OT: Obama Lies Redux
RWF
While campaigning he promised to end pork barrel spending and earmarks,
then he signed the most pork-loaded bill ever passed by Congress..
IMPEACH OBAMA!
Mr. Jaggers
That's completely illogical and makes absolutely no sense.
James
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gorct...@enews4.newsguy.com...
You were expecting something different from him?
Jim Higgins
How about impeaching the likes of RWF to the depths of Killfile Hell.
--
Civis Romanus Sum
RWF
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:gorct...@enews4.newsguy.com...
Taunting me with my own words!
Oh snap!
Mr. Jaggers
Somebody had to do it.
James
RWF
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Obama is quickly proving to be a bigger liar than Richard Nixon.
Already he is doing worse at the job than Dubya.
He's just no damn good and should be impeached.
Mr. Jaggers
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> news:gorhe...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>> RWF wrote:
>>> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
>>> news:gorct...@enews4.newsguy.com...
>>>> RWF wrote:
>>>>> Geez, it's seems Obama can't help himself from lying.
>>>>> While campaigning he promised to end pork barrel spending and
>>>>> earmarks, then he signed the most pork-loaded bill ever passed by
>>>>> Congress.. IMPEACH OBAMA!
>>>>
>>>> That's completely illogical and makes absolutely no sense.
>>>
>>> Taunting me with my own words!
>>> Oh snap!
>>
>> Somebody had to do it.
>
> Obama is quickly proving to be a bigger liar than Richard Nixon.
> Already he is doing worse at the job than Dubya.
> He's just no damn good and should be impeached.
Let the President who has not lied cast the first stone.
James the Prophet
RWF
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Mr. Jaggers
I'm sorry, but that line has already been taken.
James
RWF
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
That's completely illogical and makes absolutely no sense. Š 2009 RWF
Mr. Jaggers
Mr. Jaggers
>
> "That's completely illogical and makes absolutely no sense."T
Well, that sure didn't work.
J
Nick Knight
>> Geez, it's seems Obama can't help himself from lying.
>> While campaigning he promised to end pork barrel spending and
>> earmarks, then he signed the most pork-loaded bill ever passed by
>> Congress.. IMPEACH OBAMA!
I try to save my political discussions/arguments for places where it's
appropriate, and/or with friends or acquaintances where the exchange might
prove fruitful, productive or otherwise educational. "Appropriate" is
probably the operative word here.
Why does old RWF keep posting this politically-charged crap in the coin
newsgroup? This is sort of rhetorical. Some "people" don't really have
friends or a life outside of their virtual ones. Oddly, even there (here?)
they aren't very well liked (based on general, long-term observation). Not
that that is a requirement, but when it's all you've got, it looks a bit
sad.
I dunno. Get's kinda old seeing thread after thread of off-topic posts
originating from one of my long-time kill file entries. Of course, these
obvious troll-like tactics are sucking in many folks, as designed. Too bad.
Note that, while I seem to quote RWF directly, I only saw his drivel
second-hand. I try not to waste any time on his posts. The reasons should
be obvious to most, IMO.
Nick
- and no, I didn't vote for him.
Aladdin Sane
"RWF" <R...@200903.invalid> wrote in message
news:gorcm7$vcd$4...@news.motzarella.org...
--
*
/?\
/___\
-O=O-
^
AS & His Magic Hat
A conclusion is simply the place
where you decided to stop thinking.
Dik T. Winter
> >RWF wrote:
> >> Geez, it's seems Obama can't help himself from lying.
> >> While campaigning he promised to end pork barrel spending and
> >> earmarks, then he signed the most pork-loaded bill ever passed by
> >> Congress.. IMPEACH OBAMA!
>
> I try to save my political discussions/arguments for places where it's
> appropriate, and/or with friends or acquaintances where the exchange might
> prove fruitful, productive or otherwise educational. "Appropriate" is
> probably the operative word here.
Indeed. I do not even understand the drivel RWF is posting. Can somebody
explain what "pork barrel spending and earmarks" means? Apparently RWF
thinks he is posting to a US-only newsgroup. He is not. On occasion I am
willing to post off-topic articles, but I hope that my articles at least
make sense to every reader of the newsgroup.
--
dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131
home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/
Arizona Coin Collector
news:KG638...@cwi.nl...
Hello
I think RWF is unhappy with his life and/or has
nothing to do. Not sure what his mental or
physical problems may be. I wonder if he miss
taking his medication?
The only thing he does in this coin newsgroup is
flaming others out. That is about the biggest part
of his postings. He has a long history of negative
postings.
He post a lot in the newsgroup "alt.books". I have
seen him in the other groups listed below.
alt.sports.baseball.ny-yankees
rec.video.marketplace
..
Mr. Jaggers
> In article <49b1eb07$1$avpx$mr2...@news.east.cox.net> "Nick Knight"
> <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> writes:
>>> RWF wrote:
>>>> Geez, it's seems Obama can't help himself from lying.
>>>> While campaigning he promised to end pork barrel spending and
>>>> earmarks, then he signed the most pork-loaded bill ever passed by
>>>> Congress.. IMPEACH OBAMA!
>>
>> I try to save my political discussions/arguments for places where
>> it's appropriate, and/or with friends or acquaintances where the
>> exchange might prove fruitful, productive or otherwise educational.
>> "Appropriate" is probably the operative word here.
>
> Indeed. I do not even understand the drivel RWF is posting. Can
> somebody
> explain what "pork barrel spending and earmarks" means?
Pork barrel spending and earmarks represent expenditures for projects that
one political candidate or party favors, but in the eyes of the other
candidate(s) or party represent wanton, frivolous, extravagant, and often
treasonous wastes of money. We just finished almost two solid years of
Presidential campaign posturing by the two main parties here in the U.S., in
which otherwise rational persons became belittling, shrill critics. Welcome
to America.
James
mazorj
Pork, pork barrel, and earmarking all are terms for budget
line items inserted by Congressmen that primarily or solely
benefit their district. It's often used to entice support
for spending bills.
I have no doubt that Obama meant it at the time when he
spoke against pork. Unfortunately, the Republicans - who
never were shy when it came to earmarking their share of
pork in spending bills - suddenly got religion and Obama's
stimulus bill has been a close-run thing. The more disputed
the bill, the more pork gets spread around. In what
probably is the biggest, most important, and most
controversial spending initiative in U.S. history, only a
fool would think that the political laws of the universe
would be suspended.
Obama has at most a year to produce measurable economic
recovery. He's not going to make the mistake of settling
for half-measures and if it takes pork to bring home the
bacon, he is opting for the lesser of two evils in his
all-out effort to produce results.
RWF's posts make sense - after you understand that he is one
of those wretchedly miserable individuals who hates
everything that moves and half of what doesn't.
RWF
> <bhnc...@mr2ice.com> writes:
> > >RWF wrote:
> > >> Geez, it's seems Obama can't help himself from lying.
> > >> While campaigning he promised to end pork barrel spending and
> > >> earmarks, then he signed the most pork-loaded bill ever passed by
> > >> Congress.. IMPEACH OBAMA!
> >
> > I try to save my political discussions/arguments for places where
> > it's
> > appropriate, and/or with friends or acquaintances where the exchange
> > might
> > prove fruitful, productive or otherwise educational. "Appropriate"
> > is
> > probably the operative word here.
>
> Indeed. I do not even understand the drivel RWF is posting. Can
> somebody
> explain what "pork barrel spending and earmarks" means? Apparently
> RWF
> thinks he is posting to a US-only newsgroup. He is not. On occasion
> I am
> willing to post off-topic articles, but I hope that my articles at
> least
> make sense to every reader of the newsgroup.
Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to read a post that
was clearly labeled OFF TOPIC?
mazorj
"RWF" <R...@090308.invalid> wrote in message
news:gp0gjb$sor$1...@news.motzarella.org...
Wrong answer again, Finnan. He wasn't objecting to the OT
part.
note.boy
As RWF most likely lives on a trailer park and is married to his sister it's
no wonder that his posts make zero sense, all that inbreeding, or he may be
a troll? :-)
I've not kill filed him yet as when I read his posts I love the feeling of
intellectual superiority that it gives me, my desk shares the same feelings.
If I troll a troll does that make me a troll or an antitroll? Billy
RWF
"note.boy" <note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:IkWsl.78588$183....@newsfe09.ams2...
> If I troll a troll does that make me a troll or an antitroll? Billy
No, just the same old twit you've always been.
You never have much to say other than your daily "who is a troll"
proclamations.
That's probably due to your being repeatedly dropped on your head as an
infant.
Anyway, enjoy your "sense" of intellectual superiority, I will enjoy my
actual superiority.
Jim Higgins
Another morph of RWF to killfile
--
Civis Romanus Sum
Aladdin Sane
>
> As RWF most likely lives on a trailer park and is married to his sister
> it's no wonder that his posts make zero sense, all that inbreeding, or he
> may be a troll? :-)
>
> I've not kill filed him yet as when I read his posts I love the feeling of
> intellectual superiority that it gives me, my desk shares the same
> feelings.
>
> If I troll a troll does that make me a troll or an antitroll? Billy
And don't knock humpin your sister till you've tried it
mazorj
"Jim Higgins" <gordi...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:XJidnerOPrGBwCnU...@posted.eaglecomputertechnology...
His third nym in two days.
He's a reclusive, dyspeptic jerk who plonks anyone who beats
him at his own game. The word hypocrisy is not in his
lexicon of personal attributes - he recently accused a
regular (Frank Provacek) of trying to slip under the radar
because he posts from two computers, one using his full name
and one just listing his first name. They both list the
same e-mail account address so no deception is intended or
possible. Finnan, OTOH, frequently does the opposite,
keeping the "RWF" moniker but changing the motzarella e-mail
address to elude killfile filters.
mazorj
"note.boy" <note...@naespamntlworld.com> wrote in message
news:IkWsl.78588$183....@newsfe09.ams2...
>
Unless they sprang up as an urban renewal project in recent
years, I never knew of or saw any trailer parks in Sea
Cliff, NY, so he probably lives in one of the run-down
cottages occupied by starving artist types, or is one of the
cave dwellers there who inherited a run-down house from
their parents. Whether his sister is a co-occupant is
problematic, although I wouldn't rule out a kissing cousin.
That he is a troll goes without saying.
> I've not kill filed him yet as when I read his posts I
> love the feeling of intellectual superiority that it gives
> me, my desk shares the same feelings.
Nothing to apologize for there.
> If I troll a troll does that make me a troll or an
> antitroll? Billy
Countertroll? Or we could concoct one of those Germanic
mash-ups, like Trollabwehrverfasser ("Trav" cf. "Flak").
Dik T. Winter
> "RWF" <R...@090308.invalid> wrote in message
> news:gp0gjb$sor$1...@news.motzarella.org...
> > "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.W...@cwi.nl> wrote in message
> > news:KG638...@cwi.nl...
> >> willing to post off-topic articles, but I hope that my
> >> articles at least
> >> make sense to every reader of the newsgroup.
> >
> > Did someone hold a gun to your head and force you to read
> > a post that was clearly labeled OFF TOPIC?
>
> Wrong answer again, Finnan. He wasn't objecting to the OT
> part.
Wronger still, the article I responded to was *not* labeled OFF TOPIC.