Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush?
Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam
bring back the draft.
If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
John Kerry is against abortion.
John Kerry is against gay marriage.
John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
though there is no difference between them. Why?
the Bede
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com...
Gactimus
news:2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com:
Don't expect liberals to make any sense.
George Graves
I don't think that most people see Kerry as "better" than Bush. But they
do see him as "NOT BUSH." And that seems to be enough.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
George Graves
Gactimus <gact...@xrs.net> wrote:
I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
MuahMan
"Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com...
To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a real
choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any politician
at this level.
Jason McNorton
gmgra...@pacbell.net says...
> In article <2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com>,
> janklo...@hotmail.com (Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam) wrote:
>
> > If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
> > bring back the draft.
> >
> > If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
> >
> > John Kerry is against abortion.
> >
> > John Kerry is against gay marriage.
> >
> > John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
> >
> > John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
> >
> >
> > Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
> > Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
> > though there is no difference between them. Why?
>
> I don't think that most people see Kerry as "better" than Bush. But they
> do see him as "NOT BUSH." And that seems to be enough.
He'll push socialized medicine, which is by far the most damaging thing
he can do. Oh, he'll try and raise taxes and ban more guns too.
If those are 'not bush', then I'd hate to see what a real liberal would
try.
C Lund
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I don't think that most people see Kerry as "better" than Bush. But they
> do see him as "NOT BUSH." And that seems to be enough.
I not only agree, but I'll expand: Most people don't see Democrats as
"better" than Republicans. But they see them as "NOT REPUBLICAN". And
that seems to be enough.
B)
The two-party system has to go. It's bad for the US.
> --
> George Graves
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
> liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
> feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
and let live". Nothing more.
Jason McNorton
cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
> In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
> > liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
> > feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
>
> Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
> and let live". Nothing more.
It's a bizarre mix of anarchy and strict total control.
Gactimus
news:clund-7EB013....@amstwist00.chello.com:
> In article <gmgravesnos-9DA7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think that most people see Kerry as "better" than Bush. But
>> they do see him as "NOT BUSH." And that seems to be enough.
>
> I not only agree, but I'll expand: Most people don't see Democrats as
> "better" than Republicans. But they see them as "NOT REPUBLICAN". And
> that seems to be enough.
>
> B)
>
> The two-party system has to go. It's bad for the US.
There is no two party system persay. That's just the way things ended up.
Gactimus
> In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
>> liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
>> feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
>
> Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
> and let live". Nothing more.
As demonstrated by their attitudes on terrorism.
wally
Dimwitted presidents for dimwitted americans.
What pisses me off is that that fucktart Bush has made the entire
world an unsafe place, I am not even in the US.
at this point there are two solutions to most of the world's problems:
-carpet bomb the US and exterminate every living thing in a
non-discriminatory manner
-carpet bomb the middle east and exterminate every living thing in a
non-discriminatory manner
"Man is the root of all problems. No man, no problem"
-Joseph Stalin
George Graves
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
> > liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
> > feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
>
> Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
> and let live". Nothing more.
Sorry, but the US liberal's platform does not reflect that in any way
shape or form.
Steve Mackay
> In article <clund-B7DF27....@amstwist00.chello.com>,
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
>
>> In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>> > I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
>> > liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
>> > feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
>>
>> Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
>> and let live". Nothing more.
>
> Sorry, but the US liberal's platform does not reflect that in any way
> shape or form.
Live and let live, LOL! If that was the case, we wouldn't have been
hearing the liberals whine for the past 4 years about GWB "stealing" the
election.
Snit
pan.2004.08.18....@hotmail.com on 8/18/04 2:55 PM:
"Live and Let Live" does not imply that one will smile as others go against
that view.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
Sean Burke
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> writes:
> I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
> liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
> feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
You forgot one - envy of the rich.
-SEan
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
"David Janklowicz" <janklo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Why do STUPID LIBERALS think Kerry is better than Bush?
Probably because:
(1) Most liberals are ASTUTE, not stupid.
(2) Kerry is *exponentially* better than inept Warmonger-
in-Thief Bush.
> If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
> bring back the draft.
Not likely. He'll probably pull an "Eisenhower," and end the war
right off the bat.
> If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
He's an intelligent person, so he'll probably do everyrhing he
can, within his capabilities as President, to trash the asinine thing
ASAP!
> John Kerry is against abortion.
Nope. He's solidly Pro-CHOICE.
> John Kerry is against gay marriage.
Purportedly. When in a position to act, one way or the other, as
President, he'll probably be fully supportive of this EQUAL human
right.
> John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
Maybe, and maybe not. Since when is Israel PERFECT? They
did, after all, STEAL land from Palestinians, on the lame claim that
they were entitled to it... after around 2,000 years of ABSENCE.
(What a sick JOKE! Trouble is, the disenfranchised and cheated
Palestinians have nothing to laugh about.)
> John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
So they both belonged to a childish club. Big deal. LOTS of
college kids demonstrate such levels of arrested development.
It's part of being a college kid, for most.
> Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
> Bush.
He is. Bush is a dolt. A warmonger. A dishonest conniver.
And doesn't give a rat's ass for individual liberties.
> Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
> though there is no difference between them. Why?
Because there's a HUGE difference. Don't blame us if neocons
aren't bright enough to see that.
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> George Graves wrote:
>> C Lund wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
>>> and let live". Nothing more.
>> Sorry, but the US liberal's platform does not reflect that in any way
>> shape or form.
> Live and let live, LOL! If that was the case, we wouldn't have been
> hearing the liberals whine for the past 4 years about GWB "stealing" the
> election.
ROTFL!!!!!
He and his dishonest cronies and thugs BLATANTLY stole it.
And on Nov.2, tens of millions of CHEATED Americans will
**remember** those idiotic and hateful "Sore Loserman" taunts.
BOY, will we EVER remember !!!!! Spectacularly!!!
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
REPUBLICAN DIRTY TRICKS
BOMBSHELL !!!
If THIS scandal gets swept under the rug, it'll be completely
inexplicable. THIS one is MAJOR!!!
ABC News documented it on its evening news tonight
(Thanksgiving Day, 11/23/2000).
Capitalized words in the quotes below are not "shouts." They
denote inflective emphasis of those words as they were spoken
in the report.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
NARRATOR: "At the time, it SEEMED spontaneous -- angry
residents denied the right to see their votes recounted. But the
REALITY is, it was an ORCHESTRATED Republican protest.
And MOST were not even FROM here."
<<<Camera crew questions a female protester... >>>
REPORTER: "Are you local? Are you... ?"
NARRATOR: "Her guide, a Republican public relations officer,
cut THAT conversation short."
<<< Her guide takes her by the elbow and whisks
her away from the crew before she can say more
than a few words in response. >>>
NARRATOR: "And SO it has been, ALL week long. A public
relations effort that has not ALWAYS been so public. Camped out in a
motor home, in the middle of the media staging area, you would THINK
they would want to TALK about their mission."
<<< Reporter attempts to talk to a man in the RV, who
responds to him only briefly from behind the door,
before closing it in the reporter's face. >>>
MAN IN RV: "It's a Bush operation."
REPORTER: "It's a BUSH operation?
MAN IN RV: "Yep."
REPORTER: "What goes ON inside this trailer?"
MAN IN RV: "Oh... can't talk to you right now."
<<< Man closes door in reporter's face >>>
NARRATOR: "In ALL, an army of 75 operatives came to Miami
to SHAPE public opinion. 'To help the media,' they said."
<<< Reporter walks alongside one of them, trying to
interview him... >>>
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "And we provide a service for you
for surrogates who you'll want to speak to..."
<<< Scene shifts to an outdoor crowd of protestors, many
armed with professionally-printed signs identical to the
earlier Democratic campaign signs -- except that instead
of "Gore Lieberman," *these* read "Sore Loserman."
Several of them were wearing *printed* signs on their
backs that read, "Enough is Enough." >>>
NARRATOR: "But they ALSO got involved in leading demon-
strations. And were EVEN willing to dress up in seasonal outfits
to provide so-called 'protestor color,' for local news reports."
<<< Camera shows a person dressed in a turkey costume,
with another person next to him/her holding a 3' x 4' sign
reading, "STUFF THE TURKEY NOT THE BALLOT BOX."
Many protestors gathered around them, holding *printed*
signs reading, "Gore. Let our MILITARY VOTE." >>>
NARRATOR: "In the end, it apparently made a difference.
'Intimidation,' some called it."
DAVID LEAHY, Miami-Dade Election Supervisor:
"If what I had envisioned [had] worked out, and there were no
objections, we'd be up there now, counting."
= = = = = = = = =
NOTE: THAT statement by Leahy is KEY!!! Later, he tried to
to backpedal on it! But FORTUNATELY, the truth was
already out -- with THIS statement (above).
= = = = = = = = =
NARRATOR: "They are not. And that Bush operations
trailer -- has moved on. [This is] Bill Redecker, ABC News, Miami."
= = = = = = = = = = = =
The above is an exact transcription of the report, which I had
videotaped from the broadcast. VERY surprisingly, since this is such
an OBVIOUS subversion of the election process, ABC News has NOT
yet put this report on its abcnews.com website -- even though this
evening's OTHER stories ARE detailed there. (????)
If Gore loses this election, there will be three key factors:
(1) Nader threw the election. (A circumstance, but a legal one.)
(2) A fouled-up ballot in Palm Beach County, and no *concerted*
attempt to obtain a county-wide revote to correct that.
(Legal, but very unfortunate.)
(3) The above DIRTY TRICK. (Probably legal, according to the
LETTER of the law. But it STINKS to high heaven, and proves
that the lessons of Watergate were LOST on the Republicans,
who just PROVED themselves to be lower than snakes.)
What a SHAME for America if BUSH should win, in light of this.
And if he DOES, we should remind him for the next 4 years that -- not
only did he get in via the dinosaur of the electoral college (since
he LOST the POPULAR vote) -- his thugs LITERALLY *stole* the
election through the employment of a VERY sleazy trick.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
CONCLUDING COMMENT, by Craig Chilton, on 2-9-2001 --
(And as we know NOW, his inauguration was the
result of all of the above, AND via judicial fiat on the part
of the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush is not even REMOTELY
the ELECTED President. GORE *is.*
Bush is the APPOINTED President.
And the Court ran roughshod OVER the will of the people, to do
that. The REPUBLICAN-appointed, PARTISAN Justices, ONLY,
accomplished that INFAMOUS, SHAMEFUL and INEXCUSABLE deed.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
GreyCloud
Sean Burke wrote:
That's rich. :-))
Considering that Kerry is very wealthy, all of the Hollywood Mogels are
very wealthy, yet the hypocrisy is front of everybody.
--
---------------------------------
The Golden Years Sux.
forge
janklo...@hotmail.com (Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam) wrote:
> If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
> bring back the draft.
Cite? We can't just leave y'know; that would be worse than what we're
doing now by about a thousandfold.
> If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
Cite?
> John Kerry is against abortion.
So?
> John Kerry is against gay marriage.
So?
> John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
I seriously doubt that. Cite?
> John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
Yeah an' he wipes his butt wit his right hand just like me but you don't
see me running for President now do you? In other words, "So?"
> Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
> Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
> though there is no difference between them. Why?
Because a six-year-old dented can of salmon with the label torn off,
would be a better President than George W. Bush?
Lloyd Parsons
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> In article <2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com>,
> janklo...@hotmail.com (Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam) wrote:
>
> > If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
> > bring back the draft.
> >
> > If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
> >
> > John Kerry is against abortion.
> >
> > John Kerry is against gay marriage.
> >
> > John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
> >
> > John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
> >
> >
> > Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
> > Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
> > though there is no difference between them. Why?
>
> I don't think that most people see Kerry as "better" than Bush. But they
> do see him as "NOT BUSH." And that seems to be enough.
And that is so true. Robert Novak has been commenting on how many of
the Republican conservatives are tired of him.
forge
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> He'll push socialized medicine,
Or maybe not. Cite? And tell me you don't think something has to be done
about the sorryassed state of health care and insurance in this country.
> Oh, he'll try and raise taxes
As opposed to cutting them but still spending like a cowboy in Vegas
after six months on the trail.
> and ban more guns too.
Cite? And how pray tell would John Kerry get THAT past Congress?
Lloyd Parsons
Jason, it makes no difference who gets elected, taxes will either go up
during their term, or the next President will have to do it. The bills
are mounting up and the debt keeps getting bigger. Sooner or later
that has to be paid, Bush is just not wanting to do it on his watch!
As to socialized medicine. I think you can count on it happening
sooner or later, it seems inevitable even though many of us are far
from convinced that it is a good thing. As the count of those not
insured keeps climbing and the cost of medical care does too, then it
will become very compelling.
Lloyd Parsons
<Mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's blowjob
for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a shit whether he got
one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
The Black Wibble
news:clund-B7DF27....@amstwist00.chello.com...
> In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
>> I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
>> liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
>> feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
>
> Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
> and let live". Nothing more.
Yes, it is. But the control freaks on the left stole the concept for
themselves and the boobs on the right let them get away with it. From the
Reader's Digest Dictionary: liberal 1.) Having, expressing, or following
social or political views or policies that favour nonrevolutionary progress
and reform. 2.a) Having, expressing, or following views or policies that
favour the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner
of their own choosing. b) Having, expressing, or following a belief in
laissez-faire economic policies.
The Republicans are more compatible with liberalism than the Democrats which
have moved more towards socialism over the past century, especially in
economic matters. These days the "live and let live" sentiment is more
closely associated with libertarianism or classic liberalism.
Give us our concept back you leftist ~bastard~.
Tony.
Gactimus
Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!) wrote in
news:41250531...@netnews.mchsi.com:
> On Wed, 18 Aug 2004 21:55:17 GMT, Steve Mackay
> <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> George Graves wrote:
>>
>>> C Lund wrote:
>
>
> [ ... ]
>
>>>> Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is
>>>> "live and let live". Nothing more.
>>
>>> Sorry, but the US liberal's platform does not reflect that in any
>>> way shape or form.
>
>> Live and let live, LOL! If that was the case, we wouldn't have been
>> hearing the liberals whine for the past 4 years about GWB "stealing"
>> the election.
>
> ROTFL!!!!!
>
> He and his dishonest cronies and thugs BLATANTLY stole it.
Yeah right. The fiasco in Florida where Democrats tried multiple times to
overturn the election and in each case lost, but then still claim that the
election was stolen from them.
Jason McNorton
lloydp...@spamac.com says...
If you think tax rates and deficits are bad now, wait until the
government tries to socialize another trillion of pure spending. And
it'll jump in price too as you get layers and layers of red tape. Or
the service will be so bad you'll run to Mexico for better.
Tax rates don't have to be raised at all. In fact, lowering them
usually raises revenue. 9/11 and warfare change the equation though.
Lloyd Parsons
McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
As may be, but you can expect it to happen.
> Tax rates don't have to be raised at all. In fact, lowering them
> usually raises revenue. 9/11 and warfare change the equation though.
Sometimes it does, but not 'usually'. That was what Reagan sold us
when he ran up the deficits during his term. Revenue did increase but
not nearly enough to cover the bills.
9/11 and warfare don't change the equation, it just adds costs to the
gov't business. That is why Bush is such an idiot. It isn't enough
that he took us to a war we didn't actually need to start, he wanted to
do it on the cuff, and then to make it even more idiotic, he cut taxes!
It is simple economics that they all, republican and democrat alike,
try to complicate so you don't see the smoke and mirrors. For
instance, Clinton had a surplus, right? No, he just had less debt and
lots of that less debt came from taking things off budget. We were
still in hock up to our eyebrows, it just didn't look that way.
The simple econmics of government is just like your budget. If you
make less than you spend, you go in debt. That simple!
Jason McNorton
It was spending by the democrats that did us in. Look at the spending
vs revenue rates of the 80's.
> 9/11 and warfare don't change the equation, it just adds costs to the
> gov't business. That is why Bush is such an idiot. It isn't enough
> that he took us to a war we didn't actually need to start, he wanted to
> do it on the cuff, and then to make it even more idiotic, he cut taxes!
We had to get rid of hussein, don't care what anyone says.
> It is simple economics that they all, republican and democrat alike,
> try to complicate so you don't see the smoke and mirrors. For
> instance, Clinton had a surplus, right? No, he just had less debt and
> lots of that less debt came from taking things off budget. We were
> still in hock up to our eyebrows, it just didn't look that way.
>
> The simple econmics of government is just like your budget. If you
> make less than you spend, you go in debt. That simple!
Our debt levels compared to GNP are really not that bad. You're making
it into too big of a red herring.
The Black Wibble
news:41250531...@netnews.mchsi.com...[...]
>> Live and let live, LOL! If that was the case, we wouldn't have been
>> hearing the liberals whine for the past 4 years about GWB "stealing" the
>> election.
>
> ROTFL!!!!!
>
> He and his dishonest cronies and thugs BLATANTLY stole it.
The Democrats lost in Florida fair and square, and deserved to lose Florida
given what the Clinton Admininstration did to the six year boy, Elian
Gonzalez. Remember this picture?
http://www.ap.org/pages/history/pulitzer01.html Elian Gonzalez lost the
Democrats the election.
Tony.
Jason McNorton
lloydp...@spamac.com says...
It wasn't about that and you know it, same as the mcgreedy thing now
isn't about him being gay.
Abuse of power in both, and perjury on clinton.
George Graves
"The Black Wibble" <sca...@free.org.net> wrote:
> "C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
> news:clund-B7DF27....@amstwist00.chello.com...
> > In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> >> I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
> >> liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
> >> feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
> >
> > Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
> > and let live". Nothing more.
>
> Yes, it is. But the control freaks on the left stole the concept for
> themselves and the boobs on the right let them get away with it. From the
> Reader's Digest Dictionary: liberal 1.) Having, expressing, or following
> social or political views or policies that favour nonrevolutionary progress
> and reform. 2.a) Having, expressing, or following views or policies that
> favour the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a manner
> of their own choosing. b) Having, expressing, or following a belief in
> laissez-faire economic policies.
One problem is in defining what constitutes "progress and reform." I
don't happen to think that the leftist policy of making the US a
third-world nation so that we are all equally poor and all live equally
in an overcrowded shit hole with a crumbling infrastructure constitutes
"progress and reform."
George Graves
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:
> In article <zROUc.9727$rd5....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
> <Mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > "Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklo...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > > If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
> > > bring back the draft.
> > >
> > > If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
> > >
> > > John Kerry is against abortion.
> > >
> > > John Kerry is against gay marriage.
> > >
> > > John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
> > >
> > > John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
> > > Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
> > > though there is no difference between them. Why?
> >
> > To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a real
> > choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any politician
> > at this level.
> >
> And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
> media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
> nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
> glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
Exactly! It basically means that those most qualified for the office
don't want to run for it.
> Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
> expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
> has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's blowjob
> for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a shit whether he got
> one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
Nobody cares that he got a blow-job (though I do question his taste in
women), and it shouldn't have been reported in the news. It's no one's
business but his and that fat, ugly slut who gave it to him. But OTOH,
when asked about it, under oath, before a duly ordained grand jury, he
should have told the truth.
George Graves
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:
Add me to the list. I didn't vote for the bastard in 00 and I won't vote
for him in 04.
Mayor of R'lyeh
<lloydp...@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
One only hopes you figure it before you're called to testify in a
trial, lest you find it being explained you by a large hairy man who
calls you 'Mary'.
--
Why settle for the lesser evil?
Cthulhu for President 2004
Mayor of R'lyeh
chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
><snip>
>Dimwitted presidents for dimwitted americans.
>
>What pisses me off is that that fucktart Bush has made the entire
>world an unsafe place, I am not even in the US.
>
>at this point there are two solutions to most of the world's problems:
>
>-carpet bomb the US and exterminate every living thing in a
>non-discriminatory manner
>
>-carpet bomb the middle east and exterminate every living thing in a
>non-discriminatory manner
>
>
I'm starting to figure why so many Canadians are America haters.
http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a7265c81-d71a-4c37-8a49-7b041d29156d
TB-Taylor
"C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
news:clund-B7DF27....@amstwist00.chello.com...
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
> > liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
> > feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
>
> and spend". Nothing more.
fixed
Nate Frisch
Lloyd Parsons wrote:
We don't need to socialize medicine we just need to require all employers to
have medical insurance for the employees. There would be some kinks to work out
like part timers with two jobs and family coverage. But it beats the heck out of
turning it over to the government.
Snuggles
Nate Frisch <m.fr...@charter.net> wrote:
Want to make insurance cheaper..... don't force all employers to provide
insurance.... have the government force all the different insurance
companies to use standard insurance forms. Any doctor will tell you one
of the biggest costs in any medical practice is keeping up with the
zillion of different forms that each insurance company uses. It seems
funny to think about but its the sheer cost of the paperwork that is
making medical care in the US so expensive.
--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Snuggles, not Shuggie
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
forge
Gactimus <gact...@xrs.net> wrote:
> Yeah right. The fiasco in Florida where Democrats tried multiple times to
> overturn the election and in each case lost, but then still claim that the
> election was stolen from them.
Except y'know, the evidence says exactly the opposite, and you have
exactly jack from any reputable source to back up that tripe.
Lloyd Parsons
McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
Uh, no and yes. The problem that Reagan and virtually any other
president will and has found is that spending on things that people
want will happen. There was lots of BS spread around from both sides
about his during Reagan's years in office. Reagan was probably one of
the best BS artists we've ever had as a president. Clinton was
another. They could convince people of things that were not true, or
not true enough.
> > 9/11 and warfare don't change the equation, it just adds costs to the
> > gov't business. That is why Bush is such an idiot. It isn't enough
> > that he took us to a war we didn't actually need to start, he wanted to
> > do it on the cuff, and then to make it even more idiotic, he cut taxes!
>
> We had to get rid of hussein, don't care what anyone says.
>
No we didn't. He was well contained as it was before we went there.
Was he terrible? Yep, but he was terrible to his own people. Which is
THEIR problem, not mine.
> > It is simple economics that they all, republican and democrat alike,
> > try to complicate so you don't see the smoke and mirrors. For
> > instance, Clinton had a surplus, right? No, he just had less debt and
> > lots of that less debt came from taking things off budget. We were
> > still in hock up to our eyebrows, it just didn't look that way.
> >
> > The simple econmics of government is just like your budget. If you
> > make less than you spend, you go in debt. That simple!
>
> Our debt levels compared to GNP are really not that bad. You're making
> it into too big of a red herring.
The debt levels that are reported are so far under what the true debt
is that it isn't even funny. Go look for those 'off budget' items
sometimes, you will be amazed at what is hidden there. If you don't
think that the debt is horrendous, it is obvious those smoke and
mirrors they use in DC work on you.
Snuggles
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
Some questions just shouldn't be asked and I don't have a problem with a
person lying if someone has the bad taste to ask.
forge
Sean Burke <foo...@mystery.org> wrote:
> > I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
> > liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
> > feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
>
> You forgot one - envy of the rich.
MMmmmmmmmGUFFAW!! Yeah, there are no rich Liberals. Pull the other one,
it plays Jingle Bells.
Lloyd Parsons
McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
Nice try Jason, get some political education soon.
You are almost right here, it really wasn't about the blow job. It was
about 'getting' Clinton. Hillary was very correct when she said the
VWRC was out to get him. They were, and anyone that cannot see that is
just blinded by the bullshit that passes for news these days.
Does your 'news' radio station look like mine? Here's the day:
9-11AM -- Neil Boortz -- Libertarian (very conservative). Actually
very funny in his own brand of BS.
11AM-2PM -- Limbaugh -- neocon, used to be funny but his schtick has
run out, poorly educated. Doper.
2PM-5PM -- Hannity -- neocon, never has been funny, has zero
credentials to be where he is today.
5PM-7PM -- O'Reilly -- buffoon, shouts down virtually all who disagree
and that is a long list.
7PM-?? -- Savage -- I don't actually know how long his show is on as it
is difficult to figger out how long they let him out of the rubber room
to be on the radio.
Then there's Fox News. Do some research on them sometime, and Rupert
Murdoch.
The Black Wibble
news:BJPUc.15579$ZI1.7...@news20.bellglobal.com...
> <snip>
> Dimwitted presidents for dimwitted americans.
>
> What pisses me off is that that fucktart Bush has made the entire
> world an unsafe place, I am not even in the US.
Do you also think George Bush needn't have bothered with any plan to secure
the U.S. from terrorist attacks post 9/11 even if he had not responded by
toppling Afghanistian's teleban dictatorship nor Hussein's dictatorship?
> at this point there are two solutions to most of the world's problems:
>
> -carpet bomb the US and exterminate every living thing in a
> non-discriminatory manner
No. The answer is to exterminate your murderous friends in the M.E. who are
tryng their utmost to destroy any hope of democracy in Iraq and Afghanistan
while at the same time attack their Islamofascist ideology. It would help
if the Bush adminstration weren't so PC, and called this war a "war on
Islamofascism" rather than a "war or terrorism".
> -carpet bomb the middle east and exterminate every living thing in a
> non-discriminatory manner
No. Just kill your "insurgent" mates wherever they are found.
> "Man is the root of all problems. No man, no problem"
> -Joseph Stalin
It makes sense you'd be one of Joseph Stalin's spiritual brethtren.
Tony
Lloyd Parsons
R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Quit playing the political bullshit game, Mayor. I actually think you
are smarter than that. The entire fiasco was a simple vendetta that
perjury ended. Had that not happened, those idiots would still be
investigating on my and your dime!
You know it and I know it.
Lloyd
Lloyd Parsons
I don't know about that. Current labor laws, or at least of the
variety that medical coverage would fall under, usually don't come into
play for companies with fewer than 25 employees. And there are a hell
of a lot of those companies.
Then there is the self-employed, and the unemployed, and the
underemployed and I'm sure a whole slew of others that could be added
that wouldn't be insured.
And speaking of that insurance, you do realize that the insurance
industry is the only business that gets to count the money twice don't
you?
First they do profit and loss by premiums vs. claims paid -- this is
usually a losing part. It is the part they use to get rate increases
through. Then they invest your premiums and do the same profit and
loss, but the profits from the investments DO NOT APPEAR on the
premiums vs claims paid.
That's how they can make money hand over fist and still claim to be
losing so they can jack the rates up. Pretty slick, huh?
Jason McNorton
lloydp...@spamac.com says...
> Nice try Jason, get some political education soon.
>
> You are almost right here, it really wasn't about the blow job. It was
> about 'getting' Clinton. Hillary was very correct when she said the
> VWRC was out to get him.
That's from the education about hillary being right and the Vast Right
Wing Conspiracy insanity. *rolls eyes*
The Black Wibble
news:gmgravesnos-30FF...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net...
> In article <q5UUc.4009$zS6.4...@news02.tsnz.net>,
> "The Black Wibble" <sca...@free.org.net> wrote:
>> Yes, it is. But the control freaks on the left stole the concept for
>> themselves and the boobs on the right let them get away with it. From the
>> Reader's Digest Dictionary: liberal 1.) Having, expressing, or
>> following
>> social or political views or policies that favour nonrevolutionary
>> progress
>> and reform. 2.a) Having, expressing, or following views or policies that
>> favour the freedom of individuals to act or express themselves in a
>> manner
>> of their own choosing. b) Having, expressing, or following a belief in
>> laissez-faire economic policies.
>
> One problem is in defining what constitutes "progress and reform." I
> don't happen to think that the leftist policy of making the US a
> third-world nation so that we are all equally poor and all live equally
> in an overcrowded shit hole with a crumbling infrastructure constitutes
> "progress and reform."
If Republicans/Conservatives would only call them Socialists or leftists
instead of liberals, the bastards would find it much harder to associate
themselves with noble meanings attached to the concept 'liberal', and do it
especially for the sake of of impressionable and idealistic youth who start
off with a very superficial take on the world.
Tony.
Lloyd Parsons
McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <180820042313338479%lloydp...@spamac.com>,
> lloydp...@spamac.com says...
> > In article <MPG.1b8dd8058...@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
> > McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > Nice try Jason, get some political education soon.
> >
> > You are almost right here, it really wasn't about the blow job. It was
> > about 'getting' Clinton. Hillary was very correct when she said the
> > VWRC was out to get him.
>
> That's from the education about hillary being right and the Vast Right
> Wing Conspiracy insanity. *rolls eyes*
I always enjoy rightards as they always drink the kool-aid. If you got
off your ass and do some research beyond JUST the right-wing crap, you
might learn that there is plenty something rotten on right just as
there is on the left.
One of the things that I keep seeing reinforced is that all too many of
the right are unwilling to see the bad things that are going on in
their groups that are literally identical in the other groups. Its
that pompous righteousness that turns people off.
Remember its been 40 years since the Republicans were last in control
of all 3 parts of gov't. With this bunch in there now, I think we know
why. Unfortunately after 40 years of better gov't, we forgot why we
threw them out 40 years ago. Now we remember, now we get to pitch them
again....
forge
> We don't need to socialize medicine we just need to require all employers to
> have medical insurance for the employees.
Except for all the people who are unemployed because Bush made it easier
for their employers to send their jobs to India.
Rick G
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/story.html?id=a7265c81-d71a-4
> c37-8a49-7b041d29156d
How about this one:
<http://www.canada.com/national/features/afghanistan/story.html?id=A70365
87-63F9-43BB-B346-A8A51F6B539F>
--
Rick...
forge
Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
Lying to the entire Earth and especially to the American people he swore
to protect and uphold the Constitution for? Now that's bad.
forge
"The Black Wibble" <sca...@free.org.net> wrote:
> The Democrats lost in Florida fair and square, and deserved to lose Florida
> given what the Clinton Admininstration did to the six year boy, Elian
> Gonzalez. Remember this picture?
> http://www.ap.org/pages/history/pulitzer01.html Elian Gonzalez lost the
> Democrats the election.
No one ever counts the 57,000 black people that weren't allowed to vote,
or the 27,000 in Corrinne Brown's district who had their votes thrown
away because of defective voting machines. How odd.
Jason McNorton
fo...@diespammers.youneedageek.com says...
What did Bush do to make it worse? And you realize heinz is one of the
biggest outsourcers there is.
forge
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> It was spending by the democrats that did us in. Look at the spending
> vs revenue rates of the 80's.
Aaaaaannnnd who was President during the 80s? Class? Let's not always
see the same hands now. That's right, Ronald Reagan!
David Fritzinger
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-9DA7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> gmgra...@pacbell.net says...
> > In article <2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com>,
> > janklo...@hotmail.com (Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam) wrote:
> >
> > > If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
> > > bring back the draft.
> > >
> > > If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
> > >
> > > John Kerry is against abortion.
> > >
> > > John Kerry is against gay marriage.
> > >
> > > John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
> > >
> > > John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
> > >
> > >
> > > Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
> > > Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
> > > though there is no difference between them. Why?
> >
> > I don't think that most people see Kerry as "better" than Bush. But they
> > do see him as "NOT BUSH." And that seems to be enough.
>
> He'll push socialized medicine, which is by far the most damaging thing
> he can do. Oh, he'll try and raise taxes and ban more guns too.
So, Jason, just what is your plan to get the >40 million people with no
health care onto healthcare. Remember, they impact the cost of your
care, since they usually only go to the ER, the most expensive
healthcare available. Not to mention, the increasing cost of healthcare.
As far as gun control, even Bush says he supports banning assault
weapons, but doesn't do anything about it. And, taxes are going to go
up. You see, there is this thing called a >$7 trillion government debt,
and millions of baby boomers about to retire. Someone is going to have
to pay for it, you know.
>
> If those are 'not bush', then I'd hate to see what a real liberal would
> try.
Perhaps try to correct some of the problems you conservatives have
foisted upon us.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Jason McNorton
BS. LBJ era was worse. So was Carter's. Far worse. You must be
pretty young.
The reason clinton is 'liked' by some is because he happened to be
around during the tech boom. This same crowd (a lot of usenet, btw)
holds the same thing in reverse against Bush. Even though it started to
fall dramatically under clinton, Bush gets the blame.
Jason McNorton
fo...@diespammers.youneedageek.com says...
Who controls the budget? Connngreessss.
David Fritzinger
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <180820042108076947%lloydp...@spamac.com>,
> lloydp...@spamac.com says...
> > In article <MPG.1b8d7613a...@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
> > McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <gmgravesnos-9DA7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > > gmgra...@pacbell.net says...
> > > > In article <2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > janklo...@hotmail.com (Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
> > > > > bring back the draft.
> > > > >
> > > > > If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry is against abortion.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry is against gay marriage.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
> > > > > Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
> > > > > though there is no difference between them. Why?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that most people see Kerry as "better" than Bush. But
> > > > they
> > > > do see him as "NOT BUSH." And that seems to be enough.
> > >
> > > He'll push socialized medicine, which is by far the most damaging thing
> > > he can do. Oh, he'll try and raise taxes and ban more guns too.
> > >
> > > If those are 'not bush', then I'd hate to see what a real liberal would
> > > try.
> >
> > Jason, it makes no difference who gets elected, taxes will either go up
> > during their term, or the next President will have to do it. The bills
> > are mounting up and the debt keeps getting bigger. Sooner or later
> > that has to be paid, Bush is just not wanting to do it on his watch!
> >
> > As to socialized medicine. I think you can count on it happening
> > sooner or later, it seems inevitable even though many of us are far
> > from convinced that it is a good thing. As the count of those not
> > insured keeps climbing and the cost of medical care does too, then it
> > will become very compelling.
>
> If you think tax rates and deficits are bad now, wait until the
> government tries to socialize another trillion of pure spending. And
> it'll jump in price too as you get layers and layers of red tape. Or
> the service will be so bad you'll run to Mexico for better.
>
> Tax rates don't have to be raised at all. In fact, lowering them
> usually raises revenue. 9/11 and warfare change the equation though.
Tell that to Reagan, who raised taxes when it was clear his supply side
economics weren't going to work.
--
Dave Fritzinger
Jason McNorton
news02.socal.rr.com>, dfritzi...@mac.com says...
If Bush lets the idiotic 'assault weapons' ban sunset like it should,
he'll be a hero to me. Most everyone doesn't even know what an 'assault
weapon' is. It's certainly not a machine as defined by that idiotic
law.
I'm probably facing paying for my own insurance too. It sucks, costs
are out of control. But federalizing it isn't the answer. Anything
else. Make competition easier, if anything.
> > If those are 'not bush', then I'd hate to see what a real liberal would
> > try.
>
> Perhaps try to correct some of the problems you conservatives have
> foisted upon us.
I suppose that's what clinton managed to do right? Sure...
Snit
forge-D31EEF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com on 8/18/04 10:12 PM:
> In article <pc78i0592gsimcff1...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
>
> Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
One has not committed perjury unless one is found guilty in a court of law.
Just ask Steve Carroll. He will tell you so over and over.
--
"If A = B and B = C, then A = C, except where void or prohibited by law."
Roy Santoro, Psycho Proverb Zone (http://smallurl.com/?i=15235)
David Fritzinger
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <forge-80843D....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> fo...@diespammers.youneedageek.com says...
> > In article <MPG.1b8dd5fd9...@news-40.giganews.com>,
> > Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > It was spending by the democrats that did us in. Look at the spending
> > > vs revenue rates of the 80's.
> >
> > Aaaaaannnnd who was President during the 80s? Class? Let's not always
> > see the same hands now. That's right, Ronald Reagan!
>
> Who controls the budget? Connngreessss.
Reagan got pretty much what he wanted from Congress.
--
Dave Fritzinger
forge
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Aaaaaannnnd who was President during the 80s? Class? Let's not always
> > see the same hands now. That's right, Ronald Reagan!
>
> Who controls the budget? Connngreessss.
Who submits a budget to Congress? The president.
forge
Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> What did Bush do to make it worse?
Tax break for companies exporting jobs to other countries.
And you realize heinz is one of the
> biggest outsourcers there is.
And Heinz is an international corporation. Your point?
Sneechres
> In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
> > liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
> > feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
>
> and let live". Nothing more.
Really? Then why are so many liberals allowing themselves to be
represented by the live and let die party of the Democrats?
Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.
Higher taxes aren't letting people live as they will.
What about letting people live in the streets? Democrats, leftists,
liberals have thrown other people's money at the homeless and the
problem still is not solved.
What about promoting irresponsible sexual behavior? Kids in high
school have access to condoms, but I don't see any liberals curing
AIDS.
How about self-defense? Shouldn't we let people live by carrying
firearms to protect themselves? Yet liberals hate guns.
Then there's terrorism--isn't a war against terrorism a good idea to
keep people safe from terrorists? Yet liberals are against that.
Do liberals think that the elderly, people on life support, or
terminally ill should be "allowed to live" in opposition to the
beliefs of euthanasia proponents? Don't think so.
I'd keep going but one example would have been enough.
--S
Snit
1414fd53.04081...@posting.google.com on 8/18/04 10:56 PM:
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
> news:<clund-B7DF27....@amstwist00.chello.com>...
>> In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
>> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>>
>>> I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
>>> liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
>>> feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
>>
>> Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
>> and let live". Nothing more.
>
> Really? Then why are so many liberals allowing themselves to be
> represented by the live and let die party of the Democrats?
>
> Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.
The question of abortion is about when we value the... pick your favorite
term... as am equal to the mother. It is not about killing babies, no
matter how many times idiots repeat that claim.
>
> Higher taxes aren't letting people live as they will.
Nor is the wealthfare the right wing supports.
>
> What about letting people live in the streets? Democrats, leftists,
> liberals have thrown other people's money at the homeless and the
> problem still is not solved.
What would solve the problem in your view?
>
> What about promoting irresponsible sexual behavior? Kids in high
> school have access to condoms, but I don't see any liberals curing
> AIDS.
Condoms help to prevent AIDs. I have no idea what political ideology the
good folks who are working on cures hold. Do you?
>
> How about self-defense? Shouldn't we let people live by carrying
> firearms to protect themselves? Yet liberals hate guns.
Why stop at guns? Should I be allowed to stockpile anthrax and nukes?
>
> Then there's terrorism--isn't a war against terrorism a good idea to
> keep people safe from terrorists? Yet liberals are against that.
Where did you get that idea? Many Liberals do not like the way Bush is
acting. That does not imply they do not want to minimize the risk of
terrorism.
>
> Do liberals think that the elderly, people on life support, or
> terminally ill should be "allowed to live" in opposition to the
> beliefs of euthanasia proponents? Don't think so.
Sure, they should be allowed to live. Or die. As they wish.
>
> I'd keep going but one example would have been enough.
Only if your examples were accurate...
The Black Wibble
news:forge-26AF02....@comcast.dca.giganews.com...
So far I can only find context surrounding those figures on dime-a-dozen
moonbat websites. Can you provide a link to a report by any mainstream
publication that mentions those figures, gives context to what happened in
Florida and ends up concluding Al Gore would have and should have won the
2000 election? The more drier the analysis the better. If it's true that
Al Gore should have won, then I'll obviously take back what I said about the
Florida vote count being fair and square.
Tony.
GOOD RIDDANCE on Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!
> Nov. 2nd to Dishonest Warmonger-in-Thief G.W. Bush!" wrote:
>> Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
>>> Live and let live, LOL! If that was the case, we wouldn't
>>> have been hearing the liberals whine for the past 4 years
>>> about GWB "stealing" the election.
>> ROTFL!!!!!
>>
>> He and his dishonest cronies and thugs BLATANTLY stole it.
> The Democrats lost in Florida fair and square, and deserved to
> lose Florida given what the Clinton Admininstration did to the six year
> boy, Elian Gonzalez. Elian Gonzalez lost the Democrats the election.
The Elian episode no doubt cost the Democrats SOME votes...
but what happened with Elian was the RIGHT thing. He deserved
to be back with the father who loves him, and forcing him to stay in
America against his will would have been the equivalent of kidnapping
him. The people who attempted to do that were abjectly STUPID
people, and they got precisely the outcome that they deserved.
It's no surprise that people DUMB enough to try to kidnap a kid
from his legitimate father were ALSO dumb enough to vote the inept
and dishonest Bush.
And as I said before -- Bush was THIS dishonest ---
(And on Nov.2, tens of millions of CHEATED Americans will
**remember** those idiotic and hateful "Sore Loserman" taunts.
BOY, will we EVER remember !!!!! Spectacularly!!!) ----
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
REPUBLICAN DIRTY TRICKS
BOMBSHELL !!!
If THIS scandal gets swept under the rug, it'll be completely
inexplicable. THIS one is MAJOR!!!
ABC News documented it on its evening news tonight
(Thanksgiving Day, 11/23/2000).
Capitalized words in the quotes below are not "shouts." They
denote inflective emphasis of those words as they were spoken
in the report.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
NARRATOR: "At the time, it SEEMED spontaneous -- angry
residents denied the right to see their votes recounted. But the
REALITY is, it was an ORCHESTRATED Republican protest.
And MOST were not even FROM here."
<<<Camera crew questions a female protester... >>>
REPORTER: "Are you local? Are you... ?"
NARRATOR: "Her guide, a Republican public relations officer,
cut THAT conversation short."
<<< Her guide takes her by the elbow and whisks
her away from the crew before she can say more
than a few words in response. >>>
NARRATOR: "And SO it has been, ALL week long. A public
relations effort that has not ALWAYS been so public. Camped out in a
motor home, in the middle of the media staging area, you would THINK
they would want to TALK about their mission."
<<< Reporter attempts to talk to a man in the RV, who
responds to him only briefly from behind the door,
before closing it in the reporter's face. >>>
MAN IN RV: "It's a Bush operation."
REPORTER: "It's a BUSH operation?
MAN IN RV: "Yep."
REPORTER: "What goes ON inside this trailer?"
MAN IN RV: "Oh... can't talk to you right now."
<<< Man closes door in reporter's face >>>
NARRATOR: "In ALL, an army of 75 operatives came to Miami
to SHAPE public opinion. 'To help the media,' they said."
<<< Reporter walks alongside one of them, trying to
interview him... >>>
REPUBLICAN OPERATIVE: "And we provide a service for you
for surrogates who you'll want to speak to..."
<<< Scene shifts to an outdoor crowd of protestors, many
armed with professionally-printed signs identical to the
earlier Democratic campaign signs -- except that instead
of "Gore Lieberman," *these* read "Sore Loserman."
Several of them were wearing *printed* signs on their
backs that read, "Enough is Enough." >>>
NARRATOR: "But they ALSO got involved in leading demon-
strations. And were EVEN willing to dress up in seasonal outfits
to provide so-called 'protestor color,' for local news reports."
<<< Camera shows a person dressed in a turkey costume,
with another person next to him/her holding a 3' x 4' sign
reading, "STUFF THE TURKEY NOT THE BALLOT BOX."
Many protestors gathered around them, holding *printed*
signs reading, "Gore. Let our MILITARY VOTE." >>>
NARRATOR: "In the end, it apparently made a difference.
'Intimidation,' some called it."
DAVID LEAHY, Miami-Dade Election Supervisor:
"If what I had envisioned [had] worked out, and there were no
objections, we'd be up there now, counting."
= = = = = = = = =
NOTE: THAT statement by Leahy is KEY!!! Later, he tried to
to backpedal on it! But FORTUNATELY, the truth was
already out -- with THIS statement (above).
= = = = = = = = =
NARRATOR: "They are not. And that Bush operations
trailer -- has moved on. [This is] Bill Redecker, ABC News, Miami."
= = = = = = = = = = = =
The above is an exact transcription of the report, which I had
videotaped from the broadcast. VERY surprisingly, since this is such
an OBVIOUS subversion of the election process, ABC News has NOT
yet put this report on its abcnews.com website -- even though this
evening's OTHER stories ARE detailed there. (????)
If Gore loses this election, there will be three key factors:
(1) Nader threw the election. (A circumstance, but a legal one.)
(2) A fouled-up ballot in Palm Beach County, and no *concerted*
attempt to obtain a county-wide revote to correct that.
(Legal, but very unfortunate.)
(3) The above DIRTY TRICK. (Probably legal, according to the
LETTER of the law. But it STINKS to high heaven, and proves
that the lessons of Watergate were LOST on the Republicans,
who just PROVED themselves to be lower than snakes.)
What a SHAME for America if BUSH should win, in light of this.
And if he DOES, we should remind him for the next 4 years that -- not
only did he get in via the dinosaur of the electoral college (since
he LOST the POPULAR vote) -- his thugs LITERALLY *stole* the
election through the employment of a VERY sleazy trick.
= = = = = = = = = = = =
CONCLUDING COMMENT, by Craig Chilton, on 2-9-2001 --
(And as we know NOW, his inauguration was the
result of all of the above, AND via judicial fiat on the part
of the U.S. Supreme Court. Bush is not even REMOTELY
the ELECTED President. GORE *is.*
Bush is the APPOINTED President.
And the Court ran roughshod OVER the will of the people, to do
that. The REPUBLICAN-appointed, PARTISAN Justices, ONLY,
accomplished that INFAMOUS, SHAMEFUL and INEXCUSABLE deed.
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
-- Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com>
(REAL name and e-mail address, lest any bigot wrongly
think I'm hiding behind an a alias. The "alias," above,
is designed to be a visible MESSAGE, each time I post.)
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
INSIGHT on our Warmonger-in-Thief ---
http://homepage.mac.com/webmasterkai/kaicurry/gwbush/dishonestdubya.html
AND...
http://www.blackboxvoting.org/
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
ALSO worth a look:
http://anon.newmediamill.speedera.net/anon.newmediamill/pledge_acc/index.html
And... here's what happens to people like you & me:
http://www.cnn.com/2004/LAW/05/21/antiwar.soldier.ap/index.html
However, the same rules don't apply to the "Elite:"
~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*
The Black Wibble
It was previously harder? So when were the property rights of
shareholders/business owners taken away in the 'Land of the Free'?
Tony.
George Graves
<submit.iPkluBotlXWJNxf...@corp.supernews.com>,
Snuggles <submit.iPkl...@spam.spamcop.net> wrote:
> In article <gmgravesnos-8E4F...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
>
> > In article <180820042111429799%lloydp...@spamac.com>,
> > Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <zROUc.9727$rd5....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
> > > <Mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > > > message
> > > > news:2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > > > > If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
> > > > > bring back the draft.
> > > > >
> > > > > If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry is against abortion.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry is against gay marriage.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
> > > > > Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
> > > > > though there is no difference between them. Why?
> > > >
> > > > To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a
> > > > real
> > > > choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any
> > > > politician
> > > > at this level.
> > > >
> > > And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
> > > media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
> > > nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
> > > glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
> >
> > Exactly! It basically means that those most qualified for the office
> > don't want to run for it.
> >
> > > Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
> > > expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
> > > has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's blowjob
> > > for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a shit whether he got
> > > one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
> >
> > Nobody cares that he got a blow-job (though I do question his taste in
> > women), and it shouldn't have been reported in the news. It's no one's
> > business but his and that fat, ugly slut who gave it to him. But OTOH,
> > when asked about it, under oath, before a duly ordained grand jury, he
> > should have told the truth.
>
> Some questions just shouldn't be asked and I don't have a problem with a
> person lying if someone has the bad taste to ask.
Big of you, but irrelevant. The law is the law. If the court allows the
question, and you're under oath, you have to answer truthfully,
otherwise its the Graybar Hotel for a good long stay. You see, in order
for our system of jurisprudence to have even the slimmest chance of
working, it must be this way. That's basically the bottom line. All
other considerations are immaterial.
--
George Graves
------------------
Bush is a poor leader because he isn't very smart.
What's Kerry's excuse gonna be?
George Graves
forge <fo...@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
> In article <pc78i0592gsimcff1...@4ax.com>,
> Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
>
> Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
The US System of Jurisprudence cares. Set a precedent like that and the
whole system collapses. Lying under oath to a constituted authority
cannot be allowed, even if you don't agree with that constituted
authority's goals. If you cannot see that, there is little hope for you
and less for the justice system. It's every bit that simple.
George Graves
Lloyd Parsons <lloydp...@spamac.com> wrote:
> In article <pc78i0592gsimcff1...@4ax.com>, Mayor of
> R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 02:11:46 GMT, Lloyd Parsons
> > <lloydp...@spamac.com> chose to bless us with the following wisdom:
> >
> > >In article <zROUc.9727$rd5....@bignews6.bellsouth.net>, MuahMan
> > ><Mua...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> "Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam" <janklo...@hotmail.com> wrote in
> > >> message
> > >> news:2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com...
> > >> > If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
> > >> > bring back the draft.
> > >> >
> > >> > If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
> > >> >
> > >> > John Kerry is against abortion.
> > >> >
> > >> > John Kerry is against gay marriage.
> > >> >
> > >> > John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
> > >> >
> > >> > John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
> > >> >
> > >> >
> > >> > Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
> > >> > Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
> > >> > though there is no difference between them. Why?
> > >>
> > >> To make themselves feel better. All of us would like to think we have a
> > >> real
> > >> choice though we do not. Both men are equally corrupt as is any
> > >> politician
> > >> at this level.
> > >>
> > >And who do we have to blame for that? I'll tell you who, the fscking
> > >media and its 24-hour news. It is such a huge consumer of trivia and
> > >nit picking that every politician gets examined through a magnifying
> > >glass you wouldn't want to be put under yourself.
> > >
> > >Questions that didn't used to be asked are now asked and answers are
> > >expected, regardless whether the subject is of any real concern or even
> > >has an effect on the matters at hand. Think about Clinton's blowjob
> > >for a moment. Why in the world did ANYONE give a shit whether he got
> > >one or not? Men in power ALWAYS attract young women.
> >
> > Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
> > One only hopes you figure it before you're called to testify in a
> > trial, lest you find it being explained you by a large hairy man who
> > calls you 'Mary'.
>
> Quit playing the political bullshit game, Mayor. I actually think you
> are smarter than that. The entire fiasco was a simple vendetta that
> perjury ended. Had that not happened, those idiots would still be
> investigating on my and your dime!
>
> You know it and I know it.
>
> Lloyd
That's true, but it's still irrelevant.
Sneechres
> In article <MPG.1b8d7613a...@news-40.giganews.com>,> Or maybe not. Cite?
I don't think anyone really knows what John Kerry will do, not even
John Kerry. But considering that he's to the left of Hillary, it's a
safe bet he'll do whatever it takes to turn this country socialist.
And tell me you don't think something has to be done
> about the sorryassed state of health care and insurance in this country.
I do--tort reform is a great idea. We can start by NOT electing
people who choose ambulance-chasing lawyers as running mates. That
way, doctors aren't forced to pay through the nose to practice
medicine, fees go down, everyone has a doctor, everyone is happy.
> > Oh, he'll try and raise taxes
>
> As opposed to cutting them but still spending like a cowboy in Vegas
> after six months on the trail.
My job pays my bills. How about yours?
> > and ban more guns too.
>
> Cite? And how pray tell would John Kerry get THAT past Congress?
I imagine the same way he got the "assault weapon" (whatever that is)
ban through congress in 1992-3 (passed 1994).
--S
The Black Wibble
news:41244fe7...@netnews.mchsi.com...
> On Thu, 19 Aug 2004 15:13:23 +1200,
> "The Black Wibble" <sca...@free.org.net> wrote:
>> Craig Chilton <xana...@mchsi.com> ("GOOD RIDDANCE on
>>> ROTFL!!!!!
>>>
>>> He and his dishonest cronies and thugs BLATANTLY stole it.
>
>> The Democrats lost in Florida fair and square, and deserved to
>> lose Florida given what the Clinton Admininstration did to the six year
>> boy, Elian Gonzalez. Elian Gonzalez lost the Democrats the election.
>
> The Elian episode no doubt cost the Democrats SOME votes...
> but what happened with Elian was the RIGHT thing. He deserved
> to be back with the father who loves him, and forcing him to stay in
> America against his will would have been the equivalent of kidnapping
> him. The people who attempted to do that were abjectly STUPID
> people, and they got precisely the outcome that they deserved.
>
> It's no surprise that people DUMB enough to try to kidnap a kid
> from his legitimate father were ALSO dumb enough to vote the inept
> and dishonest Bush.
His legitimate mother died in her bid to bring Elian Gonzalez to a free
country rather than have him raised in a communist prison. This was the
only time I remember Democrats being so "Family Values" -- when wanting the
kid to return to his commie prick of a father. This was also the only time
I remember Republicans being so hush hush on "family values." It proved
that Democrats are socialists/closet totalitarians and Republicans are as
useless as tits on a bull when it comes to upholding the freedom of
indivdual rights abiding citizens. Cuba and the U.S. are as different as the
old East Germany was to West Germany. No sane person in the West would have
seriously entertained the idea of sending children back to East Germany
whose father or mother managed to escape with them into the West. I mean,
sending them back to live in a dicatorship?? Who could be that barbaric?
Well, the situation was the same with Elian Gonzalez being sent back to live
in a dictatorship, and the barbarians are the Democrats who also have the
gall to call themselve 'liberals', and the spineless hypocrites are the
Republicans.
Tony.
Jason McNorton
gmgra...@pacbell.net says...
> In article <forge-D31EEF....@comcast.dca.giganews.com>,
> forge <fo...@diespammers.youneedageek.com> wrote:
>
> > In article <pc78i0592gsimcff1...@4ax.com>,
> > Mayor of R'lyeh <ev5...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Still unable to wrap your mind around the concept of perjury, Lloyd?
> >
> > Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
>
> The US System of Jurisprudence cares. Set a precedent like that and the
> whole system collapses. Lying under oath to a constituted authority
> cannot be allowed, even if you don't agree with that constituted
> authority's goals. If you cannot see that, there is little hope for you
> and less for the justice system. It's every bit that simple.
He should've had enough sense to plead the 5th. What a buffoon that guy
was.
C Lund
Gactimus <gact...@xrs.net> wrote:
> > The two-party system has to go. It's bad for the US.
>
> There is no two party system persay. That's just the way things ended up.
When was the last time the US president was neither Democrat nor
Republican? The 1800's? I'd say you have a two-party system. People
don't vote for the people they want to vote for - they vote for the
people they think has the best chance at beating the people they don't
like. You're locked in good.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
snee...@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote:
> C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
> news:<clund-B7DF27....@amstwist00.chello.com>...
> > In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > > I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
> > > liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
> > > feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
> > Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
> > and let live". Nothing more.
> Really? Then why are so many liberals allowing themselves to be
> represented by the live and let die party of the Democrats?
Because the Republicans are even worse.
> Abortion certianly doesn't let fetuses live.
The abortion is a lot more complicated than that.
> Higher taxes aren't letting people live as they will.
Higher taxes is a socialist thing, not a liberal thing. Liberalism and
socialism are two unrelated things.
> What about letting people live in the streets? Democrats, leftists,
> liberals have thrown other people's money at the homeless and the
> problem still is not solved.
At least they've tried, unlike the Republicans who seem to enjoy
tossing *more* people on the streets.
> What about promoting irresponsible sexual behavior? Kids in high
> school have access to condoms, but I don't see any liberals curing
> AIDS.
That's because "liberals" can't cure AIDS. Doctors and researchers are
the ones to do that. All liberals can do is try to prevent the spread
of HIV by promoting education and safe sex - which involves condoms.
> How about self-defense? Shouldn't we let people live by carrying
> firearms to protect themselves? Yet liberals hate guns.
They (we - I should say) hate guns because they are frequently used to
kill people. This need for "self-defence" is probably unique to the US.
> Then there's terrorism--isn't a war against terrorism a good idea to
> keep people safe from terrorists? Yet liberals are against that.
Liberals - and anybody else with a brain - know you can't win a "war
on terror" by going to war - especially by going to war on a country
that had nothing to do with terrorism (Iraq). If the US wants to
reduce international terror, the US should start by taking a long look
at it's own foreign politics over the past fifty years.
> Do liberals think that the elderly, people on life support, or
> terminally ill should be "allowed to live" in opposition to the
> beliefs of euthanasia proponents? Don't think so.
Liberals generally think the elderly should be allowed to choose for
themselves.
> I'd keep going but one example would have been enough.
Your examples were worthless.
> --S
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
"TB-Taylor" <Anythinganytime@com> wrote:
> "C Lund" <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote in message
> news:clund-B7DF27....@amstwist00.chello.com...
> > In article <gmgravesnos-9CF5...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> >
> > > I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
> > > liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
> > > feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
Note to google miners, the following is the result of a dishonest
tactic known as "quote editing":
> > Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "tax
> > and spend". Nothing more.
> fixed
No, broken. Liar.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
"The Black Wibble" <sca...@free.org.net> wrote:
> These days the "live and let live" sentiment is more
> closely associated with libertarianism or classic liberalism.
The problem is that liberalism has to some been hijacked by fanatics
and turned into "political correctness", which imho is nothing less
than a form of fascism. I think this happened in the 1970's.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Sorry, but that's just wrong. The single pillar of Liberalism is "live
> > and let live". Nothing more.
> Sorry, but the US liberal's platform does not reflect that in any way
> shape or form.
What "liberal platform"?
I'm a liberal living in a liberal country. I feel no fear or guilt.
> --
> George Graves
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
Steve Mackay <steve_...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Live and let live, LOL! If that was the case, we wouldn't have been
> hearing the liberals whine for the past 4 years about GWB "stealing" the
> election.
He cheated (well, his brother cheated). Plain and simple. Forget about
the recounts. His brother took the right to vote away from thousands
of people who would most likely have voted Gore.
http://www.epinions.com/content_3197739140
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
C Lund
"The Black Wibble" <sca...@free.org.net> wrote:
> So far I can only find context surrounding those figures on dime-a-dozen
> moonbat websites. Can you provide a link to a report by any mainstream
> publication that mentions those figures, gives context to what happened in
> Florida and ends up concluding Al Gore would have and should have won the
> 2000 election? The more drier the analysis the better. If it's true that
> Al Gore should have won, then I'll obviously take back what I said about the
> Florida vote count being fair and square.
How about the class-action suit against Harris?
"NAACP v. Katherine Harris et al. Class Action Voting Rights Lawsuit"
http://www.aclufl.org/legislature_courts/legal_department/briefs_compla
ints/naacp_v__harris.cfm
Was that mainstream enough for you?
> Tony.
--
C Lund, www.notam02.no/~clund
Francis Burton
In article <2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com>,
Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam <janklo...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
>Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
>though there is no difference between them. Why?
http://www.monbiot.com/archives/2004/08/17/the-bad-or-the-terrible/
Francis
Jason McNorton
cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no says...
Quoting an anonymous post on an opinion forum.
Why don't you just quote yourself while you're at it?
Actually, this person sounds a lot more qualified and intelligent than
you do:
Member:Ms Hooterville
Location: Hooterville Green Acres USA
Psalm 110
> the
>election was stolen
5 boats went out, 5 officers on them. One came back with a hole in it
to explain.
The SwiftLiars gave their reports on the day of the incident. Kerry
towed one disabled craft home so we know they arrived at base
together. If they LIED THAT DAY, that is the lie they are stuck with.
If they TOLD THE TRUTH THAT DAY then they lied in their ads. Either
way you have liars. Look at their records first. What did they say on
the day they made their reports.
Why aren't they releasing their records?
We have established these are FELONY FRAUD LIARS. Now look at the
records of everybody else involved in this FELONY FRAUD. Look at
Merrie Spaeth whose thankfully dead husband, Tex Lezar, ran on the
same ticket that got GWB the governors mansion in Texas. This guy's
name is on a NCPA list on the internet with six known organized crime
felon's who specialize in FRAUD of the body politic. Don't know who
Spaeth is? She was a 'Monica', a whitehouse fellow, in the same
building where Nancy Reagan used to sneak off to the Lincoln bedroom
with Frank Sinatra. She also is the organizer of the first wave of
publicity for these FELONY FRAUD SWIFT BOAT ORGANIZED CRIME OPERATORS.
Demand Spaeth's records. Demand Lezar's records. Demand the
Lezar-Spaeth crime family friend's records.
There's a whole lot of records that Bob Perry is going to be
producing. Every federal and state agency will be on him like stink on
shit, making him produce records. You don't fund a CRIME OPERATION and
walk into the sunset whistling Dixie. Spaeth, and all, did a hatchet
job on McCain and robbed the republican party of his candidacy, but
they tangled with tougher meat than they know how to chew now.
Demand Bob Perry's records.
You want records. I'll release records. Read 'em and weep... Your
whole stinking organized crime network laid out so that even dumbfuk
jurors can follow without any shadow of a doubt.
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Koctopus_01.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Killer_David_Koch.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/CSE_Organized_Crime.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_CFACT.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Seitz_Tobacco_Crimes.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Nightline.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-1993-1994.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Singer-Seitz.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Stohrer-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Hazeltine-Singer.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Heidelberg-Appeal.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Sallie_Baliunas.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Walter_Williams_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Richard_S_Lindzen.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/ADTI_Frauds_01.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/AdTI_Villians.htm
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Pelosi.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Becky_Norton_Dunlop_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Confronting_AdTI.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Chrispeels.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Idsos.html
http://www.ecosyn.us/adti/Corrupt_Fred_Michel.html
The Black Wibble
allegations made by the complaints. Most of the allegations hint of nothing
more than bureaucratic bungling in the lead up to and including election
day. The more serious ones allude to citizens being forbidden to vote on
account of their skin colour which is an extraordinary claim requiring
extraordinary evidence. Also the punch-card balloting machines don't
discriminate on the basis of race, unlike this class action suit.. If
through using these machines votes by blacks were made incorrect or invalid
then the same thing happened to whites also, yet the suit is brought forward
for the sake of 'disenfranchised' black voters only. Why? Nor is there any
allegation of votes being dropped on the basis of party affiliation, and
there's no mention of those large numbers that 'forge' has given.
Tony.
The Black Wibble
> allegations made by the complaints. Most of the allegations hint of
> nothing more than bureaucratic bungling in the lead up to and including
> election day. The more serious ones allude to citizens being forbidden to
> vote on account of their skin colour which is an extraordinary claim
> requiring extraordinary evidence. Also the punch-card balloting machines
> don't discriminate on the basis of race, unlike this class action suit..
> If through using these machines votes by blacks were made incorrect or
> invalid then the same thing happened to whites also, yet the suit is
> brought forward for the sake of 'disenfranchised' black voters only. Why?
> Nor is there any allegation of votes being dropped on the basis of party
> affiliation, and there's no mention of those large numbers that 'forge'
> has given.
>
Fark! I should have written "This document only covers the allegations made
by the complainants." not "the complaints."
Tony.
forge
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > These days the "live and let live" sentiment is more
> > closely associated with libertarianism or classic liberalism.
>
> The problem is that liberalism has to some been hijacked by fanatics
> and turned into "political correctness", which imho is nothing less
> than a form of fascism. I think this happened in the 1970's.
Fortunately THOSE freaks never had any real control of anything and
their "movement" is fast becoming a memory of a weird anomaly.
forge
C Lund <cl...@notam02SPAMBLOCK.no> wrote:
> > > > I don't think any conservative does. Remember the twin pillars of
> > > > liberalism are fear and guilt. Whatever liberals aren't afraid of they
> > > > feel guilty about. Liberalism is the ideology of emotion.
>
> Note to google miners, the following is the result of a dishonest
> tactic known as "quote editing":
Yeah. Heh, fear and guilt - that sounds a lot like somebody else I
know... hmm, who was it? Oh yeah, PRESIDENT BUSH.
forge
> > As opposed to cutting them but still spending like a cowboy in Vegas
> > after six months on the trail.
>
> My job pays my bills. How about yours?
Barely. What's that got to do with the President putting us so far in
debt we'll never see the end of it? Keeping in mind that the interest
payments on all this debt... go to those rich people he cut taxes for.
Yup, think about it - who's got the most money in savings and in
municipal bonds and other interest-bearing investments? Rich people. Who
can afford to put more in those investments now that they're not paying
any taxes? Rich people. Aaaannnnd interest is paid to those investments
because? It's money the government is borrowing to buy bullets to shoot
at Iraqi insurgents because Bush didn't have an exit "strategery."
Lloyd Parsons
McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <180820042349241576%lloydp...@spamac.com>,
> lloydp...@spamac.com says...
> > In article <MPG.1b8deb278...@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
> > McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <180820042313338479%lloydp...@spamac.com>,
> > > lloydp...@spamac.com says...
> > > > In article <MPG.1b8dd8058...@news-40.giganews.com>, Jason
> > > > McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > Nice try Jason, get some political education soon.
> > > >
> > > > You are almost right here, it really wasn't about the blow job. It was
> > > > about 'getting' Clinton. Hillary was very correct when she said the
> > > > VWRC was out to get him.
> > >
> > > That's from the education about hillary being right and the Vast Right
> > > Wing Conspiracy insanity. *rolls eyes*
> >
> > I always enjoy rightards as they always drink the kool-aid. If you got
> > off your ass and do some research beyond JUST the right-wing crap, you
> > might learn that there is plenty something rotten on right just as
> > there is on the left.
> >
> > One of the things that I keep seeing reinforced is that all too many of
> > the right are unwilling to see the bad things that are going on in
> > their groups that are literally identical in the other groups. Its
> > that pompous righteousness that turns people off.
> >
> > Remember its been 40 years since the Republicans were last in control
> > of all 3 parts of gov't. With this bunch in there now, I think we know
> > why. Unfortunately after 40 years of better gov't, we forgot why we
> > threw them out 40 years ago. Now we remember, now we get to pitch them
> > again....
>
> BS. LBJ era was worse. So was Carter's. Far worse. You must be
> pretty young.
>
Well, if 60 is young.... ;-)
I was there for all of those, the first president I remember is
Eisenhower....
> The reason clinton is 'liked' by some is because he happened to be
> around during the tech boom. This same crowd (a lot of usenet, btw)
> holds the same thing in reverse against Bush. Even though it started to
> fall dramatically under clinton, Bush gets the blame.
>
The reason Clinton is liked by many is because, for all his personal
faults, he was a pretty good president. The reason the right was/is
afraid of him is because they know if it wasn't for the constitution
amendment limiting terms, he would still be President.
forge
> > Cite? And how pray tell would John Kerry get THAT past Congress?
>
> I imagine the same way he got the "assault weapon" (whatever that is)
> ban through congress in 1992-3 (passed 1994).
Kerry did that all by himself huh?
Tell me exactly, what need DOES Joe Sixpack Average Citizen have for a
rifle with a 30-40 round clip that'll fire full auto? Home protection? A
pump shotgun is far better for that. Hunting? That's a chickenshit way
to go up against an unarmed deer.
forge
George Graves <gmgra...@pacbell.net> wrote:
> > Lying to a bunch of witch-hunters? Who cares?
>
> The US System of Jurisprudence cares. Set a precedent like that and the
> whole system collapses. Lying under oath to a constituted authority
> cannot be allowed, even if you don't agree with that constituted
> authority's goals. If you cannot see that, there is little hope for you
> and less for the justice system. It's every bit that simple.
Yeah, I know, but it still sucks.
forge
"The Black Wibble" <sca...@free.org.net> wrote:
> > Except for all the people who are unemployed because Bush made it easier
> > for their employers to send their jobs to India.
>
> It was previously harder? So when were the property rights of
> shareholders/business owners taken away in the 'Land of the Free'?
Um, huh? Property rights? ??Fleh???
Lloyd Parsons
McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
Uh, huh....
A buffoon who went from being poor white trash to President. You
should be so successful!
forge
"The Black Wibble" <sca...@free.org.net> wrote:
> His legitimate mother died in her bid to bring Elian Gonzalez to a free
> country rather than have him raised in a communist prison.
His parents were separated and the father was the one who'd been awarded
legal custody. In the US that'd be called kidnapping by a noncustodial
parent and the parent would do jail time.
Lloyd Parsons
McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> In article <dfritzinnospam-DDD622.19182718082004@orngca-
> news02.socal.rr.com>, dfritzi...@mac.com says...
> > In article <MPG.1b8d7613a...@news-40.giganews.com>,
> > Jason McNorton <jm...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > > In article <gmgravesnos-9DA7...@news.sf.sbcglobal.net>,
> > > gmgra...@pacbell.net says...
> > > > In article <2de3419.04081...@posting.google.com>,
> > > > janklo...@hotmail.com (Me llamo Da-Veed No Mas Spam) wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > If elected, Kerry won't end the war in Iraq. If anything Kerry will
> > > > > bring back the draft.
> > > > >
> > > > > If elected, Kerry won't get rid of the Patriot Act.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry is against abortion.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry is against gay marriage.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry supports Israel just as much as Bush does.
> > > > >
> > > > > John Kerry is a Bonesman just like Bush.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Yet stupid-ass liberals still pretend Kerry is somehow better than
> > > > > Bush. Liberals blindly insult Bush and blindly praise Kerry, even
> > > > > though there is no difference between them. Why?
> > > >
> > > > I don't think that most people see Kerry as "better" than Bush. But
> > > > they
> > > > do see him as "NOT BUSH." And that seems to be enough.
> > >
> > > He'll push socialized medicine, which is by far the most damaging thing
> > > he can do. Oh, he'll try and raise taxes and ban more guns too.
> >
> > So, Jason, just what is your plan to get the >40 million people with no
> > health care onto healthcare. Remember, they impact the cost of your
> > care, since they usually only go to the ER, the most expensive
> > healthcare available. Not to mention, the increasing cost of healthcare.
> > As far as gun control, even Bush says he supports banning assault
> > weapons, but doesn't do anything about it. And, taxes are going to go
> > up. You see, there is this thing called a >$7 trillion government debt,
> > and millions of baby boomers about to retire. Someone is going to have
> > to pay for it, you know.
>
> If Bush lets the idiotic 'assault weapons' ban sunset like it should,
> he'll be a hero to me. Most everyone doesn't even know what an 'assault
> weapon' is. It's certainly not a machine as defined by that idiotic
> law.
>
> I'm probably facing paying for my own insurance too. It sucks, costs
> are out of control. But federalizing it isn't the answer. Anything
> else. Make competition easier, if anything.
>
>
> > > If those are 'not bush', then I'd hate to see what a real liberal would
> > > try.
> >
> > Perhaps try to correct some of the problems you conservatives have
> > foisted upon us.
>
> I suppose that's what clinton managed to do right? Sure...
Now that you ask, yep that is exactly what he did. Cleaned up much of
the mess left by Reagan/Bush I
Osprey
> In article <1414fd53.04081...@posting.google.com>,
> snee...@yahoo.com (Sneechres) wrote:
>
> > > As opposed to cutting them but still spending like a cowboy in Vegas
> > > after six months on the trail.
> >
> > My job pays my bills. How about yours?
>
> Barely. What's that got to do with the President putting us so far in
> debt we'll never see the end of it?
What do you mean we will never see the end of it?
Kerry has said he can have it reduced by at least half in four years.
So if that is the case, Kerry should be able to have us out of debt in less
than a decade.
Do you plan on dying in less than 8 years?
If not, you should see the end of it if Kerry is elected.
Keeping in mind that the interest
> payments on all this debt... go to those rich people he cut taxes for.
Do you propose we cut taxes on people who live below poverty levels?
>
> Yup, think about it - who's got the most money in savings and in
> municipal bonds and other interest-bearing investments? Rich people. Who
> can afford to put more in those investments now that they're not paying
> any taxes? Rich people.
Rich people pay the most taxes as it is.
And they know how to invest, how do you think they became rich?
Do you have a problem with people who become rich?
Do you know who makes up the largest percentage of people who became wealthy
in the past 20 years? Blue collar workers. Yep, that's right, blue collar
workers. Because they learned to save, invest, and wait.
If more people would learn to stay out of debt on their own, save, and be
patient, they too can become wealthy. They key is, time and patience.
I invest, I have been doing so for more than five years now. Am I wealthy
yet? No, not yet. But I am well on my way and I have a very nice amount
saved as well. I have no debt, accept my vehicle and my mortage. Which I
will pay off early. All my credit cards, I pay them off immediately. When I
get a pay raise, I do not include it in my standard of living. Instead, it
goes to savings.
I, like many other blue collar workers, learned. Some of us learned the hard
way, through our own mistakes. But we learned.
When I become rich, I will not mind paying my fair share of taxes, but don't
expect me to be penalized for simply being rich. Which is something I see
far too many liberals doing, wanting to blame and attack the rich.
Well, instead of blaming and attacking do what they did...become rich.
Aaaannnnd interest is paid to those investments
> because? It's money the government is borrowing to buy bullets to shoot
> at Iraqi insurgents because Bush didn't have an exit "strategery."
I agree that we did not have an exit strategy, but it wasn't entirely Bush.
You seem to forget a lot of planing comes from the Pentagon. Why do so many
think Bush does everything??????