0700 (PDT), calvin
><cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>>On May 13, 8:16�pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> Let's just consider just how "righteous" conservatives really are.
>>> They just voted an admitted liar and adulterer back into office in
>>> South Carolina. �When it's their guy, let's ignore the nature of his
>>> character and sweep the dirt under the carpet, but when it's the other
>>> party's guy........well, how dare the scumbag!
>>
>>Each party forgives its own sexual scumbags and
>>despises those of the other party. These charges
>>and counter-charges of hypocrisy cancel each
>>other out, and I'm being generous in saying that
>>since your side has had Teddy, Bill, and Barney to
>>explain and forgive.
>
>The left isn't as hypocritical about this value which isn't as
>important to it.
>
>A better example is when leftist politicians are caught in the pocket
>of Big Business and still are reelected.
from money in politics with the Republican-led Citizens United
decision.
--
Howard Brazee
May 13, 2013, 10:28:13 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:11:23 -0700, Mack A. Damia
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>'Holier than thou', you call us? Open your eyes and look
>>in a mirror.
>
>Hey Calvin! I really don't care about the poor, the gay, illegal
>immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
>violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
>
>What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
>
>Whatever it takes, laddie.
>
>Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>'Holier than thou', you call us? Open your eyes and look
>>in a mirror.
>
>Hey Calvin! I really don't care about the poor, the gay, illegal
>immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
>violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
>
>What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
>
>Whatever it takes, laddie.
>
>Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
important.
Howard Brazee
May 13, 2013, 10:30:05 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:14:43 -0700, Mack A. Damia
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>A better example is when leftist politicians are caught in the pocket
>>of Big Business and still are reelected.
>
>...........he proclaims, as the nation officially distances itself
>from money in politics with the Republican-led Citizens United
>decision.
Huh? It embraces money in politics with that decision. Democrats
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>A better example is when leftist politicians are caught in the pocket
>>of Big Business and still are reelected.
>
>...........he proclaims, as the nation officially distances itself
>from money in politics with the Republican-led Citizens United
>decision.
are for sale as well as Republicans.
calvin
May 13, 2013, 10:29:51 PM5/13/13
to
you of caring. I was pointing out the 'holier than thou'
attitude of the left in its presumption that you care more
than the right about all of those things. And your
self-righteous retort further illustrates my point, lassie.
Mack A. Damia
May 13, 2013, 10:33:47 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:28:13 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:11:23 -0700, Mack A. Damia
><mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>'Holier than thou', you call us? Open your eyes and look
>>>in a mirror.
>>
>>Hey Calvin! I really don't care about the poor, the gay, illegal
>>immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
>>violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
>>
>>What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
>>
>>Whatever it takes, laddie.
>>
>>Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
>
>At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
>important.
"Though I speak with the tongues of men and of angels, and have not
charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."
- 1 Corinthians 13:1
--
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:11:23 -0700, Mack A. Damia
><mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>'Holier than thou', you call us? Open your eyes and look
>>>in a mirror.
>>
>>Hey Calvin! I really don't care about the poor, the gay, illegal
>>immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
>>violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
>>
>>What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
>>
>>Whatever it takes, laddie.
>>
>>Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
>
>At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
>important.
charity, I am become as sounding brass, or a tinkling cymbal."
- 1 Corinthians 13:1
--
Mack A. Damia
May 13, 2013, 10:34:33 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:30:05 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:14:43 -0700, Mack A. Damia
><mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>A better example is when leftist politicians are caught in the pocket
>>>of Big Business and still are reelected.
>>
>>...........he proclaims, as the nation officially distances itself
>>from money in politics with the Republican-led Citizens United
>>decision.
>
>Huh? It embraces money in politics with that decision. Democrats
>are for sale as well as Republicans.
Well said.
--
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:14:43 -0700, Mack A. Damia
><mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>>A better example is when leftist politicians are caught in the pocket
>>>of Big Business and still are reelected.
>>
>>...........he proclaims, as the nation officially distances itself
>>from money in politics with the Republican-led Citizens United
>>decision.
>
>Huh? It embraces money in politics with that decision. Democrats
>are for sale as well as Republicans.
--
Mack A. Damia
May 13, 2013, 10:38:36 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:29:51 -0700 (PDT), calvin
<*woof*>
The Congressional Record speaks for itself regarding the plight of and
the assistance for those who are suffering.
--
The Congressional Record speaks for itself regarding the plight of and
the assistance for those who are suffering.
--
calvin
May 13, 2013, 10:43:31 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 10:28 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:11:23 -0700, Mack A. Damia
> <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>'Holier than thou', you call us? Open your eyes and look
> >>in a mirror.
>
> >Hey Calvin! I really don't care about the poor, the gay, illegal
> >immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
> >violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
>
> >What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
>
> >Whatever it takes, laddie.
>
> >Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
>
> At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
> important.
You missed my point, too, apparently. There's nothing
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:11:23 -0700, Mack A. Damia
> <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>'Holier than thou', you call us? Open your eyes and look
> >>in a mirror.
>
> >Hey Calvin! I really don't care about the poor, the gay, illegal
> >immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
> >violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
>
> >What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
>
> >Whatever it takes, laddie.
>
> >Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
>
> At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
> important.
wrong with caring. It's posing as the only one who cares
that is the left's never-ending presentation of itself vs. the
right. The left sneers and condescends its holier than thou
presumption day and night on every issue, and then has the
nerve to say that they are irked by the right's embrace of
traditional values while a few on the right don't live up to it.
calvin
May 13, 2013, 10:54:59 PM5/13/13
to
On May 13, 10:38 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:29:51 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >On May 13, 10:11 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:59:46 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> >> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> > ...
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:29:51 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >On May 13, 10:11 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 18:59:46 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> >> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> >'Holier than thou', you call us? Open your eyes and look
> >> >in a mirror.
>
> >> Hey Calvin! I really don't care about the poor, the gay, illegal
> >> immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
> >> violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
>
> >> What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
>
> >> Whatever it takes, laddie.
>
> >> Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
>
> >You seem to have missed my point. I wasn't accusing
> >you of caring. I was pointing out the 'holier than thou'
> >attitude of the left in its presumption that you care more
> >than the right about all of those things. And your
> >self-righteous retort further illustrates my point, lassie.
>
> <*woof*>
>
> The Congressional Record speaks for itself regarding the plight of and
> the assistance for those who are suffering.
You want government to be mommy. I'd prefer that
> >> >in a mirror.
>
> >> Hey Calvin! I really don't care about the poor, the gay, illegal
> >> immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
> >> violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
>
> >> What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
>
> >> Whatever it takes, laddie.
>
> >> Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
>
> >You seem to have missed my point. I wasn't accusing
> >you of caring. I was pointing out the 'holier than thou'
> >attitude of the left in its presumption that you care more
> >than the right about all of those things. And your
> >self-righteous retort further illustrates my point, lassie.
>
> <*woof*>
>
> The Congressional Record speaks for itself regarding the plight of and
> the assistance for those who are suffering.
government not be a parent, but if it has to be one,
then let it be daddy.
Mack A. Damia
May 13, 2013, 11:14:50 PM5/13/13
to
of things; liberals tend to eschew religion, especially Fundamentalism
with its magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
If you mean, "better-than-you", well, then, I don't see it. Liberals
'think' while conservatives 'feel'. The liberal mode tends to be
intellectual while the conservative mode tends to be somatic in
nature. Conservatives "feel" their holiness, while liberals know
better.
--
Mack A. Damia
May 13, 2013, 11:15:51 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:54:59 -0700 (PDT), calvin
I vote for a rich and generous Uncle Sam.
--
--
Howard Brazee
May 13, 2013, 11:24:08 PM5/13/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:14:50 -0700, Mack A. Damia
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>You seem to be confused. It is the right that espouses the holy order
>of things; liberals tend to eschew religion, especially Fundamentalism
>with its magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
>
>If you mean, "better-than-you", well, then, I don't see it. Liberals
>'think' while conservatives 'feel'. The liberal mode tends to be
>intellectual while the conservative mode tends to be somatic in
>nature. Conservatives "feel" their holiness, while liberals know
>better.
It depends upon the liberal. There are *lots* of liberals who are
<mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>You seem to be confused. It is the right that espouses the holy order
>of things; liberals tend to eschew religion, especially Fundamentalism
>with its magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
>
>If you mean, "better-than-you", well, then, I don't see it. Liberals
>'think' while conservatives 'feel'. The liberal mode tends to be
>intellectual while the conservative mode tends to be somatic in
>nature. Conservatives "feel" their holiness, while liberals know
>better.
strong Christians, with values that Jesus Christ demonstrated.
Note, that Jesus Christ wasn't big on self-righteous churchmen, and
told us how hard it is for rich men to be saved, but he was big on
charity and inclusiveness.
Mack A. Damia
May 14, 2013, 12:18:23 AM5/14/13
to
On Mon, 13 May 2013 21:24:08 -0600, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net>
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:14:50 -0700, Mack A. Damia
><mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You seem to be confused. It is the right that espouses the holy order
>>of things; liberals tend to eschew religion, especially Fundamentalism
>>with its magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
>>
>>If you mean, "better-than-you", well, then, I don't see it. Liberals
>>'think' while conservatives 'feel'. The liberal mode tends to be
>>intellectual while the conservative mode tends to be somatic in
>>nature. Conservatives "feel" their holiness, while liberals know
>>better.
>
>It depends upon the liberal. There are *lots* of liberals who are
>strong Christians, with values that Jesus Christ demonstrated.
Of course. You will find many of them in the Unitarian Universalist
Church, characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and
meaning". Some don't think Christ was the Son of God while many
believe that we are all the Children of God.
>Note, that Jesus Christ wasn't big on self-righteous churchmen, and
>told us how hard it is for rich men to be saved, but he was big on
>charity and inclusiveness.
"It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for
a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Matthew (19:24). Methinks
the secret to the cryptic passage is not to die a "rich man"; that is,
to use your wealth in this life to alleviate suffering.
--
wrote:
>On Mon, 13 May 2013 20:14:50 -0700, Mack A. Damia
><mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>You seem to be confused. It is the right that espouses the holy order
>>of things; liberals tend to eschew religion, especially Fundamentalism
>>with its magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
>>
>>If you mean, "better-than-you", well, then, I don't see it. Liberals
>>'think' while conservatives 'feel'. The liberal mode tends to be
>>intellectual while the conservative mode tends to be somatic in
>>nature. Conservatives "feel" their holiness, while liberals know
>>better.
>
>It depends upon the liberal. There are *lots* of liberals who are
>strong Christians, with values that Jesus Christ demonstrated.
Church, characterized by a "free and responsible search for truth and
meaning". Some don't think Christ was the Son of God while many
believe that we are all the Children of God.
>Note, that Jesus Christ wasn't big on self-righteous churchmen, and
>told us how hard it is for rich men to be saved, but he was big on
>charity and inclusiveness.
a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Matthew (19:24). Methinks
the secret to the cryptic passage is not to die a "rich man"; that is,
to use your wealth in this life to alleviate suffering.
--
calvin
May 14, 2013, 1:15:39 AM5/14/13
to
On May 13, 11:15 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:54:59 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:54:59 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> >You want government to be mommy. I'd prefer that
> >government not be a parent, but if it has to be one,
> >then let it be daddy.
>
> I vote for a rich and generous Uncle Sam.
I vote for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
> >government not be a parent, but if it has to be one,
> >then let it be daddy.
>
> I vote for a rich and generous Uncle Sam.
calvin
May 14, 2013, 1:51:44 AM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 1:15 am, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> I vote for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Oops. Now I'll be targeted by the IRS.
> I vote for life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
Mack A. Damia
May 14, 2013, 2:04:21 AM5/14/13
to
you will find the experience very taxing.
--
trotsky
May 14, 2013, 6:59:35 AM5/14/13
to
condemnation that John Edwards got? Take as much time as you need.
--
Never post something on the internet unless you have a point of
reference. You will look like a moron otherwise.
trotsky
May 14, 2013, 7:02:13 AM5/14/13
to
On 5/13/13 9:29 PM, calvin wrote:
> You seem to have missed my point. I wasn't accusing
> you of caring. I was pointing out the 'holier than thou'
> attitude of the left in its presumption that you care more
> than the right about all of those things. And your
> self-righteous retort further illustrates my point, lassie.
I seem to have missed your point, too. Your reference to a "holier than
> You seem to have missed my point. I wasn't accusing
> you of caring. I was pointing out the 'holier than thou'
> attitude of the left in its presumption that you care more
> than the right about all of those things. And your
> self-righteous retort further illustrates my point, lassie.
thou" attitude is really a "holier than trash" attitude. LOL.
trotsky
May 14, 2013, 7:03:08 AM5/14/13
to
On 5/13/13 9:43 PM, calvin wrote:
> On May 13, 10:28 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:11:23 -0700, Mack A. Damia
>> <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 'Holier than thou', you call us? Open your eyes and look
>>>> in a mirror.
>>
>>> Hey Calvin! I really don't care about the poor, the gay, illegal
>>> immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
>>> violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
>>
>>> What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
>>
>>> Whatever it takes, laddie.
>>
>>> Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
>>
>> At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
>> important.
>
> You missed my point, too, apparently.
Have you considered the fact that your "point" might be too microscopic
> On May 13, 10:28 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:11:23 -0700, Mack A. Damia
>> <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> 'Holier than thou', you call us? Open your eyes and look
>>>> in a mirror.
>>
>>> Hey Calvin! I really don't care about the poor, the gay, illegal
>>> immigrants, right to choose, environment, endangered species, gun
>>> violence, global warming, joblessness, or whatever.
>>
>>> What I care about is "SUFFERING". Even more, "NEEDLESS SUFFERING".
>>
>>> Whatever it takes, laddie.
>>
>>> Try caring for a change and put away your sanctimonious indignation.
>>
>> At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
>> important.
>
> You missed my point, too, apparently.
to be identified?
trotsky
May 14, 2013, 7:05:10 AM5/14/13
to
Gil Gamesh
May 14, 2013, 8:16:46 AM5/14/13
to
"Mack A. Damia" wrote in message
news:pea3p8pla900vcfma...@4ax.com...
>You seem to be confused. It is the right that espouses the holy order of
>things; liberals tend to eschew religion, especially Fundamentalism with its
>magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
>If you mean, "better-than-you", well, then, I don't see it. Liberals 'think'
>while conservatives 'feel'. The liberal mode tends to be intellectual while
>the conservative mode tends to be somatic in nature. Conservatives "feel"
>their holiness, while liberals know better.
calvin
May 14, 2013, 9:29:35 AM5/14/13
to
On May 13, 11:14 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:43:31 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >On May 13, 10:28 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
> >> important.
>
> >You missed my point, too, apparently. There's nothing
> >wrong with caring. It's posing as the only one who cares
> >that is the left's never-ending presentation of itself vs. the
> >right. The left sneers and condescends its holier than thou
> >presumption day and night on every issue, and then has the
> >nerve to say that they are irked by the right's embrace of
> >traditional values while a few on the right don't live up to it.
>
> You seem to be confused. It is the right that espouses the holy order
> of things; liberals tend to eschew religion, especially Fundamentalism
> with its magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
The term, 'holier than thou' is not restricted to
> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:43:31 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >On May 13, 10:28 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
> >> important.
>
> >You missed my point, too, apparently. There's nothing
> >wrong with caring. It's posing as the only one who cares
> >that is the left's never-ending presentation of itself vs. the
> >right. The left sneers and condescends its holier than thou
> >presumption day and night on every issue, and then has the
> >nerve to say that they are irked by the right's embrace of
> >traditional values while a few on the right don't live up to it.
>
> You seem to be confused. It is the right that espouses the holy order
> of things; liberals tend to eschew religion, especially Fundamentalism
> with its magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
religious beliefs. If you think and project the notion
that you are more virtuous in your political views
than the other side, then that is a 'holier than thou'
attitude.
> If you mean, "better-than-you", well, then, I don't see it. Liberals
> 'think' while conservatives 'feel'. The liberal mode tends to be
> intellectual while the conservative mode tends to be somatic in
> nature. Conservatives "feel" their holiness, while liberals know
> better.
that minorities should be full participants in the
conservative ideals of self reliance and personal
achievement. Minorities therefore are welcomed
into all conservative and Republican groups, events and
processes on that basis. Liberals on the other hand
-feel- that the way to deal with minorities is to shower
them with benefits and entitlements,
Thus liberals say that conservative minority members
are 'tokens' or 'Uncle Toms', and they assure minorities
that they belong under their care, not as free thinking
conservatives. It gets your side votes, and therefore
power, but doesn't do much for true participating equality.
calvin
May 14, 2013, 11:05:04 AM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 12:18 am, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for
> a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Matthew (19:24). Methinks
> the secret to the cryptic passage is not to die a "rich man"; that is,
> to use your wealth in this life to alleviate suffering.
If Jesus had had the benefit of reading Ayn Rand
> "It is easier for a camel to pass through the eye of a needle than for
> a rich man to enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Matthew (19:24). Methinks
> the secret to the cryptic passage is not to die a "rich man"; that is,
> to use your wealth in this life to alleviate suffering.
he would have known that it it not the fact that one
is rich that matters morally, but how one becomes rich.
Mack A. Damia
May 14, 2013, 1:33:13 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 06:29:35 -0700 (PDT), calvin
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On May 13, 11:14锟絧m, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:43:31 -0700 (PDT), calvin
>> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >On May 13, 10:28 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> >> At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
>> >> important.
>>
>> >You missed my point, too, apparently. 锟絋here's nothing
>> >wrong with caring. 锟絀t's posing as the only one who cares
>> 'think' while conservatives 'feel'. 锟絋he liberal mode tends to be
http://www.orgonomy.org/articles/Konia/The_Biophysical_Basis_of_Sociopolitical_Thought.html
--
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>On May 13, 11:14锟絧m, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:43:31 -0700 (PDT), calvin
>> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>> >On May 13, 10:28 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
>> >> At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
>> >> important.
>>
>> >wrong with caring. 锟絀t's posing as the only one who cares
>> >that is the left's never-ending presentation of itself vs. the
>> >right. 锟絋he left sneers and condescends its holier than thou
>> >presumption day and night on every issue, and then has the
>> >nerve to say that they are irked by the right's embrace of
>> >traditional values while a few on the right don't live up to it.
>>
>> You seem to be confused. 锟絀t is the right that espouses the holy order
>> >nerve to say that they are irked by the right's embrace of
>> >traditional values while a few on the right don't live up to it.
>>
>> of things; liberals tend to eschew religion, especially Fundamentalism
>> with its magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
>
>The term, 'holier than thou' is not restricted to
>religious beliefs. If you think and project the notion
>that you are more virtuous in your political views
>than the other side, then that is a 'holier than thou'
>attitude.
>
>> If you mean, "better-than-you", well, then, I don't see it. 锟絃iberals
>> with its magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
>
>The term, 'holier than thou' is not restricted to
>religious beliefs. If you think and project the notion
>that you are more virtuous in your political views
>than the other side, then that is a 'holier than thou'
>attitude.
>
>> 'think' while conservatives 'feel'. 锟絋he liberal mode tends to be
>> intellectual while the conservative mode tends to be somatic in
>> nature. 锟紺onservatives "feel" their holiness, while liberals know
>> better.
>
>Just the opposite. Conservatives -think-, for example,
>that minorities should be full participants in the
>conservative ideals of self reliance and personal
>achievement. Minorities therefore are welcomed
>into all conservative and Republican groups, events and
>processes on that basis. Liberals on the other hand
>-feel- that the way to deal with minorities is to shower
>them with benefits and entitlements,
>
>Thus liberals say that conservative minority members
>are 'tokens' or 'Uncle Toms', and they assure minorities
>that they belong under their care, not as free thinking
>conservatives. It gets your side votes, and therefore
>power, but doesn't do much for true participating equality.
May I suggest that you get some learning?
>
>Just the opposite. Conservatives -think-, for example,
>that minorities should be full participants in the
>conservative ideals of self reliance and personal
>achievement. Minorities therefore are welcomed
>into all conservative and Republican groups, events and
>processes on that basis. Liberals on the other hand
>-feel- that the way to deal with minorities is to shower
>them with benefits and entitlements,
>
>Thus liberals say that conservative minority members
>are 'tokens' or 'Uncle Toms', and they assure minorities
>that they belong under their care, not as free thinking
>conservatives. It gets your side votes, and therefore
>power, but doesn't do much for true participating equality.
http://www.orgonomy.org/articles/Konia/The_Biophysical_Basis_of_Sociopolitical_Thought.html
--
calvin
May 14, 2013, 1:52:19 PM5/14/13
to
On May 14, 1:33 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 06:29:35 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Tue, 14 May 2013 06:29:35 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >On May 13, 11:14 pm, Mack A. Damia <mybaconbu...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:43:31 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> >> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> >On May 13, 10:28 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> >> At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
> >> >> important.
>
> >> >You missed my point, too, apparently. There's nothing
> >> On Mon, 13 May 2013 19:43:31 -0700 (PDT), calvin
> >> <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >> >On May 13, 10:28 pm, Howard Brazee <how...@brazee.net> wrote:
> >> >> At least those are attitudes that Jesus Christ demonstrated being
> >> >> important.
>
> >> >wrong with caring. It's posing as the only one who cares
> >> >that is the left's never-ending presentation of itself vs. the
> >> >right. The left sneers and condescends its holier than thou
> >> >presumption day and night on every issue, and then has the
> >> >nerve to say that they are irked by the right's embrace of
> >> >traditional values while a few on the right don't live up to it.
>
> >> You seem to be confused. It is the right that espouses the holy order
> >> >nerve to say that they are irked by the right's embrace of
> >> >traditional values while a few on the right don't live up to it.
>
> >> of things; liberals tend to eschew religion, especially Fundamentalism
> >> with its magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
>
> >The term, 'holier than thou' is not restricted to
> >religious beliefs. If you think and project the notion
> >that you are more virtuous in your political views
> >than the other side, then that is a 'holier than thou'
> >attitude.
>
> >> If you mean, "better-than-you", well, then, I don't see it. Liberals
> >> with its magical thinking and holier then thou attitudes.
>
> >The term, 'holier than thou' is not restricted to
> >religious beliefs. If you think and project the notion
> >that you are more virtuous in your political views
> >than the other side, then that is a 'holier than thou'
> >attitude.
>
> >> 'think' while conservatives 'feel'. The liberal mode tends to be
> >> intellectual while the conservative mode tends to be somatic in
> >> nature. Conservatives "feel" their holiness, while liberals know
> >> better.
>
> >Just the opposite. Conservatives -think-, for example,
> >that minorities should be full participants in the
> >conservative ideals of self reliance and personal
> >achievement. Minorities therefore are welcomed
> >into all conservative and Republican groups, events and
> >processes on that basis. Liberals on the other hand
> >-feel- that the way to deal with minorities is to shower
> >them with benefits and entitlements,
>
> >Thus liberals say that conservative minority members
> >are 'tokens' or 'Uncle Toms', and they assure minorities
> >that they belong under their care, not as free thinking
> >conservatives. It gets your side votes, and therefore
> >power, but doesn't do much for true participating equality.
>
> May I suggest that you get some learning?
>
> http://www.orgonomy.org/articles/Konia/The_Biophysical_Basis_of_Socio...
>
> >Just the opposite. Conservatives -think-, for example,
> >that minorities should be full participants in the
> >conservative ideals of self reliance and personal
> >achievement. Minorities therefore are welcomed
> >into all conservative and Republican groups, events and
> >processes on that basis. Liberals on the other hand
> >-feel- that the way to deal with minorities is to shower
> >them with benefits and entitlements,
>
> >Thus liberals say that conservative minority members
> >are 'tokens' or 'Uncle Toms', and they assure minorities
> >that they belong under their care, not as free thinking
> >conservatives. It gets your side votes, and therefore
> >power, but doesn't do much for true participating equality.
>
> May I suggest that you get some learning?
>
Not an article for a quick scan, so i'll have to get
back to you on it. Meanwhile, you might refrain
from condescending comments like " May I suggest
that you get some learning" if you're serious about
sharing ideas.
calvin
May 14, 2013, 2:20:34 PM5/14/13
to
response it that it begins (in the second paragraph) with
unproven assumptions about conservatives and liberals.
Starting from this point, all of the conclusions easily follow.
(This is similar to Marx's technique in The Communist
Manifesto, where he begins with unproven assumptions
about the nature of capitalism, making it easy to
formulate his communist alternatives.)
Though I haven't read Bertrand Russell in many years, his
writing was a strong influence on me in my college years
and young adulthood. So were the plays of George Bernard
Shaw. My thinking has become more conservative over
the years, but I think it could be summed up by the familiar
saying, "If you're young and not liberal, you have no heart;
if you're old and not conservative you have no mind."
Mack A. Damia
May 14, 2013, 2:21:08 PM5/14/13
to
On Tue, 14 May 2013 10:52:19 -0700 (PDT), calvin
Don't take silly tweaks so personally; they are merely rhetorical.
Actually, the article is written by a conservative thinker; that much
is obvious considering that there is quite a bit of liberal bashing.
If you are interested in what I wrote, look up Wilhelm Reich's
"socio-political character types". See if you can access page 156 in
Baker's "Man in the Trap". Interesting chart on the socio-political
character types (chapter begins on page 153):
http://books.google.com./books/about/Man_in_the_Trap.html?id=nzUvEHQl3tgC&redir_esc=y
(Don't know how to rotate the page)
Before you badmouth Reich, there aren't too many schools of
psychology, contemporary or otherwise, that don't include aspects of
his theories.
--
Actually, the article is written by a conservative thinker; that much
is obvious considering that there is quite a bit of liberal bashing.
If you are interested in what I wrote, look up Wilhelm Reich's
"socio-political character types". See if you can access page 156 in
Baker's "Man in the Trap". Interesting chart on the socio-political
character types (chapter begins on page 153):
http://books.google.com./books/about/Man_in_the_Trap.html?id=nzUvEHQl3tgC&redir_esc=y
(Don't know how to rotate the page)
Before you badmouth Reich, there aren't too many schools of
psychology, contemporary or otherwise, that don't include aspects of
his theories.
--
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages