Repubs Submit House Bill Declaring 2010 as Year Of The Bible (NDC)
Ray
Congress need to address these days.
---------------------------------------
Author:
Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA]
Cosponsors:
Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
Rep. James Forbes [R-VA]
Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]
Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX]
Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]
Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH]
Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO]
Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]
------------------------------------------------
111th CONGRESS
1st Session
H. CON. RES. 121
Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as ‘The National Year of
the Bible’.
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
May 7, 2009
Encouraging the President to designate 2010 as ‘The National Year of
the Bible’.
Whereas the Bible has had a profound impact in shaping America into a
great Nation;
Whereas deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testament
of the Bible have inspired Americans from all walks of life,
especially the early settlers, whose faith, spiritual courage, and
moral strength enabled them to endure intense hardships in this new
land;
Whereas many of our Presidents have recognized the importance of God
and the Bible, including George Washington; Franklin D. Roosevelt;
Harry Truman; John F. Kennedy; Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as
‘The National Year of the Bible’; and especially Abraham Lincoln,
whose 200th Birthday Celebration in 2009 highlighted freedom for the
slaves;
Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our
early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and
the Constitution of the United States ...
[ ... yadda yadda yadda ... ]
---------------------------------------
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc111-121
"Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
-- Thomas Jefferson
"I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented
myself from Christian assemblies."
-- Benjamin Franklin
"The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and
brutalize mankind."
-- Thomas Paine
"Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
-- James Madison
"Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose.
Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."
-- John Adams
Raymond O'Hara
"Ray" <ray...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:63b934d1-c269-4643...@c18g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
It's a good thing there's nothing more important going on that
Congress need to address these days.
---------------------------------------
so much for the strict construction of the Constitution they always push.
Raymond O'Hara
I'm taking your post and pasting it to another group
of course I will give you credit for finding it
Walter Karmazyn
> It's a good thing there's nothing more important going on that
> Congress need to address these days.
>
> ---------------------------------------
> Author:
> Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA]
>
> Cosponsors:
> Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
> Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
> Rep. James Forbes [R-VA]
> Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
> Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]
> Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
> Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
> Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
> Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX]
> Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]
> Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH]
> Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO]
> Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> 111th CONGRESS
>
> 1st Session
>
> H. CON. RES. 121
>
> the Bible�.
>
> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
> May 7, 2009
>
> the Bible�.
>
> Whereas the Bible has had a profound impact in shaping America into a
> great Nation;
>
> Whereas deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testament
> of the Bible have inspired Americans from all walks of life,
> especially the early settlers, whose faith, spiritual courage, and
> moral strength enabled them to endure intense hardships in this new
> land;
>
> Whereas many of our Presidents have recognized the importance of God
> and the Bible, including George Washington; Franklin D. Roosevelt;
> Harry Truman; John F. Kennedy; Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as
> whose 200th Birthday Celebration in 2009 highlighted freedom for the
> slaves;
>
> Whereas shared Biblical beliefs unified the colonists and gave our
> early leaders the wisdom to write the Declaration of Independence and
> the Constitution of the United States ...
>
> [ ... yadda yadda yadda ... ]
> ---------------------------------------
> http://www.govtrack.us/congress/billtext.xpd?bill=hc111-121
>
> "Christianity is the most perverted system that ever shone on man."
> -- Thomas Jefferson
>
> "I have found Christian dogma unintelligible. Early in life I absented
> myself from Christian assemblies."
> -- Benjamin Franklin
>
> "The Bible: a history of wickedness that has served to corrupt and
> brutalize mankind."
> -- Thomas Paine
>
> "Religious bondage shackles and debilitates the mind and unfits it for
> every noble enterprise, every expanded prospect."
> -- James Madison
>
> "Let the human mind loose. It must be loose. It will be loose.
> Superstition and dogmatism cannot confine it."
> -- John Adams
Shit. And here I just spent a half hour watching Robert Gibbs gandy
dance with the Washington press corps over Barack's latest flip flop, on
the release of detainee photos. I was watching Cspan 3. Guess I should
have been watching Cspan 1, with Congress on the tube. This is of
course so much more important.
W
"In this more recent case, the A.C.L.U. argued that disclosing the
pictures was �critical for helping the public understand the scope and
scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials
accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse,� said Amrit Singh,
who argued the case on behalf of the group before the United States
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, in Manhattan."
From NY Times political blog, very recent.
Ray
> > the Bible’.
>
> > IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>
> > May 7, 2009
>
> > the Bible’.
>
> > Whereas the Bible has had a profound impact in shaping America into a
> > great Nation;
>
> > Whereas deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testament
> > of the Bible have inspired Americans from all walks of life,
> > especially the early settlers, whose faith, spiritual courage, and
> > moral strength enabled them to endure intense hardships in this new
> > land;
>
> > Whereas many of our Presidents have recognized the importance of God
> > and the Bible, including George Washington; Franklin D. Roosevelt;
> > Harry Truman; John F. Kennedy; Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as
Shit. And here I was under the impression that there were significant
and fundamental differences between the Republican and Democratic
parties. This response of yours, demonstrating that Democrats too are
far from perfect, of course so much demonstrates otherwise.
>
> W
>
> "In this more recent case, the A.C.L.U. argued that disclosing the
> pictures was “critical for helping the public understand the scope and
> scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials
> accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse,” said Amrit Singh,
Walter Karmazyn
>>> the Bible�.
>>> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
>>> May 7, 2009
>>> the Bible�.
>>> Whereas the Bible has had a profound impact in shaping America into a
>>> great Nation;
>>> Whereas deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testament
>>> of the Bible have inspired Americans from all walks of life,
>>> especially the early settlers, whose faith, spiritual courage, and
>>> moral strength enabled them to endure intense hardships in this new
>>> land;
>>> Whereas many of our Presidents have recognized the importance of God
>>> and the Bible, including George Washington; Franklin D. Roosevelt;
>>> Harry Truman; John F. Kennedy; Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as
Far from perfect. Which? Agreeing to release the photos, or
essentially backtracking from that position and following the Bush
argument from last year? As pointed out at the press briefing this
morning, same arguments being offered that Cheney et al put forth
recently against the release of the torture memos.
That could be worth discussion.
As far as this stuff you present above... Sponsor and cosponsors make
up less than 10% of Republicans in the House, most of those from the
bible belt. It was sent to a committee to die. If it gets out of
committee, it will be by a vote of Democrats. It's a non issue, if
there were more support for it, you'd see a lot more Repubs in the fray.
This is no different than when you find my rep, Barbara Lee, or Dennis
Kucinich, or Maxine Waters or Lynn Woolsey or a handful of other Dems
sponsor some legislation or resolution that is sent off to die with no
real party support. They are not speaking for the party.
And that's the way it is.
And the unfortunate way it is around here, with a few exceptions (JimK
comes to mind) over the last few months, Obama is ignored. Last week I
mentioned a bit about polar bears. No real comment. I can imagine the
responses if I had posted the original decision by Bush last December:
Republicans hate you and want you dead
Sryk
Hryk
NO, Republicans hate polar bears and want them dead
Hryk
Sryk
Republicans hate us all and want us dead!!!!
Sryk
Hyrk
And if the kudos paid to the Obama Administration by the American
Petroleum Institute in that article were to have been paid to Bush...
Bush and Cheney setting policy to benefit their friends again. They all
want us dead
Hyrk
Sryk
But as it's Obama, continuing a Bush decision:
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
I guess everybody was satisfied. Like today. I wouldn't know, because
as usual nobody says anything.
OTOH, it's nice to see this ng talking mostly about the Dead or Grateful
Dead again. I'll probably stick to that from here on out. Meaningful
political discussion for the most part died around here the third week
of January, if it was ever here at all. May it rest in peace. For the
time being.
W
>
>
>> W
>>
>> "In this more recent case, the A.C.L.U. argued that disclosing the
>> pictures was �critical for helping the public understand the scope and
>> scale of prisoner abuse as well as for holding senior officials
>> accountable for authorizing or permitting such abuse,� said Amrit Singh,
Ray
> >>> the Bible’.
> >>> IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
> >>> May 7, 2009
> >>> the Bible’.
> >>> Whereas the Bible has had a profound impact in shaping America into a
> >>> great Nation;
> >>> Whereas deep religious beliefs stemming from the Old and New Testament
> >>> of the Bible have inspired Americans from all walks of life,
> >>> especially the early settlers, whose faith, spiritual courage, and
> >>> moral strength enabled them to endure intense hardships in this new
> >>> land;
> >>> Whereas many of our Presidents have recognized the importance of God
> >>> and the Bible, including George Washington; Franklin D. Roosevelt;
> >>> Harry Truman; John F. Kennedy; Ronald Reagan, who declared 1983 as
Backtracking was lame. With respect to agreeing to release the photos
in the first place I do not have enough information to have a strong
opinion at this time.
> As pointed out at the press briefing this
> morning, same arguments being offered that Cheney et al put forth
> recently against the release of the torture memos.
>
> That could be worth discussion.
Could be, but remember broken clocks and all that. Moreover while
related they are not the same issue.
> As far as this stuff you present above... Sponsor and cosponsors make
> up less than 10% of Republicans in the House, most of those from the
> bible belt. It was sent to a committee to die. If it gets out of
> committee, it will be by a vote of Democrats. It's a non issue, if
> there were more support for it, you'd see a lot more Repubs in the fray.
I found it interesting and somewhat amusing. To me its a microcosm of
what's ailing the Repub party these days; YMMV.
> This is no different than when you find my rep, Barbara Lee, or Dennis
> Kucinich, or Maxine Waters or Lynn Woolsey or a handful of other Dems
> sponsor some legislation or resolution that is sent off to die with no
> real party support. They are not speaking for the party.
We'll see how much support it gets from the rest of the Repubs - that
it'll get no support is far from a given. In a related issue the RNC
is about to vote on whether the Dems should rename themselves the
"Democrat Socialist" party - and some indications are that that
risible proposal will pass.
> And the unfortunate way it is around here, with a few exceptions (JimK
> comes to mind) over the last few months, Obama is ignored.
Maybe that's because 1) BushCo was such a horrible administration that
people were particularly motivated to speak out about it, and 2) It's
too early in the Obama administration to judge them on many if not
most of their actions.
> Last week I
> mentioned a bit about polar bears. No real comment. I can imagine the
> responses if I had posted the original decision by Bush last December:
I read the original decision last December and yawned then too, just
as I did in this follow-up decision (and your subsequent posting of it
here). By coincidence the NYTiimes has an editorial on that today in
which they conditionally support the Dept of Interior's call on that
one - FWIW I'm in general agreement:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/13/opinion/13wed3.html
> But as it's Obama, continuing a Bush decision:
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Yawn again.
See above.
3jane.
> Dead again. I'll probably stick to that from here on out. Meaningful
> political discussion for the most part died around here the third week
> of January, if it was ever here at all. May it rest in peace. For the
> time being.
I for one would rather you didn't do that. I live in DC (for now) and
probably hear people talk more about politics than most people
elsewhere hear on a daily basis, which might be one reason why I don't
reply to your and others political threads on a regular basis. But
that does not mean I don't enjoy reading them and/or find them very
informative. Do you have a facebook page where you post/discuss this
stuff? In some ways that is a better forum. Please let me know if
you do or plan to.
JimK
wrote:
>It's a good thing there's nothing more important going on that
>Congress need to address these days.
>
>---------------------------------------
>Author:
>Rep. Paul Broun [R-GA]
>
>Cosponsors:
>Rep. Lynn Westmoreland [R-GA]
>Rep. John Carter [R-TX]
>Rep. James Forbes [R-VA]
>Rep. John Gingrey [R-GA]
>Rep. Zach Wamp [R-TN]
>Rep. Todd Akin [R-MO]
>Rep. Thaddeus McCotter [R-MI]
>Rep. Mike Pence [R-IN]
>Rep. Louis Gohmert [R-TX]
>Rep. Trent Franks [R-AZ]
>Rep. Jim Jordan [R-OH]
>Rep. Doug Lamborn [R-CO]
>Rep. Kenny Marchant [R-TX]
<snip>
I wonder how many adulterers are in that group?
JimK
Ken Fortenberry
> ...
> But as it's Obama, continuing a Bush decision:
>
>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>
> I guess everybody was satisfied. Like today. I wouldn't know, because
> as usual nobody says anything.
>
>
> OTOH, it's nice to see this ng talking mostly about the Dead or Grateful
> Dead again. I'll probably stick to that from here on out. Meaningful
> political discussion for the most part died around here the third week
> of January, if it was ever here at all. May it rest in peace. For the
> time being.
Walter, you wouldn't know meaningful political discussion if it
jumped up and bit you on the tit. Your political discussion
consists of hurling fire bombs from the far left loony fringe.
Do you have anything even remotely meaningful regarding American
politics which you'd like to discuss ? Or do you just want to sit
on the sidelines and throw spitballs at the players on the field ?
--
Ken Fortenberry
3jane.
> politics which you'd like to discuss ? Or do you just want to sit
> on the sidelines and throw spitballs at the players on the field ?
I guess we diagree on the value of Walter's contributions to this
newsgroup.
Ray
<kenfortenbe...@trashameritech.net> wrote:
> Walter Karmazyn wrote:
> > OTOH, it's nice to see this ng talking mostly about the Dead or Grateful
> > Dead again.
A current Dead tour might have something to do with that.
> > I'll probably stick to that from here on out.
Uh huh. :-)
> > Meaningful
> > political discussion for the most part died around here the third week
> > of January, if it was ever here at all.
Yeah, there's never been any meaningful political discussion here. ###
> Walter, you wouldn't know meaningful political discussion if it
> jumped up and bit you on the tit. Your political discussion
> consists of hurling fire bombs from the far left loony fringe.
>
> Do you have anything even remotely meaningful regarding American
> politics which you'd like to discuss ? Or do you just want to sit
> on the sidelines and throw spitballs at the players on the field ?
Ok, this is even funnier than the concept that Walter will stop
discussing politics here or that there's never been meaningful
political discussion here, coming as it does as a guy who defends
authoritarian measures undertaken by Hugo Chavez. I often disagree
with Walter politically but I find his political contributions to
generally be far more meaningful (to say nothing of also far more
informed) than the far left loony fringe drivel that you've been known
to post here Ken. But hey, I'm sure you've got a fan in Hugo Chavez.
Walter Karmazyn
> Walter Karmazyn wrote:
>> ...
>> But as it's Obama, continuing a Bush decision:
>>
>>
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>> <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<CRICKETS>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>
>> I guess everybody was satisfied. Like today. I wouldn't know, because
>> as usual nobody says anything.
>>
>>
>> OTOH, it's nice to see this ng talking mostly about the Dead or
>> Grateful Dead again. I'll probably stick to that from here on out.
>> Meaningful political discussion for the most part died around here the
>> third week of January, if it was ever here at all. May it rest in
>> peace. For the time being.
>
> Walter, you wouldn't know meaningful political discussion if it
> jumped up and bit you on the tit. Your political discussion
> consists of hurling fire bombs from the far left loony fringe.
Ken, you are one of the most partisan people on this group. Let's see,
today I questioned (not condemned) Obama's decision to do a 180 on the
release of photos supposedly depicting torture not only at Abu Ghraib,
but 5 other prisons, including at least one in Afghanistan. And the
problem you had there was...
> Do you have anything even remotely meaningful regarding American
> politics which you'd like to discuss ? Or do you just want to sit
> on the sidelines and throw spitballs at the players on the field ?
Well golly excuse me. For the last 8 years I was critical of Bush. Very
critical. I've also went after democrats when I felt the need. I've
also defended them, which is more than you can say about my comments on
the previous administration.
You most remind me of a liberal Mark Williams. I'll discuss stuff with
you when you take the time like Ray and others around here to give a
civil response worth answering, grtflken.
W
>
Ray
> Ken, you are one of the most partisan people on this group. Let's see,
> today I questioned (not condemned) Obama's decision to do a 180 on the
> release of photos supposedly depicting torture not only at Abu Ghraib,
> but 5 other prisons, including at least one in Afghanistan. And the
> problem you had there was...
The only problem I had with that Walter is how you framed it - as
something so much more important than what I had posted that I should
have posted what you did instead. If you want to post that sort of
stuff great - more power to you. Please spare the implication that
it's so much more important than what I posted that I shouldn't have
posted it though - thanks.
> grtflken.
Heh. That shoe fits almost too well.
frndt...@aol.com
>Please spare the implication that
> it's so much more important than what I posted that I shouldn't have
> posted it though - thanks.
>
uhh, there have been plenty of issues around here deemed less
important than other issues. So much that they should not be repeated.
What's the diff between what is deemed more important by some, or
issues deemed less important? except of course who is pushing those
beliefs.
I can abide whatever Obama wants to do for a few years. Knnowing the
darkness always comes before the light. Bush was darkness, Obama is
the dawn. One day there will be light.
Third fucking party! lol What demo is the fastest growing
politically? Independant fucking voters. Those who gave President, God
blesss him, Obama victory.
woohoo off to Tucson to see the soon to be Engineer grad Hunter.
I have no regrets voting my 1968 memorial candidate.
is it perfect? No. But I could tolerate bush more than some only
because I could see he was a necessity before somebody like Obama
could come along. Obam will also lead to somebody better.
Michelle O 2024 lol
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tRUc6H_1_y0&feature=related
you better check yourself
before you wreck yourself
Ray
> On May 13, 9:07 pm, Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> >Please spare the implication that
> > it's so much more important than what I posted that I shouldn't have
> > posted it though - thanks.
>
> uhh, there have been plenty of issues around here deemed less
> important than other issues. So much that they should not be repeated.
> What's the diff between what is deemed more important by some, or
> issues deemed less important? except of course who is pushing those
> beliefs.
uhh, once again your insinuations are too cryptic to be fully
understood, jeff. Care to spell out exactly whatever it is that you
are talking about here? I'm guessing not - your usual insinuation
m.o. is to remain vague enough to leave plenty of denial and retreat
room.
Walter Karmazyn
It wasn't meant that way. Perhaps just an attempt to get bit of
discussion or thought going. That's been a problem lately. Not only with
me, a couple regulars have posted critical of Obama decisions with
little or no feedback.
I came of age during Vietnam. Like many too young to vote but old
enough to express a view, I supported LBJ in 1964. By 1967 I would have
kicked his ass if I met him on the street. Maybe you had to be there.
Which is why I am concerned.
Question Authority
And no offense Ray, really
W
email me
Ray
> Ray wrote:
> > On May 13, 8:35 pm, Walter Karmazyn <walterkarma...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> Ken, you are one of the most partisan people on this group. Let's see,
> >> today I questioned (not condemned) Obama's decision to do a 180 on the
> >> release of photos supposedly depicting torture not only at Abu Ghraib,
> >> but 5 other prisons, including at least one in Afghanistan. And the
> >> problem you had there was...
>
> > The only problem I had with that Walter is how you framed it - as
> > something so much more important than what I had posted that I should
> > have posted what you did instead. If you want to post that sort of
> > stuff great - more power to you. Please spare the implication that
> > it's so much more important than what I posted that I shouldn't have
> > posted it though - thanks.
>
> It wasn't meant that way. Perhaps just an attempt to get bit of
> discussion or thought going. That's been a problem lately. Not only with
> me, a couple regulars have posted critical of Obama decisions with
> little or no feedback.
Well again I think it basically comes down to 2 things: many of us
were deeply disgusted by BushCo and their actions were thus motivated
to express as much, and its too soon for many of us to be nearly as
critical or as untrusting of the Obama administration. Which is to
say, many of us are, for now, giving them the benefit of the doubt.
Which isn't to say Obama and his administration should not be
criticized when they do something that deserves it - of course they
should. But holding them to the same level of mistrust and critical
scrutiny as BushCo at this time is, in my view and I'm sure that of
many others, both unwarranted and premature.
And again, the specific example you cited here re- the Interior ruling
re- polar bears, for me at least, was essentially a non-issue. As I
think you know well environmental issues, including global warming,
are top priorities for me - that what you posted was related to global
warming was not the reason what you posted here is for me a non-
issue. Instead, it's essentially a non-issue because the Interior
Dept, as a practical matter, isn't an effective place to address the
larger global warming problem. The NYTimes article/editorial that I
linked to in this thread explains explains my general position on this
particular issue in more detail.
> I came of age during Vietnam. Like many too young to vote but old
> enough to express a view, I supported LBJ in 1964. By 1967 I would have
> kicked his ass if I met him on the street. Maybe you had to be there.
Maybe.
> Question Authority
Absolutely.
> And no offense Ray, really
Cool - none taken.
> email me
Will do.
LP
Holy CRAP! Frankenberry is one looney motherfucker. The leftmost of
rmgd's left squaks out his most nonsensical post yet.
100% agree that Walter's posts concerning politics are far more
meaningful than anything spewed by Ken.
See a psychiatrist soon, frankenberry.
LP
Ken Fortenberry
>> Do you have anything even remotely meaningful regarding American
>> politics which you'd like to discuss ? Or do you just want to sit
>> on the sidelines and throw spitballs at the players on the field ?
>
> civil response worth answering, grtflken.
How civil of you. If you ever post anything other than a rallying
cry for progressives to form a circular firing squad you might
get a civil response. You're another one of those who needs to
get out of Frisco once in a while to get to know your fellow
Americans. Spend some time in a redneck state like Alabama or
Indiana and you may begin to appreciate the real meaning of
"politics".
--
Ken Fortenberry
Brad Greer
wrote:
>On May 13, 8:33�pm, Ray <rayb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On May 13, 7:51�pm, Ken Fortenberry
>>
>> > Do you have anything even remotely meaningful regarding American
>> > politics which you'd like to discuss ? Or do you just want to sit
>> > on the sidelines and throw spitballs at the players on the field ?
>>
>> Ok, this is even funnier than the concept that Walter will stop
>> discussing politics here or that there's never been meaningful
>> political discussion here, coming as it does as a guy who defends
>> authoritarian measures undertaken by Hugo Chavez. I often disagree
>> with Walter politically but I find his political contributions to
>> generally be far more meaningful (to say nothing of also far more
>> informed) than the far left loony fringe drivel that you've been known
>> to post here Ken. �But hey, I'm sure you've got a fan in Hugo Chavez.
>
>Holy CRAP! Frankenberry is one looney motherfucker. The leftmost of
>rmgd's left squaks out his most nonsensical post yet.
>100% agree that Walter's posts concerning politics are far more
>meaningful than anything spewed by Ken.
>See a psychiatrist soon, frankenberry.
>
Ankle-biters!