Discussion:
The day is here!
(too old to reply)
Specialsearcher
2004-11-02 07:21:25 UTC
Permalink
Hello, its time to elect.

(There maybe lines so it might be nice to take a folding chair and an
umbrella.)

I think its time we show another kind of support and come together to vote for
John Kerry. He has spoken with care and passion about stem cell research for
Michael J. Fox, Christopher Reeves and other people like him. Its obvious he
really cares about the middle class, as well as those with diseases. I believe
John Kerry will lead America to a better tomorrow for us all and our children;
with issues that will likely resolve some of the problems that we talk about in
this newsgroup.

1) With more good jobs.
2) More people covered with health insurance.
3) A safer more credible and respected America.
4) An America with full funding of stem cell research and better treatments for
diseases
and possibly more cures.
5) An America with safer cheaper drugs.
6) With social security safe, out of the stock market.
7) I think John Kerry is less likely to do a draft.

John Kerry has a plan for the future. George Bush, it seems, just probably more
of the same; maybe worse. More higher gas prices, less jobs made - than lost,
increasing drug prices, increasing homes prices, federal debt, uninsured, etc..


With Kerry in charge, it will be less likely he will rush to another war (such
as Iran) that will trigger a possible draft next time.

An underdog with a real chance to win this election. John Kerry needs a heavy
democratic vote! He has to defeat Bush with Ralph Nader and others in the way,
making it harder for the Kerry/edwards ticket to win. We can't have the
people's choice for President stolen from us again; In order to overcome what
happened in the last Presidential election, its important everybody who is for
Kerry to vote! Please call everybody that will vote for John Kerry, to remind
them to vote this November 2nd... It would be nice also, for some of us to help
those that can't get to the polls, get to the polls safely and vote... Lets
have a UNITED America!

Please go vote for John Kerry for President tomorrow; also remind other
registered Kerry supporters to vote. With things so close every vote really
matters.
Thank you!

P. S. We need to plan for a worse case scenario, a Kerry loss. SO PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a democratic
controlled Congress, it can so to speak baby sit George Bush should he win.
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-03 12:27:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by Specialsearcher
PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a democratic
controlled Congress....
(Specialsearcher)

Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7 million and
inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry

Chuck
Leslie A. Lyons
2004-11-03 16:09:04 UTC
Permalink
Hello,

Heeeee, Heeeee, Heeeee! More Senate seats, as I'm typing Fox News is
anouncing John F. Kerry has called President Bush and conceeded the
election! Heeeee, Heeeee, and Heeeee!

Leslie

And Montana voted against gay marrige and FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Specialsearcher
PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a democratic
controlled Congress....
(Specialsearcher)
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7 million and
inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
Chuck
Rob Duncan
2004-11-03 22:11:23 UTC
Permalink
Post by Specialsearcher
Hello,
Heeeee, Heeeee, Heeeee! More Senate seats, as I'm typing Fox News is
anouncing John F. Kerry has called President Bush and conceeded the
election! Heeeee, Heeeee, and Heeeee!
Leslie
High-Five Leslie!!! :*)


Rob
Post by Specialsearcher
And Montana voted against gay marrige and FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Specialsearcher
PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a democratic
controlled Congress....
(Specialsearcher)
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7 million and
inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
Chuck
Jodi
2004-11-03 22:22:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Duncan
High-Five Leslie!!! :*)
I'll high-five ya too!

Jodi
Post by Rob Duncan
Rob
Michael
2004-11-03 22:59:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Specialsearcher
Hello,
Heeeee, Heeeee, Heeeee! More Senate seats, as I'm typing Fox News is
anouncing John F. Kerry has called President Bush and conceeded the
election! Heeeee, Heeeee, and Heeeee!
Leslie
Lemme get this straight.

Considering that at least three Supreme Court appointments will be necessary
during this presidential term, all of the "checks and balances" of which the
US ought to be proud and defiantly defensive are now wholly owned by one
party... a party whose upper echelons are hell-bent on totally reshaping the
world in their own image.

That's - by the very definition of the word - a potential recipe for
totalitarianism.

And you're *gleeful* about this turn of events?

IMO, you may yet have cause to thank your God that you still have your
Constitution's Second Amendment.
Post by Specialsearcher
And Montana voted against gay marrige and FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
So they're only *half* wrong, then. That's a change for the better, I
guess. Maybe there's hope yet. :-)

((U))
M
Post by Specialsearcher
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Specialsearcher
PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a
democratic controlled Congress....
(Specialsearcher)
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7
million and inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
Chuck
KKT
2004-11-04 00:19:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by Leslie A. Lyons
Heeeee, Heeeee, Heeeee! More Senate seats, as I'm typing Fox News is
anouncing John F. Kerry has called President Bush and conceeded the
election! Heeeee, Heeeee, and Heeeee!
Leslie
Lemme get this straight.
Considering that at least three Supreme Court appointments will be necessary
during this presidential term, all of the "checks and balances" of which the
US ought to be proud and defiantly defensive are now wholly owned by one
party... a party whose upper echelons are hell-bent on totally reshaping the
world in their own image.
That's - by the very definition of the word - a potential recipe for
totalitarianism.
And you're *gleeful* about this turn of events?
For some people, winning's the only thing. A little short-sighted,
I'd say ... but there you are.
Post by Michael
IMO, you may yet have cause to thank your God that you still have your
Constitution's Second Amendment.
I just finished talking with a friend of mine. We decided that the
2nd amendment may come in much handier than any liberal Democrat
every expected it would. ;-)
Post by Michael
Post by Leslie A. Lyons
And Montana voted against gay marrige and FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
So they're only *half* wrong, then. That's a change for the better, I
guess. Maybe there's hope yet. :-)
Kathie
Rob Duncan
2004-11-04 02:48:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by Specialsearcher
Hello,
Heeeee, Heeeee, Heeeee! More Senate seats, as I'm typing Fox News is
anouncing John F. Kerry has called President Bush and conceeded the
election! Heeeee, Heeeee, and Heeeee!
Leslie
Lemme get this straight.
Considering that at least three Supreme Court appointments will be
necessary during this presidential term, all of the "checks and balances"
of which the US ought to be proud and defiantly defensive are now wholly
owned by one party... a party whose upper echelons are hell-bent on
totally reshaping the world in their own image.
That's - by the very definition of the word - a potential recipe for
totalitarianism.
And you're *gleeful* about this turn of events?
IMO, you may yet have cause to thank your God that you still have your
Constitution's Second Amendment.
Your unneccesarily paranoid Michael. We NEVER will put a retard on the
bench. Its too important and all know that. Youve been viewing things with
too much anxiety and import lately. Even Reagens (Very conservative)
appointee is telling us we should engage in orgies in order to aleive social
pressures and make a happier society. Isnt that progress? :*)
Post by Michael
Post by Specialsearcher
And Montana voted against gay marrige and FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
So they're only *half* wrong, then. That's a change for the better, I
guess. Maybe there's hope yet. :-)
((U))
M
Personaly I think its ridiculous to try and redifine the term marriage. You
just cant take an institution thats been around sinse mankinds inception and
change it to suit, what is at best, 6% of our population.

Civil Unions will work just fine. Ive never even heard of a person against
civil-unions. Is anyone aware of someone against civil-unions?


Rob
Michael
2004-11-04 03:02:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Duncan
Civil Unions will work just fine. Ive never even heard of a person
against civil-unions. Is anyone aware of someone against
civil-unions?
GW Bush was.... until he wasn't.

The entire Oregon Republican Convention was at their last shindig with the
Cheneys, and Lynne Cheney was (publically, and despite having a lesbian
daughter,) only a short time before that.

And then there's the "fringe".

http://www2.gwu.edu/~action/ads2/buchadvt.html

Buchanan/Foster 2000

"Vermont Civil Unions"
Radio spot.

Pat Buchanan: Hi, I'm Pat Buchanan.

First, let me commend the good people of Vermont.

When your politicians voted to give homosexuals the same rights as married
couples, you did not despair. You fought back. and on primary day, five
Republicans who supported that moral outrage, were tossed out of office.

For that, God Bless Vermont. In the struggle for the soul of
America, --between decency and decadence--you have shown that defeats are
not irreversible, that the battle is not lost. You have set an example for
the nation.

Hopefully, your movement to take Vermont back--will ignite a national
crusade to take America back. We are with you; and we believe it's time for
a third party, that puts faith and family first. This election day, vote
Buchanan-Foster.

Female Announcer: On Election Day send a message to the two parties that
have abandoned us. Vote Buchanan for President and help us build a third
party that puts faith and family first. To help call 1-800 GO PAT GO. Paid
for by Buchanan-Foster.
Rob Duncan
2004-11-04 14:11:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by Rob Duncan
Civil Unions will work just fine. Ive never even heard of a person
against civil-unions. Is anyone aware of someone against
civil-unions?
GW Bush was.... until he wasn't.
He was? Thats the first Ive heard of that. When was this? But now hes
not? Is he allowed to change his mind, or is that a flip-flop? LOL.
Post by Michael
The entire Oregon Republican Convention was at their last shindig with the
Cheneys, and Lynne Cheney was (publically, and despite having a lesbian
daughter,) only a short time before that.
Against civil unions? What does them having a lesbian daughter have to do
with anything?
Post by Michael
And then there's the "fringe".
http://www2.gwu.edu/~action/ads2/buchadvt.html
Buchanan/Foster 2000
"Vermont Civil Unions"
Radio spot.
Pat Buchanan: Hi, I'm Pat Buchanan.
First, let me commend the good people of Vermont.
When your politicians voted to give homosexuals the same rights as married
couples, you did not despair. You fought back. and on primary day, five
Republicans who supported that moral outrage, were tossed out of office.
For that, God Bless Vermont. In the struggle for the soul of
America, --between decency and decadence--you have shown that defeats are
not irreversible, that the battle is not lost. You have set an example
for the nation.
Hopefully, your movement to take Vermont back--will ignite a national
crusade to take America back. We are with you; and we believe it's time
for a third party, that puts faith and family first. This election day,
vote Buchanan-Foster.
Female Announcer: On Election Day send a message to the two parties that
have abandoned us. Vote Buchanan for President and help us build a third
party that puts faith and family first. To help call 1-800 GO PAT GO.
Paid for by Buchanan-Foster.
Theyre against civil unions?


Rob
Fred
2004-11-04 06:16:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Duncan
Civil Unions will work just fine. Ive never even heard of a person
against civil-unions. Is anyone aware of someone against
civil-unions?
Some states prohibited the recognition of civil unions as well as gay
married couples in their amendments voted on Tuesday.

Fred.
Rob Duncan
2004-11-04 14:14:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred
Post by Rob Duncan
Civil Unions will work just fine. Ive never even heard of a person
against civil-unions. Is anyone aware of someone against
civil-unions?
Some states prohibited the recognition of civil unions as well as gay
married couples in their amendments voted on Tuesday.
Fred.
Im not asking for a link, because I hate that. But are you sure? Ive never
heard of anyone against civil unions. Im sure the pro-gay media complex and
hollywood would have been all over who ever it was. Do you remember which
states? Im definitaly against not allowing civil unions.


Rob
Johan
2004-11-04 15:37:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Duncan
Post by Fred
Post by Rob Duncan
Civil Unions will work just fine. Ive never even heard of a person
against civil-unions. Is anyone aware of someone against
civil-unions?
Some states prohibited the recognition of civil unions as well as gay
married couples in their amendments voted on Tuesday.
Fred.
Im not asking for a link, because I hate that. But are you sure? Ive never
heard of anyone against civil unions. Im sure the pro-gay media complex and
hollywood would have been all over who ever it was. Do you remember which
states? Im definitaly against not allowing civil unions.
Rob
This is one area where I differ from many of my church friends.

There is a vast difference between religious marriage and civil
marriage. Religious marriage is a spiritual and moral/ethical commitment
which is not necessarily related to mundane law.

Civil marriage is a legal contract that mainly establishes legal
parenthood, inheritance rules, provisions for division of property if
the relationship is terminated, provision for support of minor children
etc, etc. Those areas _are_ within the legitimate interests of the
government; for the sake of civil order and fairly adjudicating the
rights of the persons involved if no other reason.

For all I'd care, anyone who wanted to, in whatever numbers, could enter
into civil marriages in whatever form to which the participants agree.
Get together with an attorney, draw up your contract, sign it, and go
about your business. Don't bother going to a church if you don't want to
do so. Sign the papers, BINGO, you're married. It'd be enforceable in
court. So draw the contract carefully. :)

Old Man Heinlein described several varieties of civil marriage in his
many books, "Friday" having one of the better described forms of it.

Just about every possible way of making a marriage relationships has
existed at one time or another someplace; polygamy, polyandry,
intergenerational, line breeding, plainly incestuous, groups,
homosexual, heterosexual or all the above. You name it, somebody's
probably tried it, with or without religious elements.

I just don't have the time or concern to worry about who does what to or
with whom in their bedrooms and personal lives.

I'm a pretty conservative and somewhat fundamentalist Christian and have
been for a long time. There's a codicil to that, however. Whether I
might think you're going to Hell in a handbasket, fast freight, airline,
or other conveyance is irrelevant: That's between you and God. It not
being in my place, position, or power to make that judgment according to
the rulebook, I have to leave that up to you: It's your choice. I have
no legitimate interest in your choice other than to present the terms of
the choice politely and then to leave you alone thereafter. (Something
about: It is given to one to prepare the ground, to another to plant the
seed, and to another to reap the harvest; but the seed doesn't always
grow.)

If my faith can't stand on it's own, without force or fraud, it's not
got much chance of continuing. If I, or anyone, set out to _force_
religion onto another, it is to step out of the realm of faith and way
away from what Jesus or Mohammed or the many others generally taught.
(and they open themselves to the judicious application of counterforce
in their turn)

I'd be willing to bet there haven't been more than a few _real_
religious conversions attributable to force in all of history. People
may have adopted the forms of a religion, but how many actually changed
their beliefs, even facing certain death? Martyrdom is not exclusive to
Christianity.

Fact of the matter is: The only logically tenable position is
Agnosticism. We don't know nor can we prove the existence or
non-existence of a transcendent god in any scientific sense and we
probably cannot. IMHO, of course.

But, God knows, we've tried. :)
Fred
2004-11-04 19:55:07 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Duncan
Post by Fred
Post by Rob Duncan
Civil Unions will work just fine. Ive never even heard of a person
against civil-unions. Is anyone aware of someone against
civil-unions?
Some states prohibited the recognition of civil unions as well as gay
married couples in their amendments voted on Tuesday.
Fred.
Im not asking for a link, because I hate that. But are you sure? Ive
never heard of anyone against civil unions. Im sure the pro-gay media
complex and hollywood would have been all over who ever it was. Do
you remember which states? Im definitaly against not allowing civil
unions.
Check http://tinyurl.com/3prxj and look at the 3rd paragraph from the
bottom. I remember reading Ohio's amendment and it prohibited recognizing
any legal relationship between homosexuals.

Fred.
Elizabeth Newman
2004-11-05 00:19:44 UTC
Permalink
allowing,prohibiting,mighty white of you boyz
Rob Duncan
2004-11-05 04:32:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Fred
Post by Rob Duncan
Post by Fred
Post by Rob Duncan
Civil Unions will work just fine. Ive never even heard of a person
against civil-unions. Is anyone aware of someone against
civil-unions?
Some states prohibited the recognition of civil unions as well as gay
married couples in their amendments voted on Tuesday.
Fred.
Im not asking for a link, because I hate that. But are you sure? Ive
never heard of anyone against civil unions. Im sure the pro-gay media
complex and hollywood would have been all over who ever it was. Do
you remember which states? Im definitaly against not allowing civil
unions.
Check http://tinyurl.com/3prxj and look at the 3rd paragraph from the
bottom. I remember reading Ohio's amendment and it prohibited recognizing
any legal relationship between homosexuals.
Fred.
Hmm. Thats not exactly how I read it. Anyway, nobody can legaly stop
homosexuals from entering into legal contracts. Thats absurd. All one
would have to do is write up a contract, sign and notarize it, then file it
with the local county clerk. Nobody can stop that. Its nobodies business
what the contracts about.


Rob
Leslie A. Lyons
2004-11-05 16:04:42 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by Specialsearcher
Hello,
Heeeee, Heeeee, Heeeee! More Senate seats, as I'm typing Fox News is
anouncing John F. Kerry has called President Bush and conceeded the
election! Heeeee, Heeeee, and Heeeee!
Leslie
Lemme get this straight.
Considering that at least three Supreme Court appointments will be
necessary during this presidential term, all of the "checks and balances"
of which the US ought to be proud and defiantly defensive are now wholly
owned by one party
As if John F-ing Kerry wouldn't load the court to the liberal side of
things? Get a grip!

... a party whose upper echelons are hell-bent

Godly informed...

on totally reshaping the
Post by Michael
world in their (no _His_) own image.
That's - by the very definition of the word - a potential recipe for
totalitarianism.
Seems it would be a perfect world
Post by Michael
And you're *gleeful* about this turn of events?
F-ing A bubba!
Post by Michael
IMO, you may yet have cause to thank your God that you still have your
Constitution's Second Amendment.
UN-like you gun grabbing canuckleheads who just have hunting accidents and
NO gun crimes.
Post by Michael
Post by Specialsearcher
And Montana voted against gay marrige and FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
So they're only *half* wrong, then. That's a change for the better, I
guess.
Nope, totally CORRECT

Maybe there's hope yet. :-)
Unforntunatly not for ((U)) Michael, stranded on an island watching
shiploads of timber float away, sniff, hug a tree for me. HEEEEE, HEEEEE
HEEEEE! ;-)

Leslie

Oh by the way PLONK!
Post by Michael
((U))
M
Post by Specialsearcher
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Specialsearcher
PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a
democratic controlled Congress....
(Specialsearcher)
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7
million and inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
Chuck
Michael
2004-11-05 18:34:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leslie A. Lyons
Post by Michael
Post by Specialsearcher
Hello,
Heeeee, Heeeee, Heeeee! More Senate seats, as I'm typing Fox News
is anouncing John F. Kerry has called President Bush and conceeded
the election! Heeeee, Heeeee, and Heeeee!
Leslie
Lemme get this straight.
Considering that at least three Supreme Court appointments will be
necessary during this presidential term, all of the "checks and
balances" of which the US ought to be proud and defiantly defensive
are now wholly owned by one party
As if John F-ing Kerry wouldn't load the court to the liberal side of
things? Get a grip!
I *have* a grip, thanks... and frankly, if the tables were turned, Kerry
would do just as you say he would.

A one-party state of any stripe is a corrupt state in danger of sliding into
totalitarianism.
Post by Leslie A. Lyons
... a party whose upper echelons are hell-bent
Godly informed...
on totally reshaping the
Post by Michael
world in their (no _His_) own image.
Hmmmm.... you may be right. Armageddon *is* being deliberately hastened.
Post by Leslie A. Lyons
Post by Michael
That's - by the very definition of the word - a potential recipe for
totalitarianism.
Seems it would be a perfect world
That's what the animal farm said about putting the pigs in charge.
Post by Leslie A. Lyons
Post by Michael
And you're *gleeful* about this turn of events?
F-ing A bubba!
Fine, then. You won. Congratulations.

Just remember that for all practical purposes, liberal dissent (Dem
opposition in *any* form) has ceased to have any meaning in the gonvernment
of the USA. Responsibility for anything attributable to government
action - for good or ill - rests entirely with the Republican party and
mostly with the Bush/Cheney neocon junta for at least the next two years...
maybe four.

There are no scapegoats to kick around anymore, and those who voted for
Republicans federally will have no one to blame but themselves if this
doesn't work out.

I hope for your sakes that it does... despite my misgivings about the
Republican Party's current direction, I believe the USA was once one of the
best things ever to happen to humanity, and I'd like to think it isn't
destined to follow in Rome's footsteps.
Post by Leslie A. Lyons
Post by Michael
IMO, you may yet have cause to thank your God that you still have
your Constitution's Second Amendment.
UN-like you gun grabbing canuckleheads who just have hunting
accidents and NO gun crimes.
I don't have a clue what you're talking about, and neither do you.

In the *real*world, gun accidents and crimes happen. In the USA even more
so, if you look at the stats. That's not a function of gun control or the
lack thereof... it's just that with more guns in the USA, there are more
idiots and criminals with guns. It would be the same here if our
population were as large.

Oh, and no one's tried grabbing *my* guns, and to use a quote you've
probably heard a lot of in your time, they can have my guns when they pry
them out of my cold, dead fingers.
Post by Leslie A. Lyons
Post by Michael
Post by Specialsearcher
And Montana voted against gay marrige and FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
So they're only *half* wrong, then. That's a change for the
better, I guess.
Nope, totally CORRECT
Maybe there's hope yet. :-)
Unforntunatly not for ((U)) Michael, stranded on an island watching
shiploads of timber float away, sniff, hug a tree for me. HEEEEE,
HEEEEE HEEEEE! ;-)
Leslie
Oh by the way PLONK!
<snort> Can't stand having your "reality" questioned?

((U))
M
Post by Leslie A. Lyons
Post by Michael
Post by Specialsearcher
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Specialsearcher
PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a
democratic controlled Congress....
(Specialsearcher)
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7
million and inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
Chuck
Rob Duncan
2004-11-05 21:24:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by Leslie A. Lyons
Post by Michael
Post by Specialsearcher
Hello,
Heeeee, Heeeee, Heeeee! More Senate seats, as I'm typing Fox News is
anouncing John F. Kerry has called President Bush and conceeded the
election! Heeeee, Heeeee, and Heeeee!
Leslie
Lemme get this straight.
Considering that at least three Supreme Court appointments will be
necessary during this presidential term, all of the "checks and balances"
of which the US ought to be proud and defiantly defensive are now wholly
owned by one party
As if John F-ing Kerry wouldn't load the court to the liberal side of
things? Get a grip!
... a party whose upper echelons are hell-bent
Godly informed...
on totally reshaping the
Post by Michael
world in their (no _His_) own image.
That's - by the very definition of the word - a potential recipe for
totalitarianism.
Seems it would be a perfect world
Post by Michael
And you're *gleeful* about this turn of events?
F-ing A bubba!
Post by Michael
IMO, you may yet have cause to thank your God that you still have your
Constitution's Second Amendment.
UN-like you gun grabbing canuckleheads who just have hunting accidents and
NO gun crimes.
Post by Michael
Post by Specialsearcher
And Montana voted against gay marrige and FOR MEDICAL MARIJUANA!
So they're only *half* wrong, then. That's a change for the better, I
guess.
Nope, totally CORRECT
Maybe there's hope yet. :-)
Unforntunatly not for ((U)) Michael, stranded on an island watching
shiploads of timber float away, sniff, hug a tree for me. HEEEEE, HEEEEE
HEEEEE! ;-)
Leslie
Oh by the way PLONK!
Leslie, arent you that gorgeous bodybuilder from the late 80's, early 90's?
I think I saw you in Playboy. (Tm) ;^)


Rob
(Your name rings a bell)
Post by Leslie A. Lyons
Post by Michael
((U))
M
Post by Specialsearcher
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Specialsearcher
PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a
democratic controlled Congress....
(Specialsearcher)
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7
million and inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
Chuck
KKT
2004-11-03 16:36:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Specialsearcher
PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a democratic
controlled Congress....
(Specialsearcher)
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7 million and
inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
And black box voting. I'm sorry, too.

KKT
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-03 19:18:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
Post by ChuckMSRD
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7 million and
inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
And black box voting. I'm sorry, too.
KKT
WTF does that mean? Massive conspiracy eh? What a surprise you would say that.

Chuck
KKT
2004-11-03 19:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
Post by ChuckMSRD
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7 million and
inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
And black box voting. I'm sorry, too.
WTF does that mean? Massive conspiracy eh? What a surprise you would say that.
Chuck
Unlike you, I have opinions based on facts. There are a number of
reports of people voting for Kerry and having the computers confirm
"Bush." That's a problem, in my estimation.

It's sad that you would take voting so cavalierly. For me, it's
exceedingly important. I wish that were true of others who seem to
think that winning is the most important thing in the world.

KKT
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-03 21:50:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
Unlike you, I have opinions based on facts. There are a number of
reports of people voting for Kerry and having the computers confirm
"Bush." That's a problem, in my estimation.
KKT
Sad, very sad. We all wait for your "facts" from looney left wing websites
about how Kerry really won.Clear electoral college victory, 3.7 million popular
vote victory. Gains in Governorships and State houses.
Get a grip K and deal with it.

Chuck
KKT
2004-11-03 23:02:06 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
Unlike you, I have opinions based on facts. There are a number of
reports of people voting for Kerry and having the computers confirm
"Bush." That's a problem, in my estimation.
Sad, very sad. We all wait for your "facts" from looney left wing websites
about how Kerry really won.Clear electoral college victory, 3.7 million popular
vote victory. Gains in Governorships and State houses.
Get a grip K and deal with it.
Actually, I haven't read any web site or anything else that said
Kerry won. I have read that all the votes haven't been counted
[everyone acknowledges that that's true], and Greg Palast has
reported about voter spoilage.

Yes, there were significant Republican gains. The Democratic gains
were not as substantial. The question is "why," given that the
public generally support Democratic views on issues more than
Republican views ... by a wide margin.

That you don't think that voting irregularities are a problem says a
great deal about you. If you were confident of your party's win, I
assume you would support investigations of this sort. That you seem
to disdain them indicates your lack of confidence ...

BTW, if you have some indication that a Democrat won with faulty
equipment, I'd welcome an investigation into that as well ... bring
'em on!

Kathie
Rob Duncan
2004-11-04 02:39:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Unlike you, I have opinions based on facts. There are a number of reports
of people voting for Kerry and having the computers confirm "Bush."
That's a problem, in my estimation.
Sad, very sad. We all wait for your "facts" from looney left wing websites
about how Kerry really won.Clear electoral college victory, 3.7 million popular
vote victory. Gains in Governorships and State houses.
Get a grip K and deal with it.
Actually, I haven't read any web site or anything else that said Kerry
won. I have read that all the votes haven't been counted [everyone
acknowledges that that's true], and Greg Palast has reported about voter
spoilage.
Yes, there were significant Republican gains. The Democratic gains were
not as substantial. The question is "why," given that the public generally
support Democratic views on issues more than Republican views ... by a
wide margin.
Oh my GOSH! LOL, you are so blind its stunning. Even in the face of the
election you arrive at the complete opposite of a logical conclusion. And
you swear you went to law school and passed the bar? The public generally
does NOT support Democratic views. Not at all. Youre victim to media polls
propaganda. Stop basing your beliefs on your beloved media.
That you don't think that voting irregularities are a problem says a great
deal about you. If you were confident of your party's win, I assume you
would support investigations of this sort. That you seem to disdain them
indicates your lack of confidence ...
That these supposed irregularities always happen to occur in Democraticly
heavy and controlled counties is indeed something that should be
investigated. It doesnt pass the smell test. How come only Republican
counties can get their elections right?


Rob
KKT
2004-11-04 02:53:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Duncan
Yes, there were significant Republican gains. The Democratic gains were
not as substantial. The question is "why," given that the public generally
support Democratic views on issues more than Republican views ... by a
wide margin.
Oh my GOSH! LOL, you are so blind its stunning. Even in the face of the
election you arrive at the complete opposite of a logical conclusion. And
you swear you went to law school and passed the bar? The public generally
does NOT support Democratic views. Not at all. Youre victim to media polls
propaganda. Stop basing your beliefs on your beloved media.
Actually, the public polls for the last 25 years have shown this to
be true. I'm not sure what you're basing YOUR opinion on, but it
doesn't seem to be grounded in fact.

Whatever is it that causes you to make unsubstantiated statements
and expect that people will treat them as gospel?
Post by Rob Duncan
That you don't think that voting irregularities are a problem says a great
deal about you. If you were confident of your party's win, I assume you
would support investigations of this sort. That you seem to disdain them
indicates your lack of confidence ...
That these supposed irregularities always happen to occur in Democraticly
heavy and controlled counties is indeed something that should be
investigated. It doesnt pass the smell test. How come only Republican
counties can get their elections right?
Yes it does pass the smell test. When Republicans are attempting to
suppress the vote, it makes little sense for them to try to suppress
it in Republican-heavy counties.

Democrats have tended toward "get out the vote" tactics. Republicans
have tended toward "get out the base if we can, and suppress
Democratic votes." You might want to check the reported words of
Republicans throughout the nation ... they said so, and I take them
at their word.

Now, this was different when the South voted Democratic in the early
60s. Voter suppression was used by southern Democrats, I'm sure [and
probably for the same reasons]. It was ugly then and it's ugly now.

And "only Republicans" don't get their elections correct. Wisconsin
had a highly Republican turnout in various counties and Democrats in
others. I don't doubt that both "got them right" in many.

In Milwaukee County, which is highly Democratic and minority, many
efforts were made to suppress the vote there. The same holds true in
Dane Co. [Madison] which is Democratic just because it's a very
liberal city -- with lots of students.

I suspect that voter suppression was attempted in those two places
because [1] it's hard to gum up our voting machine; the scan
machines are quite a bit more reliable than touch-screen machines,
and [2] we have same-day registration so screwing up our
registration process simply doesn't work. The only tactic left is
voter suppression, i.e. trying to make sure that people don't show
up at the polling place and vote.

BTW, how come the exit polls -- every last one of them -- correctly
predicted the election results except in FL and OH?

KKT
Rob Duncan
2004-11-04 14:37:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Duncan
Yes, there were significant Republican gains. The Democratic gains were
not as substantial. The question is "why," given that the public
generally support Democratic views on issues more than Republican views
... by a wide margin.
Oh my GOSH! LOL, you are so blind its stunning. Even in the face of the
election you arrive at the complete opposite of a logical conclusion.
And you swear you went to law school and passed the bar? The public
generally does NOT support Democratic views. Not at all. Youre victim
to media polls propaganda. Stop basing your beliefs on your beloved
media.
Actually, the public polls for the last 25 years have shown this to be
true. I'm not sure what you're basing YOUR opinion on, but it doesn't seem
to be grounded in fact.
Polls are manipulated media inventions. You believe in the imagined
sanctity of "journalistic integrity," theres no such thing. Sorry. In my
recollection theres only been one democrat elected president in the last 25
years. Hows that fit with your view that the public generally supports
democratic views? LOL
Whatever is it that causes you to make unsubstantiated statements and
expect that people will treat them as gospel?
Just because you cant understand them doesnt make them unsubstantiated
statements offered up as gospel. You read exlusively liberal crap. Input
in, input out. Would you like me to send you a copy of Farenhype 9/11 so
you can see the other side of Michael Moore, and all the lies you were led
to believe? Or do you prefer to remain ignorant of his deception you hold
so dear? Im more than willing to make a copy and mail it to you. You were
mislead by a corrupt and evil person, and you held him up as a paragon of
virtue, doesnt that make you feel dirty and used?
Post by Rob Duncan
That you don't think that voting irregularities are a problem says a
great deal about you. If you were confident of your party's win, I assume
you would support investigations of this sort. That you seem to disdain
them indicates your lack of confidence ...
That these supposed irregularities always happen to occur in Democraticly
heavy and controlled counties is indeed something that should be
investigated. It doesnt pass the smell test. How come only Republican
counties can get their elections right?
Yes it does pass the smell test. When Republicans are attempting to
suppress the vote, it makes little sense for them to try to suppress it in
Republican-heavy counties.
Okay... Im understanding you so far...
Democrats have tended toward "get out the vote" tactics. Republicans have
tended toward "get out the base if we can, and suppress Democratic votes."
Really now? Just how does one suppress a democrat from voting? Are dems
dimmer than regular folk who know when the election is? Do they glue all
their doors shut, role their clocks back, flatten the tires of 30 buses
intended to take people to the polling places and get togethers? btw, whats
the difference between get out the vote, and get out the base, I mean
besides the obvious differences in spelling between vote and base. Whats
the actual difference? Just curious.
You might want to check the reported words of Republicans throughout the
nation ... they said so, and I take them at their word.
Such as? They said they work to supress the democrats vote? Why that
hardly seems fair does it?
Now, this was different when the South voted Democratic in the early 60s.
Voter suppression was used by southern Democrats, I'm sure [and probably
for the same reasons]. It was ugly then and it's ugly now.
And "only Republicans" don't get their elections correct. Wisconsin had a
highly Republican turnout in various counties and Democrats in others. I
don't doubt that both "got them right" in many.
In Milwaukee County, which is highly Democratic and minority, many efforts
were made to suppress the vote there. The same holds true in Dane Co.
[Madison] which is Democratic just because it's a very liberal city --
with lots of students.
I suspect that voter suppression was attempted in those two places because
[1] it's hard to gum up our voting machine; the scan machines are quite a
bit more reliable than touch-screen machines, and [2] we have same-day
registration so screwing up our registration process simply doesn't work.
The only tactic left is voter suppression, i.e. trying to make sure that
people don't show up at the polling place and vote.
Just how does one suppress a person? How does one make sure another one
cant make it to the polls to vote? I suppose flattening the tires of 30
buses might qualify, eh? Ill bet that qualifies.
BTW, how come the exit polls -- every last one of them -- correctly
predicted the election results except in FL and OH?
KKT
Its a conspiracy Kathie. Those evil Jesus freaks are out to ruin your life.
Besides youre totally wrong in what you said. Stop believing everything you
WANT to believe. Polls suck, thats the simple truth. This wasnt a close
election. Kerry lost 31 states and only won 19. You were mislead by the
very polls you hung your hat on, fed to you by the media that created your
opinion in the first place. Thats why what happened seemed shocking and
unreal. You were mislead into believing something else might happen.
Bolstered by hope, illusion shattered in the face of reality. The nation
"clearly" wants President Bush to retain and expand our evil empire of
dominence of imperialism. We want to nuke the world so that all thats left
is America. Its every Independents and republicans ultimate desire, we just
keep it secret so as not to upset our youngins.


Rob
Jer
2004-11-22 14:11:19 UTC
Permalink
You democrats just will never "get it" will you?

It was such a joy to watch the democrats on any and all talk shows.
It brought back such wonderful memories of college and my prelaw days
studying reasoning and the fallacies of reasoning. It never failed,
not less than ten fallacies of reasoning would be committed every
time.

When fallacies or reasoning were not be committed one of two things
would happen. Either the "bleeding heart liberal democrat bottom
feeder" would not answer the question asked by the host but simply
used that opening to espouse further lies and deceptions, but never
give a straight answer to the question, or, strictly talk and talk and
talk over the top of the oppositon and even the show host.

I guess mommies of democrats never taught them any manners to not talk
when someone else is talking and to not interupt others when they are
talking. Even my wife, who never before had been the slightest bit
interested in politics, after I started pointing out these "bottom
feeders" fallacies, avoiding the questions, and talking over others,
started noticing it and we took great joy at laughing at them all.

By the time the election was held my wife was fully educated as to all
the fallacies of arguments as we kept score as to how many different
kind of fallacy would be committed by each "bottom feeder" on each
program.

No! "Bottom feeders" will never get it! Our country has had enough
legislation from the bench, enough loss of morals, enough turning from
God, enough lies about our founding fathers intentions, enough
rewriting history, enough political correctness, enough genocide of
the partial born and unborn children of this land, enough perversion,
including perversion of marriage, enough of the "bottom feeder" bias
media. And now, the back lash begins. Hopefully even the John
Birchers will be back with power and persuasion.

Even within the supposed "blue states" it is clear, once one gets away
from the "paper shuffling" centers (counties) into the actual
producing of something, be it goods or agriculture counties throughout
this nation, they all voted republican.

When I think of the "bottom feeder" presidents we have had I remember
one firing General McCarther, one sending Cubans to die at the Bay of
Pigs in Cuba, one being afraid to bomb Hanoi, one sending helicopters
to languish and crash in the desert in the Mid-East, and one with
seman stains on a blue dress.

Yes! This country has a chance at once again being what the founding
fathers intended, religion free of the state and not the state free of
religion.

And all of you paper shuffling bottom feeders just think of a few
things for a minute or two. What one single career can bring this
nation to its knees in just one month. Why of course, this "old hick
redneck truck drivers." If all of them, each and every one holding a
drivers license to be able to drive a truck go on strike and they all
stay home for a month you would watch this nation fall to pieces.
Yep! those old redneck republican truck drivers could easily bring
this country down. Could any other career claim that? I think not!

For the past forty years I have heard over and over again the
complaining about rednecks, defense spending, and spending in the
space program. If one day all the bleeding heart liberal democrat
bottom feeders would wake up and everything that had its research and
original development founded upon defense and space program was
removed from their life and just disappeared into thin air from their
world. All safety features and other developments founded upon NasCar
racing disappeared, and all truckers had gone on strike that very same
day, all the bottom feeders, the so called intellectuals, and educated
illiterates would be scrambling for the nearest cave to live in and,
of course, would be naked and stay naked as they could not kill
anything to skin for clothing or food.

Where will one find the single largest collection of registered, of
one kind or another, engineers each year? Of course, the last four
races of NASCAR each year. Mingled amoungst all those rednecks!

Don't get me wrong, I am a redneck-wanna-be. I was not raised that
way nor educated that way but as I matured I realized how "plastic"
intellectuals and educated illiterates really are. Rednecks tell you
like it is, come straight out, and have a underlying respect and love
for God.

Yes, bottom feeders, you lost big time in 2004, just as I predicted
over a year ago and now my prediction is you will lose by an extremely
larger margin in 2008. Because you just don't get it and you will
never get it.

The old saying, "don't fix it if it isn't broken," has a reverse
axiom, "if it is broken fix it." You won't fix it because you are too
busy blaming others for the reason why you lost and the others are not
going to fix it. You would have to fix it but you won't, you will be
too busy pouting and pointing fingers at others. Your too busy
worshipping at the idle of Hollywood and fat, dirty, nasty, ugly,
unkept, moronic, clueless, and non-citizens that are busy making up
fantasy movies and calling them "documentaries."

Have fun in your own little delusional world, Bottom Feeders.
Kami
2004-11-22 16:14:27 UTC
Permalink
This is exactly why I quit coming to this site!!!! People like you and your
total lack of respect for other people and their beliefs. You won......it's
over......for better or worse we have "your guy" for 4 more years. We are
not "bottom feeders", grow up!!!! Everyone is entitled to their own
belief's and opinions but when you start putting everyone with a deferent
belief than you in the category of "bottom feeders" you have stepped over
the line!!!!!

Have you ever (which I am pretty sure you get all your info there!) watched
Fox News and all the interviewers that never, ever let a person get a word
in without interrupting them. All fully Republicans I assure you!!!!!

You are the reason I will always vote democrat and the reason that I will
probably never visit this site again despite the fact that I have MS and
would like the support and understanding of people who suffer the same
(despite there political beliefs!!!!). I didn't come here to be insulted by
the likes of a right-wing rhetoric spewing idiot! You make me
sick!!!!!!!!!!

Kami (An educated women who doesn't listen to a man like you, as you wife
seems to!!!)
Post by Jer
You democrats just will never "get it" will you?
It was such a joy to watch the democrats on any and all talk shows.
It brought back such wonderful memories of college and my prelaw days
studying reasoning and the fallacies of reasoning. It never failed,
not less than ten fallacies of reasoning would be committed every
time.
When fallacies or reasoning were not be committed one of two things
would happen. Either the "bleeding heart liberal democrat bottom
feeder" would not answer the question asked by the host but simply
used that opening to espouse further lies and deceptions, but never
give a straight answer to the question, or, strictly talk and talk and
talk over the top of the oppositon and even the show host.
I guess mommies of democrats never taught them any manners to not talk
when someone else is talking and to not interupt others when they are
talking. Even my wife, who never before had been the slightest bit
interested in politics, after I started pointing out these "bottom
feeders" fallacies, avoiding the questions, and talking over others,
started noticing it and we took great joy at laughing at them all.
By the time the election was held my wife was fully educated as to all
the fallacies of arguments as we kept score as to how many different
kind of fallacy would be committed by each "bottom feeder" on each
program.
No! "Bottom feeders" will never get it! Our country has had enough
legislation from the bench, enough loss of morals, enough turning from
God, enough lies about our founding fathers intentions, enough
rewriting history, enough political correctness, enough genocide of
the partial born and unborn children of this land, enough perversion,
including perversion of marriage, enough of the "bottom feeder" bias
media. And now, the back lash begins. Hopefully even the John
Birchers will be back with power and persuasion.
Even within the supposed "blue states" it is clear, once one gets away
from the "paper shuffling" centers (counties) into the actual
producing of something, be it goods or agriculture counties throughout
this nation, they all voted republican.
When I think of the "bottom feeder" presidents we have had I remember
one firing General McCarther, one sending Cubans to die at the Bay of
Pigs in Cuba, one being afraid to bomb Hanoi, one sending helicopters
to languish and crash in the desert in the Mid-East, and one with
seman stains on a blue dress.
Yes! This country has a chance at once again being what the founding
fathers intended, religion free of the state and not the state free of
religion.
And all of you paper shuffling bottom feeders just think of a few
things for a minute or two. What one single career can bring this
nation to its knees in just one month. Why of course, this "old hick
redneck truck drivers." If all of them, each and every one holding a
drivers license to be able to drive a truck go on strike and they all
stay home for a month you would watch this nation fall to pieces.
Yep! those old redneck republican truck drivers could easily bring
this country down. Could any other career claim that? I think not!
For the past forty years I have heard over and over again the
complaining about rednecks, defense spending, and spending in the
space program. If one day all the bleeding heart liberal democrat
bottom feeders would wake up and everything that had its research and
original development founded upon defense and space program was
removed from their life and just disappeared into thin air from their
world. All safety features and other developments founded upon NasCar
racing disappeared, and all truckers had gone on strike that very same
day, all the bottom feeders, the so called intellectuals, and educated
illiterates would be scrambling for the nearest cave to live in and,
of course, would be naked and stay naked as they could not kill
anything to skin for clothing or food.
Where will one find the single largest collection of registered, of
one kind or another, engineers each year? Of course, the last four
races of NASCAR each year. Mingled amoungst all those rednecks!
Don't get me wrong, I am a redneck-wanna-be. I was not raised that
way nor educated that way but as I matured I realized how "plastic"
intellectuals and educated illiterates really are. Rednecks tell you
like it is, come straight out, and have a underlying respect and love
for God.
Yes, bottom feeders, you lost big time in 2004, just as I predicted
over a year ago and now my prediction is you will lose by an extremely
larger margin in 2008. Because you just don't get it and you will
never get it.
The old saying, "don't fix it if it isn't broken," has a reverse
axiom, "if it is broken fix it." You won't fix it because you are too
busy blaming others for the reason why you lost and the others are not
going to fix it. You would have to fix it but you won't, you will be
too busy pouting and pointing fingers at others. Your too busy
worshipping at the idle of Hollywood and fat, dirty, nasty, ugly,
unkept, moronic, clueless, and non-citizens that are busy making up
fantasy movies and calling them "documentaries."
Have fun in your own little delusional world, Bottom Feeders.
Q***@webtv.net
2004-11-22 16:53:38 UTC
Permalink
Howdy' I'm getting a kick out of what a deep need of attention you
need.... maybe some " nookie " would reduce your passion for your need
to have something in common with your wife besides politics...... dory
silvervz
2004-11-26 22:27:41 UTC
Permalink
Aw Dory, I love you and your quick insites and comments on some jerks that
so right-ooooooooon!

Silver
Post by Q***@webtv.net
Howdy' I'm getting a kick out of what a deep need of attention you
need.... maybe some " nookie " would reduce your passion for your need
to have something in common with your wife besides politics...... dory
Bill
2004-11-23 04:42:53 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jer
You democrats just will never "get it" will you?
This is your typical Nazi republican.
abdi
2004-11-23 22:12:32 UTC
Permalink
Just wait a year, when I arrived here in 1973 nobody would admit voting for
Nixon, I am positive in one year people will
get tired of debacle in Iraq and deficits, just read about slavery.
--
abdi ---- Quaecomque Sunt Vera
Post by Jer
You democrats just will never "get it" will you?
It was such a joy to watch the democrats on any and all talk shows.
It brought back such wonderful memories of college and my prelaw days
studying reasoning and the fallacies of reasoning. It never failed,
not less than ten fallacies of reasoning would be committed every
time.
When fallacies or reasoning were not be committed one of two things
would happen. Either the "bleeding heart liberal democrat bottom
feeder" would not answer the question asked by the host but simply
used that opening to espouse further lies and deceptions, but never
give a straight answer to the question, or, strictly talk and talk and
talk over the top of the oppositon and even the show host.
I guess mommies of democrats never taught them any manners to not talk
when someone else is talking and to not interupt others when they are
talking. Even my wife, who never before had been the slightest bit
interested in politics, after I started pointing out these "bottom
feeders" fallacies, avoiding the questions, and talking over others,
started noticing it and we took great joy at laughing at them all.
By the time the election was held my wife was fully educated as to all
the fallacies of arguments as we kept score as to how many different
kind of fallacy would be committed by each "bottom feeder" on each
program.
No! "Bottom feeders" will never get it! Our country has had enough
legislation from the bench, enough loss of morals, enough turning from
God, enough lies about our founding fathers intentions, enough
rewriting history, enough political correctness, enough genocide of
the partial born and unborn children of this land, enough perversion,
including perversion of marriage, enough of the "bottom feeder" bias
media. And now, the back lash begins. Hopefully even the John
Birchers will be back with power and persuasion.
Even within the supposed "blue states" it is clear, once one gets away
from the "paper shuffling" centers (counties) into the actual
producing of something, be it goods or agriculture counties throughout
this nation, they all voted republican.
When I think of the "bottom feeder" presidents we have had I remember
one firing General McCarther, one sending Cubans to die at the Bay of
Pigs in Cuba, one being afraid to bomb Hanoi, one sending helicopters
to languish and crash in the desert in the Mid-East, and one with
seman stains on a blue dress.
Yes! This country has a chance at once again being what the founding
fathers intended, religion free of the state and not the state free of
religion.
And all of you paper shuffling bottom feeders just think of a few
things for a minute or two. What one single career can bring this
nation to its knees in just one month. Why of course, this "old hick
redneck truck drivers." If all of them, each and every one holding a
drivers license to be able to drive a truck go on strike and they all
stay home for a month you would watch this nation fall to pieces.
Yep! those old redneck republican truck drivers could easily bring
this country down. Could any other career claim that? I think not!
For the past forty years I have heard over and over again the
complaining about rednecks, defense spending, and spending in the
space program. If one day all the bleeding heart liberal democrat
bottom feeders would wake up and everything that had its research and
original development founded upon defense and space program was
removed from their life and just disappeared into thin air from their
world. All safety features and other developments founded upon NasCar
racing disappeared, and all truckers had gone on strike that very same
day, all the bottom feeders, the so called intellectuals, and educated
illiterates would be scrambling for the nearest cave to live in and,
of course, would be naked and stay naked as they could not kill
anything to skin for clothing or food.
Where will one find the single largest collection of registered, of
one kind or another, engineers each year? Of course, the last four
races of NASCAR each year. Mingled amoungst all those rednecks!
Don't get me wrong, I am a redneck-wanna-be. I was not raised that
way nor educated that way but as I matured I realized how "plastic"
intellectuals and educated illiterates really are. Rednecks tell you
like it is, come straight out, and have a underlying respect and love
for God.
Yes, bottom feeders, you lost big time in 2004, just as I predicted
over a year ago and now my prediction is you will lose by an extremely
larger margin in 2008. Because you just don't get it and you will
never get it.
The old saying, "don't fix it if it isn't broken," has a reverse
axiom, "if it is broken fix it." You won't fix it because you are too
busy blaming others for the reason why you lost and the others are not
going to fix it. You would have to fix it but you won't, you will be
too busy pouting and pointing fingers at others. Your too busy
worshipping at the idle of Hollywood and fat, dirty, nasty, ugly,
unkept, moronic, clueless, and non-citizens that are busy making up
fantasy movies and calling them "documentaries."
Have fun in your own little delusional world, Bottom Feeders.
bobD
2004-11-23 23:38:41 UTC
Permalink
but will you ever STOP,, that is the question
bobdi
Post by abdi
Just wait a year, when I arrived here in 1973 nobody would admit voting for
Nixon, I am positive in one year people will
get tired of debacle in Iraq and deficits, just read about slavery.
--
abdi ---- Quaecomque Sunt Vera
Post by Jer
You democrats just will never "get it" will you?
It was such a joy to watch the democrats on any and all talk shows.
It brought back such wonderful memories of college and my prelaw days
studying reasoning and the fallacies of reasoning. It never failed,
not less than ten fallacies of reasoning would be committed every
time.
When fallacies or reasoning were not be committed one of two things
would happen. Either the "bleeding heart liberal democrat bottom
feeder" would not answer the question asked by the host but simply
used that opening to espouse further lies and deceptions, but never
give a straight answer to the question, or, strictly talk and talk and
talk over the top of the oppositon and even the show host.
I guess mommies of democrats never taught them any manners to not talk
when someone else is talking and to not interupt others when they are
talking. Even my wife, who never before had been the slightest bit
interested in politics, after I started pointing out these "bottom
feeders" fallacies, avoiding the questions, and talking over others,
started noticing it and we took great joy at laughing at them all.
By the time the election was held my wife was fully educated as to all
the fallacies of arguments as we kept score as to how many different
kind of fallacy would be committed by each "bottom feeder" on each
program.
No! "Bottom feeders" will never get it! Our country has had enough
legislation from the bench, enough loss of morals, enough turning from
God, enough lies about our founding fathers intentions, enough
rewriting history, enough political correctness, enough genocide of
the partial born and unborn children of this land, enough perversion,
including perversion of marriage, enough of the "bottom feeder" bias
media. And now, the back lash begins. Hopefully even the John
Birchers will be back with power and persuasion.
Even within the supposed "blue states" it is clear, once one gets away
from the "paper shuffling" centers (counties) into the actual
producing of something, be it goods or agriculture counties throughout
this nation, they all voted republican.
When I think of the "bottom feeder" presidents we have had I remember
one firing General McCarther, one sending Cubans to die at the Bay of
Pigs in Cuba, one being afraid to bomb Hanoi, one sending helicopters
to languish and crash in the desert in the Mid-East, and one with
seman stains on a blue dress.
Yes! This country has a chance at once again being what the founding
fathers intended, religion free of the state and not the state free of
religion.
And all of you paper shuffling bottom feeders just think of a few
things for a minute or two. What one single career can bring this
nation to its knees in just one month. Why of course, this "old hick
redneck truck drivers." If all of them, each and every one holding a
drivers license to be able to drive a truck go on strike and they all
stay home for a month you would watch this nation fall to pieces.
Yep! those old redneck republican truck drivers could easily bring
this country down. Could any other career claim that? I think not!
For the past forty years I have heard over and over again the
complaining about rednecks, defense spending, and spending in the
space program. If one day all the bleeding heart liberal democrat
bottom feeders would wake up and everything that had its research and
original development founded upon defense and space program was
removed from their life and just disappeared into thin air from their
world. All safety features and other developments founded upon NasCar
racing disappeared, and all truckers had gone on strike that very same
day, all the bottom feeders, the so called intellectuals, and educated
illiterates would be scrambling for the nearest cave to live in and,
of course, would be naked and stay naked as they could not kill
anything to skin for clothing or food.
Where will one find the single largest collection of registered, of
one kind or another, engineers each year? Of course, the last four
races of NASCAR each year. Mingled amoungst all those rednecks!
Don't get me wrong, I am a redneck-wanna-be. I was not raised that
way nor educated that way but as I matured I realized how "plastic"
intellectuals and educated illiterates really are. Rednecks tell you
like it is, come straight out, and have a underlying respect and love
for God.
Yes, bottom feeders, you lost big time in 2004, just as I predicted
over a year ago and now my prediction is you will lose by an extremely
larger margin in 2008. Because you just don't get it and you will
never get it.
The old saying, "don't fix it if it isn't broken," has a reverse
axiom, "if it is broken fix it." You won't fix it because you are too
busy blaming others for the reason why you lost and the others are not
going to fix it. You would have to fix it but you won't, you will be
too busy pouting and pointing fingers at others. Your too busy
worshipping at the idle of Hollywood and fat, dirty, nasty, ugly,
unkept, moronic, clueless, and non-citizens that are busy making up
fantasy movies and calling them "documentaries."
Have fun in your own little delusional world, Bottom Feeders.
abdi
2004-11-24 03:33:15 UTC
Permalink
nope, I told you its a passion. You will never get it. You develop this
passion when you have paid a dear price because of some idiot's religion.
And I was talking about Khomeini.
--
abdi ---- Quaecomque Sunt Vera
Post by bobD
but will you ever STOP,, that is the question
bobdi
Post by abdi
Just wait a year, when I arrived here in 1973 nobody would admit voting
for
Post by abdi
Nixon, I am positive in one year people will
get tired of debacle in Iraq and deficits, just read about slavery.
--
abdi ---- Quaecomque Sunt Vera
Post by Jer
You democrats just will never "get it" will you?
It was such a joy to watch the democrats on any and all talk shows.
It brought back such wonderful memories of college and my prelaw days
studying reasoning and the fallacies of reasoning. It never failed,
not less than ten fallacies of reasoning would be committed every
time.
When fallacies or reasoning were not be committed one of two things
would happen. Either the "bleeding heart liberal democrat bottom
feeder" would not answer the question asked by the host but simply
used that opening to espouse further lies and deceptions, but never
give a straight answer to the question, or, strictly talk and talk and
talk over the top of the oppositon and even the show host.
I guess mommies of democrats never taught them any manners to not talk
when someone else is talking and to not interupt others when they are
talking. Even my wife, who never before had been the slightest bit
interested in politics, after I started pointing out these "bottom
feeders" fallacies, avoiding the questions, and talking over others,
started noticing it and we took great joy at laughing at them all.
By the time the election was held my wife was fully educated as to all
the fallacies of arguments as we kept score as to how many different
kind of fallacy would be committed by each "bottom feeder" on each
program.
No! "Bottom feeders" will never get it! Our country has had enough
legislation from the bench, enough loss of morals, enough turning from
God, enough lies about our founding fathers intentions, enough
rewriting history, enough political correctness, enough genocide of
the partial born and unborn children of this land, enough perversion,
including perversion of marriage, enough of the "bottom feeder" bias
media. And now, the back lash begins. Hopefully even the John
Birchers will be back with power and persuasion.
Even within the supposed "blue states" it is clear, once one gets away
from the "paper shuffling" centers (counties) into the actual
producing of something, be it goods or agriculture counties throughout
this nation, they all voted republican.
When I think of the "bottom feeder" presidents we have had I remember
one firing General McCarther, one sending Cubans to die at the Bay of
Pigs in Cuba, one being afraid to bomb Hanoi, one sending helicopters
to languish and crash in the desert in the Mid-East, and one with
seman stains on a blue dress.
Yes! This country has a chance at once again being what the founding
fathers intended, religion free of the state and not the state free of
religion.
And all of you paper shuffling bottom feeders just think of a few
things for a minute or two. What one single career can bring this
nation to its knees in just one month. Why of course, this "old hick
redneck truck drivers." If all of them, each and every one holding a
drivers license to be able to drive a truck go on strike and they all
stay home for a month you would watch this nation fall to pieces.
Yep! those old redneck republican truck drivers could easily bring
this country down. Could any other career claim that? I think not!
For the past forty years I have heard over and over again the
complaining about rednecks, defense spending, and spending in the
space program. If one day all the bleeding heart liberal democrat
bottom feeders would wake up and everything that had its research and
original development founded upon defense and space program was
removed from their life and just disappeared into thin air from their
world. All safety features and other developments founded upon NasCar
racing disappeared, and all truckers had gone on strike that very same
day, all the bottom feeders, the so called intellectuals, and educated
illiterates would be scrambling for the nearest cave to live in and,
of course, would be naked and stay naked as they could not kill
anything to skin for clothing or food.
Where will one find the single largest collection of registered, of
one kind or another, engineers each year? Of course, the last four
races of NASCAR each year. Mingled amoungst all those rednecks!
Don't get me wrong, I am a redneck-wanna-be. I was not raised that
way nor educated that way but as I matured I realized how "plastic"
intellectuals and educated illiterates really are. Rednecks tell you
like it is, come straight out, and have a underlying respect and love
for God.
Yes, bottom feeders, you lost big time in 2004, just as I predicted
over a year ago and now my prediction is you will lose by an extremely
larger margin in 2008. Because you just don't get it and you will
never get it.
The old saying, "don't fix it if it isn't broken," has a reverse
axiom, "if it is broken fix it." You won't fix it because you are too
busy blaming others for the reason why you lost and the others are not
going to fix it. You would have to fix it but you won't, you will be
too busy pouting and pointing fingers at others. Your too busy
worshipping at the idle of Hollywood and fat, dirty, nasty, ugly,
unkept, moronic, clueless, and non-citizens that are busy making up
fantasy movies and calling them "documentaries."
Have fun in your own little delusional world, Bottom Feeders.
Michael
2004-11-24 03:45:16 UTC
Permalink
Post by abdi
nope, I told you its a passion. You will never get it. You develop
this passion when you have paid a dear price because of some idiot's
religion. And I was talking about Khomeini.
Khomeini... Innocent V... Bush...

What's the diff?
Post by abdi
Post by bobD
but will you ever STOP,, that is the question
bobdi
Post by abdi
Just wait a year, when I arrived here in 1973 nobody would admit
voting for Nixon, I am positive in one year people will
get tired of debacle in Iraq and deficits, just read about slavery.
--
abdi ---- Quaecomque Sunt Vera
Post by Jer
You democrats just will never "get it" will you?
It was such a joy to watch the democrats on any and all talk shows.
It brought back such wonderful memories of college and my prelaw
days studying reasoning and the fallacies of reasoning. It never
failed, not less than ten fallacies of reasoning would be
committed every time.
When fallacies or reasoning were not be committed one of two things
would happen. Either the "bleeding heart liberal democrat bottom
feeder" would not answer the question asked by the host but simply
used that opening to espouse further lies and deceptions, but never
give a straight answer to the question, or, strictly talk and talk
and talk over the top of the oppositon and even the show host.
I guess mommies of democrats never taught them any manners to not
talk when someone else is talking and to not interupt others when
they are talking. Even my wife, who never before had been the
slightest bit interested in politics, after I started pointing out
these "bottom feeders" fallacies, avoiding the questions, and
talking over others, started noticing it and we took great joy at
laughing at them all. By the time the election was held my wife was
fully educated as to
all the fallacies of arguments as we kept score as to how many
different kind of fallacy would be committed by each "bottom
feeder" on each program.
No! "Bottom feeders" will never get it! Our country has had
enough legislation from the bench, enough loss of morals, enough
turning from God, enough lies about our founding fathers
intentions, enough rewriting history, enough political
correctness, enough genocide of the partial born and unborn
children of this land, enough perversion, including perversion of
marriage, enough of the "bottom feeder" bias media. And now, the
back lash begins. Hopefully even the John Birchers will be back
with power and persuasion. Even within the supposed "blue states" it is
clear, once one gets
away from the "paper shuffling" centers (counties) into the actual
producing of something, be it goods or agriculture counties
throughout this nation, they all voted republican.
When I think of the "bottom feeder" presidents we have had I
remember one firing General McCarther, one sending Cubans to die
at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, one being afraid to bomb Hanoi, one
sending helicopters to languish and crash in the desert in the
Mid-East, and one with seman stains on a blue dress.
Yes! This country has a chance at once again being what the
founding fathers intended, religion free of the state and not the
state free of religion.
And all of you paper shuffling bottom feeders just think of a few
things for a minute or two. What one single career can bring this
nation to its knees in just one month. Why of course, this "old
hick redneck truck drivers." If all of them, each and every one
holding a drivers license to be able to drive a truck go on strike
and they all stay home for a month you would watch this nation
fall to pieces. Yep! those old redneck republican truck drivers
could easily bring this country down. Could any other career
claim that? I think not! For the past forty years I have heard over
and over again the
complaining about rednecks, defense spending, and spending in the
space program. If one day all the bleeding heart liberal democrat
bottom feeders would wake up and everything that had its research
and original development founded upon defense and space program was
removed from their life and just disappeared into thin air from
their world. All safety features and other developments founded
upon NasCar racing disappeared, and all truckers had gone on
strike that very same day, all the bottom feeders, the so called
intellectuals, and educated illiterates would be scrambling for
the nearest cave to live in and, of course, would be naked and
stay naked as they could not kill anything to skin for clothing or
food. Where will one find the single largest collection of registered,
of
one kind or another, engineers each year? Of course, the last four
races of NASCAR each year. Mingled amoungst all those rednecks!
Don't get me wrong, I am a redneck-wanna-be. I was not raised that
way nor educated that way but as I matured I realized how "plastic"
intellectuals and educated illiterates really are. Rednecks tell
you like it is, come straight out, and have a underlying respect
and love for God.
Yes, bottom feeders, you lost big time in 2004, just as I predicted
over a year ago and now my prediction is you will lose by an
extremely larger margin in 2008. Because you just don't get it
and you will never get it.
The old saying, "don't fix it if it isn't broken," has a reverse
axiom, "if it is broken fix it." You won't fix it because you are
too busy blaming others for the reason why you lost and the others
are not going to fix it. You would have to fix it but you won't,
you will be too busy pouting and pointing fingers at others. Your
too busy worshipping at the idle of Hollywood and fat, dirty,
nasty, ugly, unkept, moronic, clueless, and non-citizens that are
busy making up fantasy movies and calling them "documentaries."
Have fun in your own little delusional world, Bottom Feeders.
abdi
2004-11-26 02:24:47 UTC
Permalink
They are too similar and thats the point. Its only the name.
--
abdi ---- Quaecomque Sunt Vera
Post by Michael
Post by abdi
nope, I told you its a passion. You will never get it. You develop
this passion when you have paid a dear price because of some idiot's
religion. And I was talking about Khomeini.
Khomeini... Innocent V... Bush...
What's the diff?
Post by abdi
Post by bobD
but will you ever STOP,, that is the question
bobdi
Post by abdi
Just wait a year, when I arrived here in 1973 nobody would admit
voting for Nixon, I am positive in one year people will
get tired of debacle in Iraq and deficits, just read about slavery.
--
abdi ---- Quaecomque Sunt Vera
Post by Jer
You democrats just will never "get it" will you?
It was such a joy to watch the democrats on any and all talk shows.
It brought back such wonderful memories of college and my prelaw
days studying reasoning and the fallacies of reasoning. It never
failed, not less than ten fallacies of reasoning would be
committed every time.
When fallacies or reasoning were not be committed one of two things
would happen. Either the "bleeding heart liberal democrat bottom
feeder" would not answer the question asked by the host but simply
used that opening to espouse further lies and deceptions, but never
give a straight answer to the question, or, strictly talk and talk
and talk over the top of the oppositon and even the show host.
I guess mommies of democrats never taught them any manners to not
talk when someone else is talking and to not interupt others when
they are talking. Even my wife, who never before had been the
slightest bit interested in politics, after I started pointing out
these "bottom feeders" fallacies, avoiding the questions, and
talking over others, started noticing it and we took great joy at
laughing at them all. By the time the election was held my wife was
fully educated as to
all the fallacies of arguments as we kept score as to how many
different kind of fallacy would be committed by each "bottom
feeder" on each program.
No! "Bottom feeders" will never get it! Our country has had
enough legislation from the bench, enough loss of morals, enough
turning from God, enough lies about our founding fathers
intentions, enough rewriting history, enough political
correctness, enough genocide of the partial born and unborn
children of this land, enough perversion, including perversion of
marriage, enough of the "bottom feeder" bias media. And now, the
back lash begins. Hopefully even the John Birchers will be back
with power and persuasion. Even within the supposed "blue states" it
is clear, once one gets
away from the "paper shuffling" centers (counties) into the actual
producing of something, be it goods or agriculture counties
throughout this nation, they all voted republican.
When I think of the "bottom feeder" presidents we have had I
remember one firing General McCarther, one sending Cubans to die
at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, one being afraid to bomb Hanoi, one
sending helicopters to languish and crash in the desert in the
Mid-East, and one with seman stains on a blue dress.
Yes! This country has a chance at once again being what the
founding fathers intended, religion free of the state and not the
state free of religion.
And all of you paper shuffling bottom feeders just think of a few
things for a minute or two. What one single career can bring this
nation to its knees in just one month. Why of course, this "old
hick redneck truck drivers." If all of them, each and every one
holding a drivers license to be able to drive a truck go on strike
and they all stay home for a month you would watch this nation
fall to pieces. Yep! those old redneck republican truck drivers
could easily bring this country down. Could any other career
claim that? I think not! For the past forty years I have heard over
and over again the
complaining about rednecks, defense spending, and spending in the
space program. If one day all the bleeding heart liberal democrat
bottom feeders would wake up and everything that had its research
and original development founded upon defense and space program was
removed from their life and just disappeared into thin air from
their world. All safety features and other developments founded
upon NasCar racing disappeared, and all truckers had gone on
strike that very same day, all the bottom feeders, the so called
intellectuals, and educated illiterates would be scrambling for
the nearest cave to live in and, of course, would be naked and
stay naked as they could not kill anything to skin for clothing or
food. Where will one find the single largest collection of registered,
of
one kind or another, engineers each year? Of course, the last four
races of NASCAR each year. Mingled amoungst all those rednecks!
Don't get me wrong, I am a redneck-wanna-be. I was not raised that
way nor educated that way but as I matured I realized how "plastic"
intellectuals and educated illiterates really are. Rednecks tell
you like it is, come straight out, and have a underlying respect
and love for God.
Yes, bottom feeders, you lost big time in 2004, just as I predicted
over a year ago and now my prediction is you will lose by an
extremely larger margin in 2008. Because you just don't get it
and you will never get it.
The old saying, "don't fix it if it isn't broken," has a reverse
axiom, "if it is broken fix it." You won't fix it because you are
too busy blaming others for the reason why you lost and the others
are not going to fix it. You would have to fix it but you won't,
you will be too busy pouting and pointing fingers at others. Your
too busy worshipping at the idle of Hollywood and fat, dirty,
nasty, ugly, unkept, moronic, clueless, and non-citizens that are
busy making up fantasy movies and calling them "documentaries."
Have fun in your own little delusional world, Bottom Feeders.
Jamie
2004-11-03 23:50:42 UTC
Permalink
respond to what she posted Chuck, that's how you debate

if you LEARN to read, yes there were problems reported by Kerry voters and
i'm sure problems endured by Bush voters also. that does not mean "Kerry
really won".

both you and that other moron Rob are good hillbilly fighters, but that does
not mean you fight with reason. you both seem to fight the "individual" not
the text.

i would not listen to any advice either of you have posted, because you are
both seem so uneducated in matters.
i place you both just below doe in my respects

jamie
Rob Duncan
2004-11-04 02:40:04 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jamie
respond to what she posted Chuck, that's how you debate
if you LEARN to read, yes there were problems reported by Kerry voters and
i'm sure problems endured by Bush voters also. that does not mean "Kerry
really won".
both you and that other moron Rob are good hillbilly fighters, but that
does not mean you fight with reason. you both seem to fight the
"individual" not the text.
i would not listen to any advice either of you have posted, because you
are both seem so uneducated in matters.
i place you both just below doe in my respects
jamie
Of course you do jamie. Its what liberals do when they want to ignore
facts.


Rob
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-04 09:11:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Duncan
Of course you do jamie. Its what liberals do when they want to ignore
facts.
Rob
Let them be Rob. I tuned into a couple of liberal talk shows yesterday. Lo and
behold they were talking about how they need to be *more* liberal to win any
election! LOL Out of touch! Denial is not a river in Egypt.

Chuck
Michael
2004-11-04 09:18:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Rob Duncan
Of course you do jamie. Its what liberals do when they want to
ignore facts.
Rob
Let them be Rob. I tuned into a couple of liberal talk shows
yesterday. Lo and behold they were talking about how they need to be
*more* liberal to win any election! LOL Out of touch! Denial is not a
river in Egypt.
I think you're spot-on in this assessment, Chuck.

I'd say all the "liberals" have to do to guarantee a win is to grit their
teeth and wait for the right wing to implode... which it will inevitably do,
as any unopposed governing force will.

I hate to think how long the wait would be and what would become of America
in the interim if they actually did that, but it's the one and only surefire
way.
KKT
2004-11-04 11:54:59 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by ChuckMSRD
Let them be Rob. I tuned into a couple of liberal talk shows
yesterday. Lo and behold they were talking about how they need to be
*more* liberal to win any election! LOL Out of touch! Denial is not a
river in Egypt.
I think you're spot-on in this assessment, Chuck.
No, he's not. Who knows what he was listening to, but the liberal
talk shows I listen to talked about a couple of things.

First and foremost, verifiable voting. Black box voting leads to
doubts about the validity of the vote.

Second, the ways in which people can be persuaded to stop voting
against their own interests.
Post by Michael
I'd say all the "liberals" have to do to guarantee a win is to grit their
teeth and wait for the right wing to implode... which it will inevitably do,
as any unopposed governing force will.
1972 - Richard Nixon wins handily

1974 - Richard Nixon resigns only a couple of steps ahead of
impeachment.

Of course, there will never be an impeachment because the House is
Republican, but this administration is not in good shape. Despite
the blather by a couple of people here, the way in which the war was
waged, including the no-bid contracts to Halliburton, etc. are
stories still looming.

In addition, the 9/11 truth movement is gaining more and more
momentum [http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=202754&page=2],
including a citizen complaint to the AG in NY.
Post by Michael
I hate to think how long the wait would be and what would become
of America in the interim if they actually did that, but it's
the one and only surefire way.
The Republicans have had a problem for some time now. While the
Democrats came together in unheard of numbers in the last few
months, the American Conservative magazine -- not noted for its
liberalism -- endorsed Kerry. Traditional conservatives -- those
that believe in fiscal responsibility and other traditionally
conservative values -- are appalled by the actions of this
administration.

The prediction from my Republican friends [traditional Republicans,
not these radical fanatics in power now] is that the backlash will
be greater now that Bush has taken the presidency for another term.

KKT
Rob Duncan
2004-11-04 14:42:33 UTC
Permalink
Post by Michael
Post by ChuckMSRD
Let them be Rob. I tuned into a couple of liberal talk shows
yesterday. Lo and behold they were talking about how they need to be
*more* liberal to win any election! LOL Out of touch! Denial is not a
river in Egypt.
I think you're spot-on in this assessment, Chuck.
No, he's not. Who knows what he was listening to, but the liberal talk
shows I listen to talked about a couple of things.
First and foremost, verifiable voting. Black box voting leads to doubts
about the validity of the vote.
Second, the ways in which people can be persuaded to stop voting against
their own interests.
Post by Michael
I'd say all the "liberals" have to do to guarantee a win is to grit their
teeth and wait for the right wing to implode... which it will inevitably
do, as any unopposed governing force will.
1972 - Richard Nixon wins handily
1974 - Richard Nixon resigns only a couple of steps ahead of impeachment.
Of course, there will never be an impeachment because the House is
Republican, but this administration is not in good shape. Despite the
blather by a couple of people here, the way in which the war was waged,
including the no-bid contracts to Halliburton, etc. are stories still
looming.
In addition, the 9/11 truth movement is gaining more and more momentum
[http://abcnews.go.com/US/story?id=202754&page=2], including a citizen
complaint to the AG in NY.
Post by Michael
I hate to think how long the wait would be and what would become of
America in the interim if they actually did that, but it's the one and
only surefire way.
The Republicans have had a problem for some time now. While the Democrats
came together in unheard of numbers in the last few months, the American
Conservative magazine -- not noted for its liberalism -- endorsed Kerry.
Traditional conservatives -- those that believe in fiscal responsibility
and other traditionally conservative values -- are appalled by the actions
of this administration.
The prediction from my Republican friends [traditional Republicans, not
these radical fanatics in power now] is that the backlash will be greater
now that Bush has taken the presidency for another term.
KKT
I think your friends are imaginary. Fanatics? Just because hes waging war
to protect our nation makes him a fanatic? Okay, so be it. Hes a fanatic.
Yeah, the repubs have been in so much trouble for "some time now" that they
gained 5 seats in the senate and the nation relected President Bush as
overlord.


Rob
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-04 16:00:46 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
First and foremost, verifiable voting. Black box voting leads to
doubts about the validity of the vote.
Conspiracy? Give everyone a friggin break. If your opinion wins it is a great
day for democracy. If it gets spanked, as it did, the validity is doubtful.
You must have stated about 100 times that when people vote, Democrats win. Well
the turnout was record breaking and Dems lost in every conceivable way.

Chuck
KKT
2004-11-04 17:06:28 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
First and foremost, verifiable voting. Black box voting leads to
doubts about the validity of the vote.
Conspiracy? Give everyone a friggin break. If your opinion wins it is a great
day for democracy. If it gets spanked, as it did, the validity is doubtful.
You must have stated about 100 times that when people vote, Democrats win. Well
the turnout was record breaking and Dems lost in every conceivable way.
No. When votes aren't verifiable, they're in doubt. If you gave me
an example of where unverifiable voting worked to the disadvantage
of Republicans, I'd say the same thing. In fact, even without an
example, I say the same thing.

BTW, I was wrong, or at least not comprehensive. When people vote
and the votes are counted fully and fairly, Democrats win. That may
have changed, but this election doesn't support that it has. When I
made the statement, I, naively, believed that all the machinery
worked correctly -- it didn't, and that all the votes were counted
-- they haven't been and under the law, they don't have to be for 10
days.

OTOH, you may be right. More and more, people are voting against
their economic and political interests. I find that irrational, but
it happens time and time again.

Finally, you seem to think that democracy is a partisan issue. I
don't. I don't approve of what Mayor Daley did, and I don't approve
the current problems with voting machines. The first benefited the
Democrats, the second seems to benefit the Republicans. Either way,
it's wrong.

Again, voting shouldn't be a partisan issue, but with people like
you for whom winning is the most important part of the process, it
is. I hope you'll be able to get beyond that and see the larger picture.

KKT
Rob Duncan
2004-11-05 04:36:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
First and foremost, verifiable voting. Black box voting leads to doubts
about the validity of the vote.
Conspiracy? Give everyone a friggin break. If your opinion wins it is a great
day for democracy. If it gets spanked, as it did, the validity is doubtful.
You must have stated about 100 times that when people vote, Democrats win. Well
the turnout was record breaking and Dems lost in every conceivable way.
No. When votes aren't verifiable, they're in doubt. If you gave me an
example of where unverifiable voting worked to the disadvantage of
Republicans, I'd say the same thing. In fact, even without an example, I
say the same thing.
BTW, I was wrong, or at least not comprehensive. When people vote and the
votes are counted fully and fairly, Democrats win. That may have changed,
but this election doesn't support that it has. When I made the statement,
I, naively, believed that all the machinery worked correctly -- it didn't,
and that all the votes were counted -- they haven't been and under the
law, they don't have to be for 10 days.
OTOH, you may be right. More and more, people are voting against their
economic and political interests. I find that irrational, but it happens
time and time again.
Finally, you seem to think that democracy is a partisan issue. I don't. I
don't approve of what Mayor Daley did, and I don't approve the current
problems with voting machines. The first benefited the Democrats, the
second seems to benefit the Republicans. Either way, it's wrong.
Again, voting shouldn't be a partisan issue, but with people like you for
whom winning is the most important part of the process, it is. I hope
you'll be able to get beyond that and see the larger picture.
KKT
Youre in the midst of delirium. Saddly, it wont pass. Its getting worse as
days progress.


Rob
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-05 11:39:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
and more, people are voting against
their economic and political interests. I find that irrational, but
it happens time and time again.
That is arrogant. You are saying the populace is naive because they disagree
with *you*
Economic interest?
- Yes, how dare they feel that the money they earn is their's, not just the
portion that the govt allows them to keep. Have you seen the stock market the
last two days? There will be profit taking today but it looks like confidence
to me.

Political interest?
Errrr alrighty then, the naive public should start agreeing with KKT -
otherwise it is not their political interest. Arrogant *and* wrong.
Post by KKT
I hope you'll be able to get beyond that and see the larger picture.
You must have missed my post pre-election where I said that whomever wins, I
will unite, support and wish the nation the most peace, health, and prosperity
that is humanly possible.
In contrast you will never do that. You will harbor vitreole for Bush. Complain
about "broken voting booths" (your fail safe issue in case your ideas don't
work in the election results). Sorry but I already "got beyond that and saw the
larger picture" before the election.

Chuck
KKT
2004-11-05 14:12:19 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
and more, people are voting against
their economic and political interests. I find that irrational, but
it happens time and time again.
That is arrogant. You are saying the populace is naive because they disagree
with *you*
No. I say that I find it irrational vote against ones own economic
and political interests.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Economic interest?
- Yes, how dare they feel that the money they earn is their's,
not just the portion that the govt allows them to keep. Have
you seen the stock market the last two days? There will be
profit taking today but it looks like confidence to me.
Yes, the stock market is up. If Bush can push through his Social
Security privatization plans, the market will go up further because
it's Wall Street that benefits, not you and me.

And while it might be "your money," it's also your debt. That's the
2bn dollars a day that this government is borrowing from China and
Japan. Do you think that it's going to magically disappear? Do you
think it's prudent to borrow money for tax cuts? Under what economic
theory does that make sense.

BTW, it's also your highways, your libraries, your schools, your
defense department, your fire and police protection.

I don't care if you pay one damned cent in taxes. But if you choose
not to, I demand that you quit using public services. Don't drive on
my highways, don't walk on my sidewalks, don't send your kids to my
schools, don't travel using my airports, don't use the hospitals
that my taxes help to fund. You get the picture. Who do you think is
going to pay for those things?
Post by ChuckMSRD
Political interest?
Errrr alrighty then, the naive public should start agreeing with KKT -
otherwise it is not their political interest. Arrogant *and* wrong.
Nice statement, but it's backed up with no facts. THAT's arrogant.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
I hope you'll be able to get beyond that and see the larger picture.
You must have missed my post pre-election where I said that whomever wins, I
will unite, support and wish the nation the most peace, health, and prosperity
that is humanly possible.
No, I didn't see it.
Post by ChuckMSRD
In contrast you will never do that. You will harbor vitreole for Bush. Complain
about "broken voting booths" (your fail safe issue in case your ideas don't
work in the election results). Sorry but I already "got beyond that and saw the
larger picture" before the election.
No, I will never sacrifice my country to the likes of someone with
these ideas and this track record. I don't want to see the US fail.

Apparently, you haven't seen the reports of election problems, or
perhaps you wouldn't be so fast to "move on" [assuming you value
this country more than your party].

"The observers said they had less access to polls than in
Kazakhstan, that the electronic voting had fewer fail-safes than in
Venezuela, that the ballots were not so simple as in the Republic of
Georgia ..."

I don't about you, but I really don't like to think that my country
could be compared unfavorably to Kazakhstan, Venezuela and the
Republic of Georgia.

As for uniting, you're right. I united behind this president for the
first part of his presidency and said not a word against him in the
year following 9/11. As a result, he moved the country further
toward a fascist state, and refused to allow Democrats and
Independents even the right to see legislation before it was brought
to the floor.

No, I will NOT unite behind someone like that. Bush said that he
would be a uniter, not a divider. He said that he was a good steward
of the environment. He said that Iraq had WMDs. All lies.

When he becomes a uniter [and he said a couple of days ago that he
was going to], when he becomes a good steward of the environment,
and when he apologizes for either the willful or unwillful mistakes
he made about Iraq [or any one of those things], I will certainly
reconsider. But until such time as he shows some inclination toward
the personal responsibility that he talks about incessantly and
never practices, no, I will not unite behind him. I tried that once
and it got me nowhere and nothing. "Fool me once ..."

Enough.

Kathie
Rob Duncan
2004-11-05 21:21:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
and more, people are voting against their economic and political
interests. I find that irrational, but it happens time and time again.
That is arrogant. You are saying the populace is naive because they disagree
with *you*
No. I say that I find it irrational vote against ones own economic and
political interests.
It is. Thats why the Nation voted resoundingly for President Bush.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Economic interest?
- Yes, how dare they feel that the money they earn is their's, not just
the portion that the govt allows them to keep. Have you seen the stock
market the last two days? There will be profit taking today but it looks
like confidence to me.
Yes, the stock market is up. If Bush can push through his Social Security
privatization plans, the market will go up further because it's Wall
Street that benefits, not you and me.
Just who is it you think has money invested in Wall Street? Dur!
And while it might be "your money," it's also your debt. That's the 2bn
dollars a day that this government is borrowing from China and Japan. Do
you think that it's going to magically disappear? Do you think it's
prudent to borrow money for tax cuts? Under what economic theory does that
make sense.
We "borrow" two-billion from China and Japan... a day, lol, really now?
Care to try and document that in any form or fashion?

Borrow money for tax cuts...? Under what theory does it work... how about
in revitalizing an economy and creating jobs?
BTW, it's also your highways, your libraries, your schools, your defense
department, your fire and police protection.
eh?
I don't care if you pay one damned cent in taxes. But if you choose not
to, I demand that you quit using public services. Don't drive on my
highways, don't walk on my sidewalks, don't send your kids to my schools,
don't travel using my airports, don't use the hospitals that my taxes help
to fund. You get the picture. Who do you think is going to pay for those
things?
Not the federal gov thats for sure. This isnt a socialist state. Our
States, Counties, Cities and Towns do the job theyre supposed to. They pay
for the things that are there responcibilities. YOUR taxes dont pay for any
of those things. YOU dont pay any taxes in MY State. I do.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Political interest?
Errrr alrighty then, the naive public should start agreeing with KKT -
otherwise it is not their political interest. Arrogant *and* wrong.
Nice statement, but it's backed up with no facts. THAT's arrogant.
Your oderifous contention that all who dont agree with you are idiots, is
arrogant. That if they were smarter or read the same "web-sites" (LOL) as
you that they would vote as you, is assinine. Obviously, much smarter
people than you look at the same info and conclude otherwise.
Post by ChuckMSRD
I hope you'll be able to get beyond that and see the larger picture.
You must have missed my post pre-election where I said that whomever wins, I
will unite, support and wish the nation the most peace, health, and prosperity
that is humanly possible.
No, I didn't see it.
Post by ChuckMSRD
In contrast you will never do that. You will harbor vitreole for Bush. Complain
about "broken voting booths" (your fail safe issue in case your ideas don't
work in the election results). Sorry but I already "got beyond that and saw the
larger picture" before the election.
No, I will never sacrifice my country to the likes of someone with these
ideas and this track record. I don't want to see the US fail.
LOL
Apparently, you haven't seen the reports of election problems, or perhaps
you wouldn't be so fast to "move on" [assuming you value this country more
than your party].
Youre no longer capable of using logic properly. Reread what you just
wrote, tell me, how does your conclusion logically follow from your
unfounded allegation?
"The observers said they had less access to polls than in Kazakhstan, that
the electronic voting had fewer fail-safes than in Venezuela, that the
ballots were not so simple as in the Republic of Georgia ..."
Heh, heh, heh. Every year, at this same time, the nation goes through a
very basic IQ test. Its called learning how to cast a vote properly. It
weeds out the idiots nicely. Why wouldnt someone whose concerned about
their vote being counted properly simply fill out an absentee balot? Its
hand counted, with observers from all sides present. You cant get more
secure than that... but expecting something as inteligent as that from
leftist lib-dems like you is a bit much, Ill admit.
I don't about you, but I really don't like to think that my country could
be compared unfavorably to Kazakhstan, Venezuela and the Republic of
Georgia.
Im suprising folks making complaints such as this have even heard of, or can
even pronounce the former.
As for uniting, you're right. I united behind this president for the first
part of his presidency and said not a word against him in the year
following 9/11. As a result, he moved the country further toward a fascist
state, and refused to allow Democrats and Independents even the right to
see legislation before it was brought to the floor.
No, I will NOT unite behind someone like that. Bush said that he would be
a uniter, not a divider. He said that he was a good steward of the
environment. He said that Iraq had WMDs. All lies.
When he becomes a uniter [and he said a couple of days ago that he was
going to], when he becomes a good steward of the environment, and when he
apologizes for either the willful or unwillful mistakes he made about Iraq
[or any one of those things], I will certainly reconsider. But until such
time as he shows some inclination toward the personal responsibility that
he talks about incessantly and never practices, no, I will not unite
behind him. I tried that once and it got me nowhere and nothing. "Fool me
once ..."
Enough.
Kathie
But Kathie, nobody cares if you unite behind who the nation voted for.
Thats your problem.


Rob
Rob Duncan
2004-11-03 22:10:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
Post by ChuckMSRD
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7 million and
inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
And black box voting. I'm sorry, too.
WTF does that mean? Massive conspiracy eh? What a surprise you would say that.
Chuck
Unlike you, I have opinions based on facts. There are a number of reports
of people voting for Kerry and having the computers confirm "Bush." That's
a problem, in my estimation.
It's sad that you would take voting so cavalierly. For me, it's
exceedingly important. I wish that were true of others who seem to think
that winning is the most important thing in the world.
KKT
Youre an ill-informed and ignorant fool. "Another," conspiracy? In
democraticaly controlled counties? LOL


Rob
NimBill
2004-11-05 05:06:49 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
WTF does that mean? Massive conspiracy eh? What a surprise you would say that.
Chuck
It means the public has spoken and you gotta learn to live with it for a couple
of years!
Rob Duncan
2004-11-05 06:27:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by NimBill
Post by ChuckMSRD
WTF does that mean? Massive conspiracy eh? What a surprise you would say that.
Chuck
It means the public has spoken and you gotta learn to live with it for a couple
of years!
Oh, that kind of massive conspiracy! ;^)


Rob
BlueMargarita
2004-11-04 23:11:51 UTC
Permalink
<<
Post by Specialsearcher
PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a democratic
controlled Congress....
(Specialsearcher)

Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7 million and
inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry

Chuck

I'm not sorry. I have a president I like and at long last a senator I can
respect. So bu-bye to Kerry and Daschle. Now we can get some judges appointed
and let the judicial system get their work going.
Rob Duncan
2004-11-05 04:38:03 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
<<
Post by Specialsearcher
PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a democratic
controlled Congress....
(Specialsearcher)
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7 million and
inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
Chuck
I'm not sorry. I have a president I like and at long last a senator I can
respect. So bu-bye to Kerry and Daschle. Now we can get some judges appointed
and let the judicial system get their work going.
But, but, Blue... dont you know your admitting your an evil, evil, person?
;^)


Rob
Jer
2004-11-28 06:55:00 UTC
Permalink
Post by Rob Duncan
Post by ChuckMSRD
<<
Post by Specialsearcher
PLEASE VOTE
FOR DEMOCRATS ACROSS THE BOARD RUNNING FOR CONGRESS. With a democratic
controlled Congress....
(Specialsearcher)
Senate and House gains for Republicans. GW popular vote by 3.7 million and
inevitably the electoral college. Errrr. sorry
Chuck
I'm not sorry. I have a president I like and at long last a senator I can
respect. So bu-bye to Kerry and Daschle. Now we can get some judges appointed
and let the judicial system get their work going.
But, but, Blue... dont you know your admitting your an evil, evil, person?
;^)
Rob
It is interesting you call Blue "evil," notwithstanding you liberals
had 10,000 lawyers ready and waiting to pounce on any wrong doing
regarding the election and they themselves said they could not find
any wrongs done. They noted there were some difficulties but not
enough to sway the election one way or the other. Further, the amount
of the difficulties amounted to less than 10, 000 votes of which more
than 59% were difficulties favoring Kerry and the democrats.

Like I said, you liberals will never ever get it! You are so stuck on
the past you will never accomplish anything to benefit your party.

It parallels a foot ball team losing the championship and for the next
four years spending all their time pointing their fingers at others
for the reasons they lost, not realizing it was their own stupidity
and lack of ability, not the opposition, that caused their loss.

What is so sad is they have now lost for four years and are now four
years down the road having spent all their time and energy blaming
others, crying foul when their own 10,000 defenders have clearly
stated there was no foul.

Here they are four years later having wasted all their time and energy
and have not even entertained a new strategy and still don't have a
clue going into the big "championship playoffs" of 2008.

In the mean time, at long last, we will have 3 new appointments to the
bench of the Supreme Court and prayerfully we will have prayer back in
school, 10 Commandments back in our government buildings, and an end
to Nazi murdering of our unborn children, to name but just a few
liberal "legislations from the bench."

Please do remember, those items are just a few judicial screw-ups done
from the bench and not by Presidential proclomations or legislative
actions. If the Supreme Court, with 3 new appointments, will review
and overturn all decisions that have no backing of the United States
Code (for those of you who are amoungst the unknowing U.S. Code are
the Federal laws passed by our legislature and signed into law by the
President).

The Courts of our land are supposed to interpret the laws passed and
enforce them not make their own laws as they did in Roe v. Wade, flag
burning decision, prayer in school decision, 10 commandments decesion,
affirmative action decision, etc., etc., etc.

In the day since the election, I have seen, heard, and read so much
from so many "little tiny cry-babies." They are mature in body, but
two year olds in mind and emotions.

During my adult lifetime, my party has lost and we got the blood bath
at the Bay of Pigs in Cuba, we were at war but could not bomb Hanoi so
we lost, we lost face in front of the world when our rescue attempt
out of Iran ended with a crashed helicopter in the desert, and a sperm
covered blue dress; but hey, that's the breaks.

Now it is our turn but the liberal press will never ever ever report
the successes. We have had one free election in the Middle East and
are about to have another. As of now, very very little has been said
about the first free election and so it will be with the second.
Mainstream America has come to expect that but indeed does see right
through it.

It is a true case of, "can't see the forest for the trees." America
is tired of liberalism and the democrat agenda and has spoken. Get
used to it "cause ya aint seen nuthin yet!"
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-28 12:44:11 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jer
It is a true case of, "can't see the forest for the trees." America
is tired of liberalism and the democrat agenda and has spoken. Get
used to it
(Jer)
Pretty humorous that they do not get it at all. I still here the same tired
crap that has handed them their butts in a jar at the polls. "The top 1%..."
Seniors will die..." "The economy sucks..." "The planet is melting..."
.................
Who would want to live with that kind of attitude and perspective on now and
the future? I will tell you who, the American left.

Chuck
Jer
2004-11-29 03:53:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Jer
It is a true case of, "can't see the forest for the trees." America
is tired of liberalism and the democrat agenda and has spoken. Get
used to it
(Jer)
Pretty humorous that they do not get it at all. I still here the same tired
crap that has handed them their butts in a jar at the polls. "The top 1%..."
Seniors will die..." "The economy sucks..." "The planet is melting..."
.................
Who would want to live with that kind of attitude and perspective on now and
the future? I will tell you who, the American left.
Chuck
Chuck,

What really gets me is the "left," according to them, is supposed to
be the elite of society. The "cream of the crop" of our society yet
they cry like little babies when the overwhelming majority of
Americans have spoken and totally disregarded the left's antics and
manipulation of the media.

I would think they would stop and think for a minute and change course
and tatics when it is obvious their being totally discounted and
reduced to a laughing stock by the rest of America.

As a "red neck wanna be," even I, when something obviously doesn't
work, will take stock of what did not work and change course and try
something else. And I will not spend time crying about what is in the
past. Crying about the past is so unproductive.

In short, I cannot understand the left wing, bleeding heart liberals
at all. They give new meaning to, "educated illiterates." You know
the type; they have no ability to reason and have no common sense,
just rote memorization and parroting what they have been spoon fed by
left wing bottom feeder professors while attending college. They take
what they hear on the television news as gospel truth without being
able to reason what is truth and what are lies.

One of the first things I learned in law school is to take both my
client's and his or her adversary word as total lies. Thus, my job is
to ascertain the truth by questioning everything and investigating the
veracity of all involved, always looking for the fallacies in their
argument.

The left has lost their way and insist on staying lost by always
blaming someone else for the problems they created themselves. Life
is to short to be lost and continue going around in large circles over
and over again, and then do it again every two years as well as every
four years.

Jer
Kami
2004-11-29 05:16:16 UTC
Permalink
You, sir, are truly full of what you are fed via the media!!!!!! I can not
believe the ignorance in your posts and the complete disregard for the fact
that it was not an "overwhelming majority" of America who voted for Bush.
It was one of the thinnest margins in history!!!!!

Hello, you need to quit talking about it like you know what you are saying.
This election was won by breeding fear.....fear of gays, fear of war coming
to our homeland and abortion. The hatred you are spewing is disgusting and
sad!!!

Get a Life!
Post by Jamie
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Jer
It is a true case of, "can't see the forest for the trees." America
is tired of liberalism and the democrat agenda and has spoken. Get
used to it
(Jer)
Pretty humorous that they do not get it at all. I still here the same tired
crap that has handed them their butts in a jar at the polls. "The top 1%..."
Seniors will die..." "The economy sucks..." "The planet is melting..."
.................
Who would want to live with that kind of attitude and perspective on now and
the future? I will tell you who, the American left.
Chuck
Chuck,
What really gets me is the "left," according to them, is supposed to
be the elite of society. The "cream of the crop" of our society yet
they cry like little babies when the overwhelming majority of
Americans have spoken and totally disregarded the left's antics and
manipulation of the media.
I would think they would stop and think for a minute and change course
and tatics when it is obvious their being totally discounted and
reduced to a laughing stock by the rest of America.
As a "red neck wanna be," even I, when something obviously doesn't
work, will take stock of what did not work and change course and try
something else. And I will not spend time crying about what is in the
past. Crying about the past is so unproductive.
In short, I cannot understand the left wing, bleeding heart liberals
at all. They give new meaning to, "educated illiterates." You know
the type; they have no ability to reason and have no common sense,
just rote memorization and parroting what they have been spoon fed by
left wing bottom feeder professors while attending college. They take
what they hear on the television news as gospel truth without being
able to reason what is truth and what are lies.
One of the first things I learned in law school is to take both my
client's and his or her adversary word as total lies. Thus, my job is
to ascertain the truth by questioning everything and investigating the
veracity of all involved, always looking for the fallacies in their
argument.
The left has lost their way and insist on staying lost by always
blaming someone else for the problems they created themselves. Life
is to short to be lost and continue going around in large circles over
and over again, and then do it again every two years as well as every
four years.
Jer
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG and Kami D.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
Q***@webtv.net
2004-11-29 06:56:51 UTC
Permalink
Kami, I agree with you. And now I'm about to say something that will
piss a lot of people off.

I hope that Bush isn't a religious zealot (sp)... because their all half
nuts. The war were fighting is not about keeping America safe from
terrorists. I see the whole darn thing as religion and oil based.

I can't bare our vets to be killed but I am proud of what they do...

On the other hand there's war going on in every city in "America" I
often wonder how many youth have been killed today. No one in any city
is safe.

We've lost a lot of freedom in this country..... Why sacrifice the
lives of the good and decent people like our Vets... Could be that their
saver there than here....

I hate the topic of this thread so much that it un-leashed my anger..
sorry.. dory
Gutbuster
2004-11-29 12:25:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q***@webtv.net
I can't bare our vets to be killed but I am proud of what they do...
Another pet lover!! Good for you!!
Q***@webtv.net
2004-11-29 19:19:11 UTC
Permalink
um guess I worded my love for our vets and was proud of what they do
somewhat stupid.... I'll leave that alone for lack of better wording..

I also used the term religious zealots.... they are not good christians.
I'm not talking about regular going to church folks...

Look zealot up and if you've never met any research California city
Arizona as a starter......

My typing is poor and thank heavens for spell check. But I could
verbally stand head to toe with anyone in a good debate as long as my
words don't disappear and if I can remember what you just said.

I'd stay outta this one tho. I lost my cool last night or I would of
never got involved with this topic. It's a waste of good time .

Oh by the way I went to 20 weeks of police schooling because I'm a block
captain and I am very aware of crime .... I don't know where you live
but it must be out on beautiful prairie.

Well guess I'll let ya all war it out and remember there are no
winners...... dory who lost her cool
Gutbuster
2004-11-29 20:40:26 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q***@webtv.net
um guess I worded my love for our vets and was proud of what they do
somewhat stupid.... I'll leave that alone for lack of better wording..
No you didnt. I just love to laugh and when I saw that line, all I thought
about were vets as in veterinarians. I have this habit of seeing things as
funny no matter what it is, given half a chance.
Post by Q***@webtv.net
I also used the term religious zealots.... they are not good christians.
I'm not talking about regular going to church folks...
Religious zealots know no ethnic or religious bounds. They come in all sorts
of colours, races and creeds and to make matters worse, the Christian
Zealots are starting to rise. Here in Australia, they are awakening, have
formed a political party and have, currently, only little power but such a
determination that I am worried. Church should NEVER be active in politics.
When it is, we are all in trouble.
Post by Q***@webtv.net
Look zealot up and if you've never met any research California city
Arizona as a starter......
My typing is poor and thank heavens for spell check. But I could
verbally stand head to toe with anyone in a good debate as long as my
words don't disappear and if I can remember what you just said.
I wasnt having a go at your topic when I replied about vets. I was replying
for a laugh break, so to speak. :)
Post by Q***@webtv.net
I'd stay outta this one tho. I lost my cool last night or I would of
never got involved with this topic. It's a waste of good time .
Now that is where you DO get criticism. "Would of" doesnt exist. "Would
have" does, though! :)
Post by Q***@webtv.net
Oh by the way I went to 20 weeks of police schooling because I'm a block
captain and I am very aware of crime .... I don't know where you live
but it must be out on beautiful prairie.
Block policing is a bad thing in reality. There are always too many people
with bones to pick. It always starts out sounding good though. Where I live
isnt a prairie. I am what you might term a "sterotypical white guy". I live
in the Mountains, prefer as cold as you can get, call it hot unless it is
just about 0C (or 32F) and hate to have neighbours. If I were rich enough, I
would live in at least 300 acres, right in the middle of it.
Post by Q***@webtv.net
Well guess I'll let ya all war it out and remember there are no
winners...... dory who lost her cool
That last bit "there are no winners" was a long ago started phrase in
reference to war but it became an obvious reality in thinking of nuclear war
(or as GW says "A NOOK-YOU-LER" war). One defining moment was when Reagan
asked about Cheyenne, what would survive a nuclear hit and he was told
nothing would by someone as if it was a well known fact. Reagan reportedly
near shit himself at the thought. Good old Reagan. He may have been strange
in many ways but he had the ability to recognise when his pants were wet! :)
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-29 12:45:59 UTC
Permalink
dory opined
I hope that Bush isn't a religious zealot (sp)... because their all half
nuts.
Only against Christians is this fair game and is it politically correct to use
such language.
I see the whole darn thing as religion and oil based.
Cite an example of any leader, in any nation, saying it is a religious war (on
terror). You cited above that Christians are "half nuts". I bet you'd call
someone a bogot if they said "Muslims are half nuts"
No one in any city
is safe.
Crime rate, per capita, is the lowest it has been in 40 years. WTH RU talking
about?
We've lost a lot of freedom in this country.....
Name one, just ONE ?

Chuck
KKT
2004-11-29 15:42:31 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
dory opined
I hope that Bush isn't a religious zealot (sp)... because their all half
nuts.
Only against Christians is this fair game and is it politically correct to use
such language.
You may have noticed that Dory said "religious zealots." That term
applies to every religion, not just Christianity. I do love it when
people in the statistical majority insist on making themselves the
victims.
Post by ChuckMSRD
I see the whole darn thing as religion and oil based.
Cite an example of any leader, in any nation, saying it is a religious war (on
terror). You cited above that Christians are "half nuts". I bet you'd call
someone a bogot if they said "Muslims are half nuts"
Again, Dory didn't distinguish among religions [and I don't either].
Zealots are zealots are zealots.
Post by ChuckMSRD
No one in any city
is safe.
Crime rate, per capita, is the lowest it has been in 40 years. WTH RU talking
about?
Crime rates have risen under Bush after having declined under the
Clinton administration. That makes sense because the one demographic
that's been predictive of crime rates for decades is unemployment.
Post by ChuckMSRD
We've lost a lot of freedom in this country.....
Name one, just ONE ?
The federal government can enter my home and search it without a
warrant. And they don't have to tell me. That's a change due to the
Patriot Act.

Kathie
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-29 17:16:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
You may have noticed that Dory said "religious zealots." That term
applies to every religion, not just Christianity
It was the sentence after stating her fear of Bush... Duh
Post by KKT
sense because the one demographic
that's been predictive of crime rates for decades is unemployment.
Unemployment is the exact same, percentage wise, as is was when Clinton was
easily re-elected in 1996. I bet that factual statistic was a sign of Clinton's
great economy back then - now it is comparable to the great depression - funny
spin.
Post by KKT
The federal government can enter my home and search it without a
warrant. And they don't have to tell me. That's a change due to the
Patriot Act.
Kathie
Have to run, John Ascroft is kicking in my door as we spaek. Damn that Patriot
Act! And it hasn't done anything to protect us with all of these terrorist
attacks on our homeland in the last 3 years.

Chuck
Kami
2004-11-29 17:32:38 UTC
Permalink
My goodness I am tired of you conservatives taking credit for the lack of
terrorist attacks in the past 3 years.........Terrorist attack in this
country are usually few and far between and that has nothing to do with the
republicans. Are you taking credit for 9/11 happening? Are they just so
worried that you are going to get them that they attacked as soon as the
moron, I mean Bush, got into office? Now I will give you credit for
that!!!! It was just the right time for them to wage their attack, while he
was reading a book to a group of his peers (kindergarteners). Were my
comments petty, yes.......are they true, YES!!!!!!
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
You may have noticed that Dory said "religious zealots." That term
applies to every religion, not just Christianity
It was the sentence after stating her fear of Bush... Duh
Post by KKT
sense because the one demographic
that's been predictive of crime rates for decades is unemployment.
Unemployment is the exact same, percentage wise, as is was when Clinton was
easily re-elected in 1996. I bet that factual statistic was a sign of Clinton's
great economy back then - now it is comparable to the great depression - funny
spin.
Post by KKT
The federal government can enter my home and search it without a
warrant. And they don't have to tell me. That's a change due to the
Patriot Act.
Kathie
Have to run, John Ascroft is kicking in my door as we spaek. Damn that Patriot
Act! And it hasn't done anything to protect us with all of these terrorist
attacks on our homeland in the last 3 years.
Chuck
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG and Kami D.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
KKT
2004-11-29 19:08:29 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
You may have noticed that Dory said "religious zealots." That term
applies to every religion, not just Christianity
It was the sentence after stating her fear of Bush... Duh
The president of our country ... the man with a nuclear arsenal at his
disposal ... happens to claim to be Christian. Are you implying that she
wouldn't be as fearful if he was a Jew or a Muslim? My bet is that she's
afraid of the man, in part because of his religious zealotry [no matter
what religion], not afraid of the religion. Duh, yourself. Think these
things through, will you.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
sense because the one demographic
that's been predictive of crime rates for decades is unemployment.
Unemployment is the exact same, percentage wise, as is was when
Clinton was easily re-elected in 1996. I bet that factual statistic
was a sign of Clinton's great economy back then - now it is
comparable to the great depression - funny spin.
You haven't done your homework. First, since the number of people
counted as unemployed fails to consider those whose UC benefits have run
out, this statistic isn't accurate unless the job creation rate exceeds
the number of people coming into the job market. Second, that hasn't
been true since Bush is in office. Again, you fail to do your homework.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
The federal government can enter my home and search it without a
warrant. And they don't have to tell me. That's a change due to the
Patriot Act.
Kathie
Have to run, John Ascroft is kicking in my door as we spaek. Damn that Patriot
Act! And it hasn't done anything to protect us with all of these terrorist
attacks on our homeland in the last 3 years.
You asked for an example. I gave you one. Now you say, "Wait! I didn't
know what I was talking about. What I REALLY wanted was one that
affected you personally ... and BTW, I'm gonna claim that the Patriot
Act kept you safe [even though there's no evidence to support that."

You might want to do a big more homework. Yes, John Ashcroft arrested
lots and lots of middle-eastern men. Yes, he managed to get some
convicted of petty theft and immigration violations. And yes, there were
5000 arrests ... and YES! there were NO convictions for terrorism or
terrorism-related events.

You might also note that between the first WTC bombing in early 1993 and
2001, there were no al Qaeda-related events on US soil. I guess that's
because Bill Clinton kept us safe for 7 years ... and once his watch was
over, we suddenly weren't safe again.

Now THAT'S spin ... but at least it's based on factual evidence.

KKT
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-29 19:56:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
The president of our country ... the man with a nuclear arsenal at his
disposal ... happens to claim to be Christian.
KKT
Bill clinton came out of church every sunday holding a bible, the reason you
did not fear his beliefs is *becaue you knew he was full of shit and it was all
a facade*.
Post by KKT
Again, you fail to do your homework.
LOL 5.6% unemployment in 1996 is a robust economy. 5.6% unemployment in 2004,
and it is faulty stats.(just like faulty polling booths and faulty brains of
the public and faulty ability to attain your facts). Your posts are such a sham
it is sad. Anyone who cannot see through your nonsense, just plain chooses not
to. When your ideology wins a few elections, perhaps you can try again.
Post by KKT
because Bill Clinton kept us safe for 7 years
Unlike you I can state an objective opinion. Both parties and administrations,
and probably even Bush Sr., sadly needed 9/11 to realize that we are less safe
than we thought. All three were, in a sense, asleep at the wheel with a false
sense of security.

Hey K. No human being is all bad. Tell me one good quality about GW Bush? Canya
do it? It is not based on homework, Canya do it?

Chuck
KKT
2004-11-29 21:03:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
The president of our country ... the man with a nuclear arsenal at his
disposal ... happens to claim to be Christian.
Bill clinton came out of church every sunday holding a bible, the reason you
did not fear his beliefs is *becaue you knew he was full of shit and it was all
a facade*.
You changed the subject, as usual. That's why it's so annoying to have a
conversation with you ... you can't make a decent argument so you change
the subject.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
Again, you fail to do your homework.
LOL 5.6% unemployment in 1996 is a robust economy. 5.6% unemployment in 2004,
and it is faulty stats.(just like faulty polling booths and faulty brains of
the public and faulty ability to attain your facts). Your posts are such a sham
it is sad. Anyone who cannot see through your nonsense, just plain chooses not
to. When your ideology wins a few elections, perhaps you can try again.
Again, you can't make a decent argument, so you change the subject. The
issue is the way in which unemployment statistics are calculated. You
didn't respond to that so I assume you agree ... which, unfortunately,
makes your response irrelevant. Try again. The statistics are only
accurate if people aren't dropping off the radar because they can't find
a job and don't have unemployment insurance available [because they've
run out of benefits]. If you can respond to that, do so ... if not,
let's not waste any more time on your arguments. There's no way to argue
with something that's not based on evidence.
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
because Bill Clinton kept us safe for 7 years
Unlike you I can state an objective opinion. Both parties and administrations,
and probably even Bush Sr., sadly needed 9/11 to realize that we are less safe
than we thought. All three were, in a sense, asleep at the wheel with a false
sense of security.
Hey K. No human being is all bad. Tell me one good quality about GW Bush? Canya
do it? It is not based on homework, Canya do it?
Of course. Before he was elected the first time, during a televised
speech, he was quite gracious to Al and Tipper Gore. I said so at the
time, and I'll say so now. He didn't have to be, but he was.

He seems to treat his wife very well, and he's quite good to his
friends. He seems to adore his daughters and as an adored daughter, I
know what that feels like and how important it is to a child.

He was decent during his speech at the Clinton Presidential Library [and
I value civility/decency].

He dresses very well -- at $3000-$10,000/suite, I would too, but
nonetheless, he has good taste [or takes the advice of someone who has
-- either way, good choices].

He's reportedly outfitted his ranch with environmentally-friendly
technology. I know it's expensive for most people and I actually admire
him for making that choice.

He likes dogs and cats. No one who likes dogs and cats [and carries his
dog the way he does] can possibly be all bad.

Although he says otherwise for his own political purposes, the evidence
doesn't suggest that he's anti-gay, anti-choice or pro-school prayer.

He doesn't seem to be racially prejudiced. The evidence is that he is not.

Yes, I CAN do it ... appreciating people's good point while believing
that they're not particularly good for the country -- "tolerance" is a
liberal value.

Kathie
Gutbuster
2004-11-29 20:56:52 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
You may have noticed that Dory said "religious zealots." That term
applies to every religion, not just Christianity
It was the sentence after stating her fear of Bush... Duh
The president of our country ... the man with a nuclear arsenal at his
disposal ... happens to claim to be Christian. Are you implying that she
wouldn't be as fearful if he was a Jew or a Muslim?
Well, one thing she wont have to fear - no German will ever be President of
USA. Apparently you can become naturalised as an American and pay taxes etc
and even rise to state Governor but under the laws of the land, if you
weren't born there, you cant become a President. OTOH, if you are a
supporter of Bin Laden who has yet to be identified as such and haven't
committed any crime, you CAN become the US President....so long as you were
born in USA that is.....

....reminds me of the start of WW2 for England and the British Empire
countries as they were back then..... Mr. Savage, the NZ Prime Minister who
died in office, was an Aussie.

Hmmm....
CW
2004-11-30 00:09:57 UTC
Permalink
You haven't done your homework. First, since the number of people counted
as unemployed fails to consider those whose UC benefits have run out,
Kath, that is not the case. Those whose UC benefits have run out but are
still actively looking for work are definitely counted in the unemployment
statistics.


this statistic isn't accurate unless the job creation rate exceeds
the number of people coming into the job market. Second, that hasn't been
true since Bush is in office. Again, you fail to do your homework.
You are not current. As of the October stats, released after the election,
the economy under Bush is net positive jobs. Also, you are conveniently
forgetting that the economy was already in recession by the time Bush took
his oath of office.
The federal government can enter my home and search it without a warrant.
And they don't have to tell me. That's a change due to the Patriot Act.
Don't they have to get clearance from a special court unless you are an
alien suspected of conspiring to commit terrorism? Kath, many people may
have suspected you of being an alien but of the intergalactic type.

CW
Kathie
KKT
2004-11-30 01:25:44 UTC
Permalink
Post by CW
You haven't done your homework. First, since the number of people counted
as unemployed fails to consider those whose UC benefits have run out,
Kath, that is not the case. Those whose UC benefits have run out but are
still actively looking for work are definitely counted in the unemployment
statistics.
Give me a cite. You're being quite civilized, so I'm inclined to
give you the benefit of the doubt, but ask yourself ... how would
that be measured?
Post by CW
this statistic isn't accurate unless the job creation rate exceeds
the number of people coming into the job market. Second, that hasn't been
true since Bush is in office. Again, you fail to do your homework.
You are not current. As of the October stats, released after the election,
the economy under Bush is net positive jobs. Also, you are conveniently
forgetting that the economy was already in recession by the time Bush took
his oath of office.
I don't see any citation, and I can't imagine that you're correct.
According to the Economic Policy Institute, "Since the beginning of
the recession, employment has fallen by 2.4 million jobs. Since the
end of the recession two years ago, there have been about 726,000
jobs lost, marking this as a period of "jobless recovery.""

They mark the beginning of the recession as March 2001 [The economy
wasn't in recession when Bush took his oath of office; it didn't go
into recession until two months later according to the official
measure -- the US government].

Now, the number of jobs created in October as part of the "Jobs and
Growth Plan" exceeded the number expected by 31,000. However, that's
only one month out of 16. The projected job growth because of the
tax cuts was almost 4.9 million and the actuality is about 2.7
million fewer. http://www.jobwatch.org/

Show me your citations and I'll look at them, but according to EPI,
that's clearly incorrect.
Post by CW
The federal government can enter my home and search it without a warrant.
And they don't have to tell me. That's a change due to the Patriot Act.
Don't they have to get clearance from a special court unless you are an
alien suspected of conspiring to commit terrorism? Kath, many people may
have suspected you of being an alien but of the intergalactic type.
I misspoke. A warrant is necessary, but they don't have to tell me
about it. This is an analysis from the ACLU:

The Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable
searches and seizures requires the government to both
obtain a warrant and to give notice to the person whose
property will be searched before conducting the search.
The notice requirement enables the person whose property is
to be searched to assert her Fourth Amendment rights. For
` example, a person with notice might be able to point out
irregularities in the warrant, such as the fact that the
police are at the wrong address, or that because the warrant
is limited to a search for a stolen car, the police have no
authority to be looking in dresser drawers. The Supreme
Court recently affirmed that notice is a key Fourth
Amendment protection. However, it has not ruled on the
constitutionality of sneak and peek searches. "

Note also the words "ANY KIND OF CRIMINAL CASE -- "Section 213 would
take an extremely limited authority and expand it so that it would
be available in any kind of search (physical or electronic) and in
any kind of criminal case."

http://archive.aclu.org/congress/l102301b.html

See also

Section 213 of the PATRIOT Act establishes new
secret warrants for any federal crime – not just
terrorism – despite the threat to fundamental
rights. The government need only show that notice
could “jeopardize an investigation” or “unduly
delay a trial” –very vague criteria – and may
seek to extend the secrecy indefinitely.
http://www.pfaw.org/pfaw/general/default.aspx?oid=15213

These are my rights [and yours] that are changed because of the
Patriot Act. Chuck asked for an example. There it is.

KKT
KKT
2004-11-30 01:55:57 UTC
Permalink
Post by CW
You are not current. As of the October stats, released after the
election, the economy under Bush is net positive jobs. Also, you
are conveniently forgetting that the economy was already in recession
by the time Bush took his oath of office.
More information on the recession:

I hope this puts to rest once and for all the myth that the
recession began BEFORE Bush took office. It didn't. It began in
March 2001.


http://www.nber.org/cycles/recessions.html

October 21, 2003

This report is also available as a PDF file. [Poster's note --
you'll have to go to the site to get it that way. If you want to see
the graphs, you'll have to see the PDF file.]

The National Bureau's Business Cycle Dating Committee maintains a
chronology of the U.S. business cycle. The chronology identifies the
dates of peaks and troughs that frame economic recession or
expansion. The period from a peak to a trough is a recession and the
period from a trough to a peak is an expansion. According to the
chronology, the most recent peak occurred in March 2001, ending a
record-long expansion that began in 1991. The most recent trough
occurred in November 2001, inaugurating an expansion.

A recession is a significant decline in economic activity spread
across the economy, lasting more than a few months, normally visible
in real GDP, real income, employment, industrial production, and
wholesale-retail sales. A recession begins just after the economy
reaches a peak of activity and ends as the economy reaches its
trough. Between trough and peak, the economy is in an expansion.
Expansion is the normal state of the economy; most recessions are
brief and they have been rare in recent decades.

On November 26, 2001, the committee determined that the peak of
economic activity had occurred in March of that year. For a
discussion of the committee's reasoning and the underlying evidence,
see http://www.nber.org/cycles/november2001. The March 2001 peak
marked the end of the expansion that began in March 1991, an
expansion that lasted exactly 10 years and was the longest in the
NBER's chronology. On July 16, 2003, the committee determined that a
trough in economic activity occurred in November 2001. The
committee's announcement of the trough is at
http://www.nber.org/cycles/july2003. The trough marks the end of the
recession that began in March 2001. The 2001 recession thus lasted
eight months, which is somewhat less than the average duration of
recessions since World War II. The postwar average, excluding the
2001 recession, is eleven months.

In choosing the dates of business-cycle turning points, the
committee follows standard procedures to assure continuity in the
chronology. Because a recession influences the economy broadly and
is not confined to one sector, the committee emphasizes economy-wide
measures of economic activity. The committee views real GDP as the
single best measure of aggregate economic activity. In determining
whether a recession has occurred and in identifying the approximate
dates of the peak and the trough, the committee therefore places
considerable weight on the estimates of real GDP issued by the
Bureau of Economic Analysis of the U.S. Department of Commerce. The
traditional role of the committee is to maintain a monthly
chronology, however, and the BEA's real GDP estimates are only
available quarterly. For this reason, the committee refers to a
variety of monthly indicators to determine the months of peaks and
troughs.

The committee places particular emphasis on two monthly measures of
activity across the entire economy: (1) personal income less
transfer payments, in real terms and (2) employment. In addition,
the committee refers to two indicators with coverage primarily of
manufacturing and goods: (3) industrial production and (4) the
volume of sales of the manufacturing and wholesale-retail sectors
adjusted for price changes. The committee also looks at monthly
estimates of real GDP such as those prepared by Macroeconomic
Advisers (see http://www.macroadvisers.com). Although these
indicators are the most important measures considered by the NBER in
developing its business cycle chronology, there is no fixed rule
about which other measures contribute information to the process.

Figure 1 shows the recent movements of quarterly real GDP
superimposed on the average movement around troughs over the
previous six recessions. GDP reached a peak in the fourth quarter of
2000. This was followed by contraction during the first three
quarters of 2001 and growth since then. According to revised data
released in September 2003
(http://www.bea.doc.gov/bea/newsrel/gdp203p.htm), real GDP increased
at an annual rate of 3.3 percent in the second quarter of 2003, and
1.4 percent in the first quarter.

Figure 2 shows the movements in real personal income less transfers.
Real personal income fell in early 2001. It reached its low point in
October 2001 and then generally rose throughout 2003, reached its
highest level in July 2003. It fell slightly in August, the most
recent reported month. A comparison of Figures 1 and 2 shows that
personal income has grown less rapidly than real GDP. The reasons
for this are discussed in the frequently asked question on this
topic below.

Figure 3 shows the behavior of payroll employment. The movement of
this series is quite different from the output-based measures.
Employment reached a peak in February 2001 and declined through July
2002. It rose slightly through November, but with the exception of
January 2003, declined throughout 2003 until it rose in September,
the most recent reported month. It is now 484,000 below the start of
the year, and 2.7 million below the February 2001 peak. The fact
that employment continued to decline while output-based measures
rose reflects the fact that productivity has risen substantially
since late 2001.

The other monthly series were generally declining in 2001 but have
for the most part been rising since then. Industrial production fell
until December 2001 and then rose rapidly until July 2002. It has
fallen slightly since then. Real manufacturing wholesale-retail
sales reached its low in September 2001. This series has generally
risen since then. May, June, and July 2003, the three most recent
reported months, all show substantial increases. Real GDP, according
to monthly estimates provided by Macroeconomic Advisers, also
reached a low in September 2001 and has generally been growing since
then. It reached its highest point ever in July 2003, but was
followed by a slight drop in August, the most recent reported month.

For more information, see the FAQs at the end of this memo, and also
see http://www.nber.org/cycles/main.html. An Excel spreadsheet
containing the data and figures for a number of indicators of
economic activity considered by the committee is available at that
page as well.
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-30 13:07:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by KKT
I hope this puts to rest once and for all the myth that the
recession began BEFORE Bush took office. It didn't. It began in
March 2001.
KKT
Damn that Bushy! He could not stop a cyclical economy that has been rolling for
centuries from going into recession. Geez, and he had 2 whole months to do it.
Damn Him!
CW
2004-11-30 13:55:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
I hope this puts to rest once and for all the myth that the
recession began BEFORE Bush took office. It didn't. It began in
March 2001.
KKT
Damn that Bushy! He could not stop a cyclical economy that has been rolling for
centuries from going into recession. Geez, and he had 2 whole months to do it.
Damn Him!
Jan 20- March 1 = 38 days.

I have to go to work now to pay the IVIG copay, but as a former professional
statistician, the unemployment stats definitely include those who have
exhausted their UC benefits, so longer as they are actively looking for
work. If they are no longer actively looking for work, then they are
classified as outside of the labor force.
CW
Specialsearcher
2004-11-30 15:03:21 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Damn that Bushy! He could not stop a cyclical economy that has been rolling for
centuries from going into recession. Geez, and he had 2 whole months to do it.
Damn Him!
Heads up for some inflation next year with possible recession the year after. I
think Bush may save the economy by putting part of social security at risk in
the stock market.

I think its the democrats that are the real conservatives now!

http://asap911tobacco.com/PastorwritesRush.htm
KKT
2004-11-30 15:30:36 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by KKT
I hope this puts to rest once and for all the myth that the
recession began BEFORE Bush took office. It didn't. It began in
March 2001.
Damn that Bushy! He could not stop a cyclical economy that has been rolling for
centuries from going into recession. Geez, and he had 2 whole months to do it.
Damn Him!
The point is NOT that he could do something about it. Clearly, with
his economic policies, he could not. The point is that the
Republican noise machine keeps saying that it started before Bush
took office, and that's clearly not the case.

OTOH, the economy had been expanding since 1991. George HW Bush's
watch. It kept expanding all during Clinton's watch and those 10
years constituted for the longest expansion in history.

It slowed and then went into recession after GWB won. Make of it
what you will ... but at least get the facts straight.

KKT

CW
2004-11-30 00:02:39 UTC
Permalink
"KKT" <***@hotpop.com> wrote in message news:41ab4201$***@newspeer2.tds.net...

Please check this again Kath. BTW, other than in NY, the largest drops in
the crime rate have been in states with lenient carry laws. - CW
Crime rates have risen under Bush after having declined under the Clinton
administration. That makes sense because the one demographic that's been
predictive of crime rates for decades is unemployment.
KKT
2004-11-30 00:57:02 UTC
Permalink
Post by CW
Please check this again Kath. BTW, other than in NY, the largest drops in
the crime rate have been in states with lenient carry laws. - CW
I just heard it on the news within the last couple of days, so I'm
fairly certain of it. OTOH, I recall some problem with your second
comment ... some citation, please.

KKT
Post by CW
Crime rates have risen under Bush after having declined under the Clinton
administration. That makes sense because the one demographic that's been
predictive of crime rates for decades is unemployment.
Gutbuster
2004-11-29 20:52:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
dory opined
I hope that Bush isn't a religious zealot (sp)... because their all half
nuts.
Only against Christians is this fair game and is it politically correct to use
such language.
Gee that is a strange occurrence. I have sent an email, not long ago, to
someone who doesnt matter asking why we ar all so fearful of upsetting
minorities to the point that we took decisive passive action against the
apartheid regime in power in South Africa until it crumbled yet in Zimbabwe,
we turn a blind eye to Robert Mugabe while he openly exercises racism
against white people in every single way, even to the point of interfering
with the choice of players in their national cricket team. Why is it bad to
be racist against everyone except white people so far as the world stage is
concerned yet we wouldnt tolerate that within our country borders?
Post by ChuckMSRD
No one in any city
is safe.
Crime rate, per capita, is the lowest it has been in 40 years. WTH RU talking
about?
I have a question there - is it real crime is down as you say or the
reporting of it or the numbers "managed"? Australia currently enjoys yet
another fiscal year of a national "surplus" yet we have decaying
infrastructure. Therefore, either the surplus is real at the expense of our
sick, our transport, our education and so on or it isnt real and we suffer
all that anyway. My bet is the figures were fudged. Most people tend to
assume the Govt fudges figures nowadays.
Post by ChuckMSRD
We've lost a lot of freedom in this country.....
Name one, just ONE ?
Well, when the ex-President Clinton WAS the President and visited Sydney on
a shopping tour as time out from his other duties while over here, a
resident of the city out for his normal daily jogging exercise was tackled
by the S.S. operatives who protect the President and held to the ground,
questioned as if he were a criminal and roughly treated. So I take it that
when in Australia and within a mile of the President, no Australian is
allowed to run. That's a freedom lost. There's also the motorcades that GW
goes on where people who had the right to hold banner protesting one thing
or another are now sectioned off, put a few miles away on a route he isn't
going to be on and that is apparently OK now in USA. At least in Australia,
we see the yearly egging of the PM or if they miss, someone close by.

You know, in USA, you have so many enshrined freedoms. In Australia we don't
have all that but we do have ONE. We are constitutionally allowed to
criticise political parties. If it is correct that protesters aren't allowed
to be shown to your President, that's one thing you HAD that you have lost.
Kami
2004-11-29 16:08:12 UTC
Permalink
Thanks Dory! Some common sense......I can't stand to see our soldiers die
and I am so proud of their bravery, but for what? The fact that people in
this country aren't up in arms surprises me. This is the year 2004, you
mean to tell me with all the intelligence (and I use that word loosely) we
are supposed to have we can't capture that one man who caused this entire
thing to start? Give me a break.....it is all about money, greed and
arrogance.

There is more than enough information out there to prove that Bush has an
agenda that doesn't include the vast majority of Americans. He just threw
out those hot button issues that would set the religious-right up in arms
and that is what won him the election, I have no doubt. And I think he is
only religious when the time is right!!!! I would bet that if they where
to tell the men in this country that if they manage to get a girl/woman
pregnant they will surgically alter their penis so that they can't perform
and get someone pregnant, I would bet the abortion issue would change. And
gay marriage, you know that really freaks them out. I believe in God but
here is what I pray for.......Guidance for our country and world, safety in
our homes, guidance for our youth and young adults, Peace, Love and
Happiness. But never do I pray..........Don't let the gays marry, don't let
young women in trouble make a decision that is best for them in their
future, take us into a foreign country and let us kill and be killed for oil
and greed. I never, ever pray for that!!!!!!!!

And you are right on when you talk about the war in our own country. This
country has been ignored by this president for way to long!! I am terrified
of what my kids have to look forward to in the near future. I have been
asked by many a republican if I feel more safe than I did before 911......my
answer is No!! I have never felt that way before and that is sad!!

I hate this topic also!! All we can do is hope and pray for a better
tomorrow. And Thanks God he only has 4 more years (but alot of damage can
be done in 4 years as we already know!!!!).

Kami
Post by Q***@webtv.net
Kami, I agree with you. And now I'm about to say something that will
piss a lot of people off.
I hope that Bush isn't a religious zealot (sp)... because their all half
nuts. The war were fighting is not about keeping America safe from
terrorists. I see the whole darn thing as religion and oil based.
I can't bare our vets to be killed but I am proud of what they do...
On the other hand there's war going on in every city in "America" I
often wonder how many youth have been killed today. No one in any city
is safe.
We've lost a lot of freedom in this country..... Why sacrifice the
lives of the good and decent people like our Vets... Could be that their
saver there than here....
I hate the topic of this thread so much that it un-leashed my anger..
sorry.. dory
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG and Kami D.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
Gutbuster
2004-11-29 21:16:05 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kami
Thanks Dory! Some common sense......I can't stand to see our soldiers die
and I am so proud of their bravery, but for what? The fact that people in
this country aren't up in arms surprises me. This is the year 2004, you
mean to tell me with all the intelligence (and I use that word loosely) we
are supposed to have we can't capture that one man who caused this entire
thing to start? Give me a break.....it is all about money, greed and
arrogance.
What makes you think one man started this? The Arab region has suffered the
invasion of many nations over the centuries, the last being America. In more
recent times, the English inhabited those regions, then the Russians and
then the Americans. The only difference shown to the world was that the
Americans have gone in there to cause a lot of damage and kill people with
the expressed purpose of leaving as soon as they are done killing and
destroying while the English and Russians intended on not killing or
destroying but occupying. I am not an Arab but if I were, I doubt the bullet
hitting me coming from an English, Russian or American rifle would make any
difference. Oh and BTW, yes Australians are backing USA up. Shit we were the
second country to sign up to the police force for Korea so why not continue
along that trail? :(

So far as I can see, no one man started all this. If America didn't invade
Afghanistan and Iraq, sure there wouldn't have been the political
machinations we have today, for good or ill, but likely there would be many
1000s of New Yorkers still alive.

Now ask yourself - well if oil ISN'T the reason that America went in there
for sure, what is? It is possible that Saddam was dangerous in his weapons
he was building but so far no proof of that has been shown to anyone since
the second war with Iraq. It certainly wasn't a monetary reason. These
continued wars America is involving itself in is slowly bankrupting the
country as military spending did to Communist USSR. So if America's
intelligence said it was WMDs and that is why - then why did they get it so
wrong? No, clearly oil was the large issue here. Just ask yourself who is
the largest and second largest buyer and user of oil.

Australia is in a unique position. We have a vast amount of unused land that
suffers years of sun punctuated only by night. We should have fields of
energy production devoted to solar energy now as things are changing for the
better with hydrogen producing solar cells and the like. Our need for oil
isn't as large as America's need but we certainly need to be part of a
trading pact with SOMEONE or die. Our Govt is putting us together with USA.
It may ultimately not matter as China emerges and USA becomes to China what
UK currently is to USA. We do, however, face a problem here. The ASEAN
nations are attempting to put together a trading pact, along the lines of
the EEC, that doesn't include Australia (which I see as racist but
nonetheless....) so we have no choice. We were joined at the hip to the UK
and then the American "shield" intervened in WW2 and helped us survive. We
realised that the UK was not going to be the force it was and we owed
America everything. So, we started along the path of aligning ourselves to
USA instead. I wonder, when China takes over from USA, what we will do - or
have the chance of doing - then?
Kami
2004-11-29 22:37:47 UTC
Permalink
Your right, it wasn't really just one man. And we can't bring back the
1000's we lost in New York (sure wish we could though!!) but we could have
focused our attention on the mastermind of that attack.

Kami
Post by Gutbuster
Post by Kami
Thanks Dory! Some common sense......I can't stand to see our soldiers die
and I am so proud of their bravery, but for what? The fact that people in
this country aren't up in arms surprises me. This is the year 2004, you
mean to tell me with all the intelligence (and I use that word loosely) we
are supposed to have we can't capture that one man who caused this entire
thing to start? Give me a break.....it is all about money, greed and
arrogance.
What makes you think one man started this? The Arab region has suffered the
invasion of many nations over the centuries, the last being America. In more
recent times, the English inhabited those regions, then the Russians and
then the Americans. The only difference shown to the world was that the
Americans have gone in there to cause a lot of damage and kill people with
the expressed purpose of leaving as soon as they are done killing and
destroying while the English and Russians intended on not killing or
destroying but occupying. I am not an Arab but if I were, I doubt the bullet
hitting me coming from an English, Russian or American rifle would make any
difference. Oh and BTW, yes Australians are backing USA up. Shit we were the
second country to sign up to the police force for Korea so why not continue
along that trail? :(
So far as I can see, no one man started all this. If America didn't invade
Afghanistan and Iraq, sure there wouldn't have been the political
machinations we have today, for good or ill, but likely there would be many
1000s of New Yorkers still alive.
Now ask yourself - well if oil ISN'T the reason that America went in there
for sure, what is? It is possible that Saddam was dangerous in his weapons
he was building but so far no proof of that has been shown to anyone since
the second war with Iraq. It certainly wasn't a monetary reason. These
continued wars America is involving itself in is slowly bankrupting the
country as military spending did to Communist USSR. So if America's
intelligence said it was WMDs and that is why - then why did they get it so
wrong? No, clearly oil was the large issue here. Just ask yourself who is
the largest and second largest buyer and user of oil.
Australia is in a unique position. We have a vast amount of unused land that
suffers years of sun punctuated only by night. We should have fields of
energy production devoted to solar energy now as things are changing for the
better with hydrogen producing solar cells and the like. Our need for oil
isn't as large as America's need but we certainly need to be part of a
trading pact with SOMEONE or die. Our Govt is putting us together with USA.
It may ultimately not matter as China emerges and USA becomes to China what
UK currently is to USA. We do, however, face a problem here. The ASEAN
nations are attempting to put together a trading pact, along the lines of
the EEC, that doesn't include Australia (which I see as racist but
nonetheless....) so we have no choice. We were joined at the hip to the UK
and then the American "shield" intervened in WW2 and helped us survive. We
realised that the UK was not going to be the force it was and we owed
America everything. So, we started along the path of aligning ourselves to
USA instead. I wonder, when China takes over from USA, what we will do - or
have the chance of doing - then?
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG and Kami D.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
Q***@webtv.net
2004-11-30 01:00:26 UTC
Permalink
Sorry but I'm back because I heard on weekend news channel a week or two
ago I think it was fox.

The guy being interviewed has been researching and investagating the
gulf war veterans many neuro problems.

He knows their real sick with symptoms like MS and ALS. He mentioned
other illness too.

What grabbed my attention is he went on to say Sudam's weapons of mass
distruction were all most all destroyed during the gulf war. I've heard
no other mention of it. The one thing I never dougbted was that our vets
were sick.

I was a down winder from the nuecular bomb testing site in the Neveda
desert. I could write a book on all the sickness and death that began
happening.....

The goverment lied to us for years. It makes me feel sad and mad that
we were guinea bigs.

When I went to my last class get together there were only four of us
living everyone else had been dieing over the years since graduation of
cancer or neuro problems.

When I was younger I was horrified seeing so many I knew get sick and
die...

I can only guess that it altered peoples genes because the next
generation and even today it is no better....

The goverment now compensates you with 50 thousand dollars. But you
must jump thru hoops to prove you lived there and after 20 years people
have thrown out old phone bills and light bills that help prove you
lived there.

A lot of women develope a rare breast cancer even young women. I don't
know of one that has servied.

We weren't the only town that was affected,,,,, by that cloud of muck
that settled right down in our neighbood...... Going to spell check now
and to hell with my bad grammer.... dory
KKT
2004-11-30 01:36:37 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q***@webtv.net
What grabbed my attention is he went on to say Sudam's weapons of mass
distruction were all most all destroyed during the gulf war. I've heard
no other mention of it. The one thing I never dougbted was that our vets
were sick.
That's been known for quite some time. It was the point that Scott
Ritter and others made long before the war began.

There was a study reported earlier this year about some of the
sicknesses of vets:
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/story/180332p-156685c.html

KKT
Specialsearcher
2004-11-30 02:23:01 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q***@webtv.net
When I was younger I was horrified seeing so many I knew get sick and
die...
I you think NEOCONS really care?
Q***@webtv.net
2004-11-30 05:22:07 UTC
Permalink
Um' NEOCONS I can't figure your terminology out. This is a new one for
me
can you give me hand in figuring it out?:-)
dory
Specialsearcher
2004-11-30 15:23:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by Q***@webtv.net
Um' NEOCONS I can't figure your terminology out. This is a new one for
me
can you give me hand in figuring it out?:-)
dory
As I understand it if refers to Republicans.
Gutbuster
2004-11-30 02:52:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kami
Your right, it wasn't really just one man. And we can't bring back the
1000's we lost in New York (sure wish we could though!!) but we could have
focused our attention on the mastermind of that attack.
Have you?

....or is it possible that like Hitler did on his rise to power in Nazi
Germany, you are being misdirected into believing something that doesn't
exist any longer.....possibly never existed at all?

Hitler was a master political tactician. He understood that to dominate, he
needed someone to blame. Are the Western nations that different from Hitler
in reality? Hitler said "They did it! They look different! They dress
different!" etc. Same words used today by our Govts (and I don't pretend to
point the finger at ONE Govt in saying that as we all seem to be saying the
same thing - even the French, though they wont admit it, with their band on
Muslim female head dress in certain times).

One thing is ultimately clear - the public of each nation has needs and so
makes demands upon their Govts to fulfil those needs. In order to do that
they must dominate. In order to dominate they must misdirect so as to attain
that which their people demand. So, the one thing that is clear is that we
haven't learned from history - even so close as less than 100 years ago. It
is the same cycle of human deprevity all over again. "I want. I kill. I
take".
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-29 12:39:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kami
It was one of the thinnest margins in history!!!!!
"Kami"
ROFL! Bush one Ohio by more votes than Kennedy beat Nixon *Nationally* in
1960!
Bush received more votes than any President in USA history, granted the
population continues to rise. 3.8 million popular votes is not a narrow
difference. The elctoral college was relatively *close*, but there have been
quite a few much closer in history.

Chuck
Kami
2004-11-29 15:04:10 UTC
Permalink
All I can say to you is do your research. And not on "Fox News"!!!!
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Kami
It was one of the thinnest margins in history!!!!!
"Kami"
ROFL! Bush one Ohio by more votes than Kennedy beat Nixon *Nationally* in
1960!
Bush received more votes than any President in USA history, granted the
population continues to rise. 3.8 million popular votes is not a narrow
difference. The elctoral college was relatively *close*, but there have been
quite a few much closer in history.
Chuck
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG and Kami D.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
KKT
2004-11-29 15:38:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Kami
It was one of the thinnest margins in history!!!!!
"Kami"
ROFL! Bush one Ohio by more votes than Kennedy beat Nixon *Nationally* in
1960!
And your point?
Post by ChuckMSRD
Bush received more votes than any President in USA history, granted the
population continues to rise. 3.8 million popular votes is not a narrow
difference. The elctoral college was relatively *close*, but there have been
quite a few much closer in history.
And the person that got the second most? That would be John Kerry.

KKT
Jer
2004-11-29 19:09:50 UTC
Permalink
Post by Kami
You, sir, are truly full of what you are fed via the media!!!!!! I can not
believe the ignorance in your posts and the complete disregard for the fact
that it was not an "overwhelming majority" of America who voted for Bush.
It was one of the thinnest margins in history!!!!!
Hello, you need to quit talking about it like you know what you are saying.
This election was won by breeding fear.....fear of gays, fear of war coming
to our homeland and abortion. The hatred you are spewing is disgusting and
sad!!!
Get a Life!
You, Sir or Madam, in your haste to spin what one has said obviate the
obvious; what I said was, "...when the overwhelming majority of
Americans have spoken and totally disregarded the left's antics and
manipulation of the media...." You chose to spin what was said into a
diatribe regarding vote count issue when in fact the plain reading of
what I wrote clearly evidences what I said and meant was the
overwhelming majority has spoken. Which, of course, they had
irrespective of whether they voted for Bush or not.

I strongly suggest you read what one writes and gather what is
written, as it is written, rather than put your misguided emotional
interpretational spin on the issue at hand. However, I am quite
pleased to have you prove exactly what liberalism is all about and
purposely give an exact example of it. Your vitriolic and
manipulatory spin in response reveals your liberal hysteria. Exactly
what I was pointing out.

Rather than think things out and realize what has not worked will
never work. Thus, once again, leading up to 2006, and 2008, you all
will do a repeat performance. After both elections liberals will
parrot the same old lament.

For once I would like to read or hear a liberal which would not commit
the same old fallacious arguments including, but not limited to:
irrelevant reason, appeal to ignorance, convergent, linked,
sequential, illegitimate assumptions, denying the antecedent,
affirming the consequent, ad hominen (including bias, inconsistency,
and psychological, ad hominem arguments), appeal to supposed popular
and traditional authority, ambiguity, strawman, slippery slope, false
dilemma, golden mean, begging the question, ignoring the question,
questions of cause, repetition, faulty parallelism, cliches, and
homemade statistics, to name but just a few popular liberal failures
in presenting their arguments.

As to the truth and the facts, and where I get mine, let's just say I
get mine by researching the lies spewed by liberals through use of
Lexis-Nexis, a subscription service wherein one can find, and compare,
what liberals have said over time, and depending upon "which way the
wind was blowing on that day, what their stance was for that day and
the particular audience being addressed.

Further, through use of Lexis-Nexis, and other on-line government
sites, both you and I can get the actual voting record of any federal
elected official from his or her first vote on any issue or bill from
their taking office.

I assure you, I do not get my information from the likes of ABC, CBS,
NBC, MSNBC, CNN or Turner Broadcasting. I use Fox News, Trinity
Broadcasting, and other Christian based news to TRIGGER my research to
ascertain the truth. Then, and only then, do I log on to ascertain
the truth from other sources such as governmental records and
Lexis-Nexis.

"You, sir, are truly full of what you are fed via the media!!!!!! I
can not
believe the ignorance in your posts...." These statements are at best,
"the pot calling the kettle black." Yet, they are humorous to say the
least.

Rather than blathering on about something you yourself have not
adeguately researched, thus proving you are contending something you
know nothing about and proving it by your statements, why don't you
research your "blathers" before blathering?

The presidential election was not about fears of any kind. It was
about the "vast majority" being tired of where liberalism has taken
this nation, including where the ACLU has taken this nation.

As science progesses and research is now proving life begins earlier
and earlier than once thought; thus, the "politically correct" word
"abortion" is actually a more palatable word for slaughter. I have,
and no one I know has, a fear of abortion, we just know it is licensed
murder. No fear, it is what it is.

As a Vietnam Vet, I have no fear whatsoever of war; thus, your
contention is fallacious, and another "spin."

As to fear of Gays, I think the recent state voting record proves no
one fears gays. The vast majority of voters just don't agree with
their life style and do not wish to sanction it. No fear, just do not
wish to sanction it. No fear, society is now waking up to the fact
homosexuality is a choice, a conscious choice just as incest, bigamy,
pedophelia, and bestiality are a choice.

"The hatred you are spewing is disgusting and sad!!! Get a Life!"
These two statements demonstrate fear. Rather than addressing the
contentions and arguments I presented you chose to make broad and
generalized statements of fear and make personal attacks. Your
liberal vitriol and inability to reason a response to what I wrote is
typical of the left wing, bleeding heart liberal, bottom feeding
responses.

Chill! Just chill out, and maybe you can reason a response worthy of
whom I hope you are.... an American who can differ with another
American and present an argument supporting your opinion. Is that
possible?


A "Red-neck wanna be,"

Jer
KKT
2004-11-29 19:41:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jer
Post by Kami
You, sir, are truly full of what you are fed via the media!!!!!! I can not
believe the ignorance in your posts and the complete disregard for the fact
that it was not an "overwhelming majority" of America who voted for Bush.
It was one of the thinnest margins in history!!!!!
Hello, you need to quit talking about it like you know what you are saying.
This election was won by breeding fear.....fear of gays, fear of war coming
to our homeland and abortion. The hatred you are spewing is disgusting and
sad!!!
Get a Life!
You, Sir or Madam, in your haste to spin what one has said obviate the
obvious; what I said was, "...when the overwhelming majority of
Americans have spoken and totally disregarded the left's antics and
manipulation of the media...." You chose to spin what was said into a
diatribe regarding vote count issue when in fact the plain reading of
what I wrote clearly evidences what I said and meant was the
overwhelming majority has spoken. Which, of course, they had
irrespective of whether they voted for Bush or not.
That's disingenuous. How can you know WHAT the overwhelming majority of
Americans think, and how can you expect anyone to believe that without
citing some evidence? For instance, this morning, Bloomberg reported this:

"Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- U.S. President George W. Bush's
nominee for the next Supreme Court vacancy should be
willing to uphold the 1973 Roe v. Wade decision that
guaranteed abortion rights, according to a majority
of Americans in an Ipsos-Public Affairs poll for the
Associated Press.

Fifty-nine percent said Bush should choose a supporter
of Roe v. Wade, while 31 percent said they want a nominee
who will try to overturn the decision, according to the
poll. Support for Roe v. Wade was seen among both men
and women, across most age and income groups, and in
urban, suburban and rural areas, AP said.
http://tinyurl.com/6m62z

It seems to me that the vast majority of Americans support this
so-called "leftist" view.

This is what's called an opinion based on evidence. Let's see YOUR evidence.
Post by Jer
I strongly suggest you read what one writes and gather what is
written, as it is written, rather than put your misguided emotional
interpretational spin on the issue at hand. However, I am quite
pleased to have you prove exactly what liberalism is all about and
purposely give an exact example of it. Your vitriolic and
manipulatory spin in response reveals your liberal hysteria. Exactly
what I was pointing out.
You cite nothing to support your statements. That makes them merely an
unsupported opinion.
Post by Jer
Rather than think things out and realize what has not worked will
never work. Thus, once again, leading up to 2006, and 2008, you all
will do a repeat performance. After both elections liberals will
parrot the same old lament.
For once I would like to read or hear a liberal which would not commit
irrelevant reason, appeal to ignorance, convergent, linked,
sequential, illegitimate assumptions, denying the antecedent,
affirming the consequent, ad hominen (including bias, inconsistency,
and psychological, ad hominem arguments), appeal to supposed popular
and traditional authority, ambiguity, strawman, slippery slope, false
dilemma, golden mean, begging the question, ignoring the question,
questions of cause, repetition, faulty parallelism, cliches, and
homemade statistics, to name but just a few popular liberal failures
in presenting their arguments.
If you've read anything that I've written, you've read that. Now, let's
see something like that from the so-called conservatives.
Post by Jer
As to the truth and the facts, and where I get mine, let's just say I
get mine by researching the lies spewed by liberals through use of
Lexis-Nexis, a subscription service wherein one can find, and compare,
what liberals have said over time, and depending upon "which way the
wind was blowing on that day, what their stance was for that day and
the particular audience being addressed.
Again, you cite nothing. You say you do research, but none of it appears
in your statements.
Post by Jer
Further, through use of Lexis-Nexis, and other on-line government
sites, both you and I can get the actual voting record of any federal
elected official from his or her first vote on any issue or bill from
their taking office.
First, Lexis-Nexis isn't a government site, on-line or off. It's an arm
of a publishing house. Second, anyone can get a voting record. What do
you do to determine why someone voted the way in which s/he did? The
vote itself tells one very little, particularly since neither house
requires that a bill refer to one issue and one issue alone.
Post by Jer
I assure you, I do not get my information from the likes of ABC, CBS,
NBC, MSNBC, CNN or Turner Broadcasting. I use Fox News, Trinity
Broadcasting, and other Christian based news to TRIGGER my research to
ascertain the truth. Then, and only then, do I log on to ascertain
the truth from other sources such as governmental records and
Lexis-Nexis.
What do you consider "truth?" The factual basis of an opinion could well
be considered truth. However, the interpretation of those facts may or
may not be. For instance, I would vote to continue a woman's right to
choose abortion. You may conclude that this is because I'm "pro"
abortion. That wouldn't be the truth.
Post by Jer
"You, sir, are truly full of what you are fed via the media!!!!!! I
can not
believe the ignorance in your posts...." These statements are at best,
"the pot calling the kettle black." Yet, they are humorous to say the
least.
Rather than blathering on about something you yourself have not
adeguately researched, thus proving you are contending something you
know nothing about and proving it by your statements, why don't you
research your "blathers" before blathering?
Unfortunately, I've read a couple of your posts and I might ask you to
do the same thing. Research first.
Post by Jer
The presidential election was not about fears of any kind. It was
about the "vast majority" being tired of where liberalism has taken
this nation, including where the ACLU has taken this nation.
You don't know that. And I don't know that it wasn't. Cite some factual
data to support your opinion ... I don't think you can.
Post by Jer
As science progesses and research is now proving life begins earlier
and earlier than once thought; thus, the "politically correct" word
"abortion" is actually a more palatable word for slaughter. I have,
and no one I know has, a fear of abortion, we just know it is licensed
murder. No fear, it is what it is.
No. That's your opinion. You don't seem to understand the difference
between that and your version of "truth."

For instance [and if you really DID go to law school, you should
understand this], one can kill another in self-defense. That's not
murder. One can kill someone in a time of war. That's not murder.

Even if one were to agree that abortion is "killing," its doesn't follow
either logically or legally that abortion is "murder." That's your
opinion, and you're certainly entitled to it. In this country, neither
you nor anyone else is required to have an abortion against her will. I
will support that until the day that I die.

OTOH, neither you nor anyone else is entitled to foist your opinions on
other people. And from the poll reported in Bloomberg this morning [see
above], the vast majority of Americans agree with me.
Post by Jer
As a Vietnam Vet, I have no fear whatsoever of war; thus, your
contention is fallacious, and another "spin."
As to fear of Gays, I think the recent state voting record proves no
one fears gays. The vast majority of voters just don't agree with
their life style and do not wish to sanction it. No fear, just do not
wish to sanction it. No fear, society is now waking up to the fact
homosexuality is a choice, a conscious choice just as incest, bigamy,
pedophelia, and bestiality are a choice.
Again, you've failed to do your homework. Note:

So powerful is the new norm of tolerance and
inclusiveness that more than 200 cities and
counties now have laws protecting gays and
lesbians from discrimination, and among Fortune
500 companies, 227 now offer domestic-partner
benefits. Straight job seekers have been known
to ask whether companies offer same-sex- partner
benefits not because they're secretly gay but
because they prefer a company that promotes
diversity and tolerance. Even in this supposedly
conservative political year, exit polls found
three in five voters supporting marriage or
civil unions for gays. http://tinyurl.com/6d25s
Post by Jer
"The hatred you are spewing is disgusting and sad!!! Get a Life!"
These two statements demonstrate fear. Rather than addressing the
contentions and arguments I presented you chose to make broad and
generalized statements of fear and make personal attacks. Your
liberal vitriol and inability to reason a response to what I wrote is
typical of the left wing, bleeding heart liberal, bottom feeding
responses.
You haven't MADE any arguments. You've expressed opinions [and I
strongly support your right to do so, even as I disagree with them]
without evidence.

And by the way, do you recognize your own vitriolic responses?
Post by Jer
Chill! Just chill out, and maybe you can reason a response worthy of
whom I hope you are.... an American who can differ with another
American and present an argument supporting your opinion. Is that
possible?
A "Red-neck wanna be,"
Jer
And i hope that you can reason a response, too. So far, I haven't seen
it, but I'm hopeful.

Kathie

PS: If you REALLY wanted to be a redneck, you wouldn't have gone to
college, taken pre-law classes and gone to law school ... who are you
trying to fool?
Kami
2004-11-29 19:41:08 UTC
Permalink
Indeed.....but big words don't make what you say any more true. I am a
Madam and a democrat, I don't consider myself a liberal but spin it your way
if you must. And yes we can be Americans who can differ with another
American and present an argument supporting our opinions. But I will not be
called names and pigeon holed into a group like "bottom feeders" with out a
fight. Us disagreeing is what makes this country great but using slanderous
statements is what makes the republicans....... well republicans.

Kami
Post by Jer
Post by Kami
You, sir, are truly full of what you are fed via the media!!!!!! I can not
believe the ignorance in your posts and the complete disregard for the fact
that it was not an "overwhelming majority" of America who voted for Bush.
It was one of the thinnest margins in history!!!!!
Hello, you need to quit talking about it like you know what you are saying.
This election was won by breeding fear.....fear of gays, fear of war coming
to our homeland and abortion. The hatred you are spewing is disgusting and
sad!!!
Get a Life!
You, Sir or Madam, in your haste to spin what one has said obviate the
obvious; what I said was, "...when the overwhelming majority of
Americans have spoken and totally disregarded the left's antics and
manipulation of the media...." You chose to spin what was said into a
diatribe regarding vote count issue when in fact the plain reading of
what I wrote clearly evidences what I said and meant was the
overwhelming majority has spoken. Which, of course, they had
irrespective of whether they voted for Bush or not.
I strongly suggest you read what one writes and gather what is
written, as it is written, rather than put your misguided emotional
interpretational spin on the issue at hand. However, I am quite
pleased to have you prove exactly what liberalism is all about and
purposely give an exact example of it. Your vitriolic and
manipulatory spin in response reveals your liberal hysteria. Exactly
what I was pointing out.
Rather than think things out and realize what has not worked will
never work. Thus, once again, leading up to 2006, and 2008, you all
will do a repeat performance. After both elections liberals will
parrot the same old lament.
For once I would like to read or hear a liberal which would not commit
irrelevant reason, appeal to ignorance, convergent, linked,
sequential, illegitimate assumptions, denying the antecedent,
affirming the consequent, ad hominen (including bias, inconsistency,
and psychological, ad hominem arguments), appeal to supposed popular
and traditional authority, ambiguity, strawman, slippery slope, false
dilemma, golden mean, begging the question, ignoring the question,
questions of cause, repetition, faulty parallelism, cliches, and
homemade statistics, to name but just a few popular liberal failures
in presenting their arguments.
As to the truth and the facts, and where I get mine, let's just say I
get mine by researching the lies spewed by liberals through use of
Lexis-Nexis, a subscription service wherein one can find, and compare,
what liberals have said over time, and depending upon "which way the
wind was blowing on that day, what their stance was for that day and
the particular audience being addressed.
Further, through use of Lexis-Nexis, and other on-line government
sites, both you and I can get the actual voting record of any federal
elected official from his or her first vote on any issue or bill from
their taking office.
I assure you, I do not get my information from the likes of ABC, CBS,
NBC, MSNBC, CNN or Turner Broadcasting. I use Fox News, Trinity
Broadcasting, and other Christian based news to TRIGGER my research to
ascertain the truth. Then, and only then, do I log on to ascertain
the truth from other sources such as governmental records and
Lexis-Nexis.
"You, sir, are truly full of what you are fed via the media!!!!!! I
can not
believe the ignorance in your posts...." These statements are at best,
"the pot calling the kettle black." Yet, they are humorous to say the
least.
Rather than blathering on about something you yourself have not
adeguately researched, thus proving you are contending something you
know nothing about and proving it by your statements, why don't you
research your "blathers" before blathering?
The presidential election was not about fears of any kind. It was
about the "vast majority" being tired of where liberalism has taken
this nation, including where the ACLU has taken this nation.
As science progesses and research is now proving life begins earlier
and earlier than once thought; thus, the "politically correct" word
"abortion" is actually a more palatable word for slaughter. I have,
and no one I know has, a fear of abortion, we just know it is licensed
murder. No fear, it is what it is.
As a Vietnam Vet, I have no fear whatsoever of war; thus, your
contention is fallacious, and another "spin."
As to fear of Gays, I think the recent state voting record proves no
one fears gays. The vast majority of voters just don't agree with
their life style and do not wish to sanction it. No fear, just do not
wish to sanction it. No fear, society is now waking up to the fact
homosexuality is a choice, a conscious choice just as incest, bigamy,
pedophelia, and bestiality are a choice.
"The hatred you are spewing is disgusting and sad!!! Get a Life!"
These two statements demonstrate fear. Rather than addressing the
contentions and arguments I presented you chose to make broad and
generalized statements of fear and make personal attacks. Your
liberal vitriol and inability to reason a response to what I wrote is
typical of the left wing, bleeding heart liberal, bottom feeding
responses.
Chill! Just chill out, and maybe you can reason a response worthy of
whom I hope you are.... an American who can differ with another
American and present an argument supporting your opinion. Is that
possible?
A "Red-neck wanna be,"
Jer
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG and Kami D.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
ChuckMSRD
2004-11-29 12:35:32 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jer
The left has lost their way and insist on staying lost by always
blaming someone else for the problems they created themselves.
Excellent Jer! I'm going to respectfully call you Hammerhead, becaue you nael
it! I have yet to hear someone on the left take a step back and say, "wow,
perhaps our ideology is a problem". I will stay lost until they reassess that.

Chuck
KKT
2004-11-29 15:36:39 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Jer
The left has lost their way and insist on staying lost by always
blaming someone else for the problems they created themselves.
Excellent Jer! I'm going to respectfully call you Hammerhead, becaue you nael
it! I have yet to hear someone on the left take a step back and say, "wow,
perhaps our ideology is a problem". I will stay lost until they reassess that.
Chuck
We HAVE lost our way. The Democrats [DLC mostly] have become
Republican-lite and until they stop it, they're going to lose.

Welcome to the light ... you're lost no more!

Kathie
Jer
2004-11-29 20:35:35 UTC
Permalink
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Jer
The left has lost their way and insist on staying lost by always
blaming someone else for the problems they created themselves.
Excellent Jer! I'm going to respectfully call you Hammerhead, becaue you nael
it! I have yet to hear someone on the left take a step back and say, "wow,
perhaps our ideology is a problem". I will stay lost until they reassess that.
Chuck
That is my point exactly! Yes, I am a die hard extreme right-wing
zealot. I do not admit that; I proudly proclaim that! However, that
aside, my problem with the left is one of questioning their ability to
think with reason and clarity.

What scares me and causes me great fear is I live in America with a
party I totally disagree with and that is as it should be. But damn,
when I walk into a concrete block wall and I butt my head against it a
few times and that doesn't work to get through the wall I have enough
grey matter to try other ways to get through that wall. It doesn't
take me long to figure out, "this just aint' workin! I better stop,
reason a new method to achieve my goals. But to sit and cry foul,
blame everyone and anyone for my inability to get on the otherside of
that wall accomplishes nothing but to waste my time, my tears, my
brain cells, my voice, and a whole lot of calories.

Crying about the past, claiming great conspiracies, and other such
silliness, at the end accomplishes nothing. Besides, the last time I
had to deal with that kind of thinking and reasoning, all it took was
to change her diaper and everything was fine.

Here, I thought liberals would get a clue and adjust not only their
strategy but also their agenda. Any reasoning person would realize,
"I am getting nothing but scars on my forehead from banging my head
against this concrete block wall."

Alas, liberals do not wish to stop, look around, listen (requires
shutting their mouth for a time and laying down that pen for a time),
reason and think. Think, "Maybe we are wrong, maybe we need to adjust
here, move there, do this, and not do that."

One individual wrote this election was about fear. No this election
was not at all about fear. Fear was what came after the election.
The liberals rants about the election created fear. Fear created by
the realization of fellow citizens (liberals)are stuck in the past,
cannot take responsibility for their own losses, and cannot fathom
their agenda no longer works and the country is rejecting their
agenda(s). The welfare state liberals created to secure votes turned
on them, the "poor" minorities have turned on them, the union bosses
have lost their grip on their members and the members have turned on
the liberals, all because of the liberal agenda(s) and the fact that
those that have turned on them realize those agenda(s) have, in the
long run, have not advanced their lives but rather further
impoverished them.

Yes, my fear is the realization I am living amoungst those (excuse my
over simplification and directness) "stuck on stupid!" and refuse to
do anything about it. They scare me! Cause me great fear! People
who fail to reason and adjust really do scare me!

We, I say we, because I failed to realize it until now, have created a
society of victims. No one takes responsibility for their own
failures. Some one else is always to blame. And if things don't go
the way we want it to get out the trusty index finger and point it at
everyone else as the blame for our failures, actions and inactions.
This recent election, if anything points that out in letters 100 feet
high. Liberals see themselves as victims and as long as they see
themselves as victims they will remain victims. I am concerned!

I am a right wing conservative zealot.... and proud of it. I am a
homophobe....and proud of it. I am a Christian....and proud of it. I
am a Vietnam era vet....and proud of it. I am a
antiabortionist....and proud of it. I am a freedom monger....and
proud of it. I am a privacy advocate....and proud of it. I am a
prayer in school advocate....and proud of it. I am 10 Commandment in
government buildings advocate....and proud of it. I am a private
property ownership advocate....and proud of it. I am a
capitalist...and proud of it. One thing I am not, alas, is a
"red-neck," I am a "red-neck wanna be!"

I beleive people are where they are at because that is where they want
to be.....or they would be making minute by minute, hour by hour, day
by day, month by month, year by year, strides to be somewhere else.
The last great thing a liberal said worth noting and living by is,
"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your
country." And the liberals have lost their way since then.

Jer
Gutbuster
2004-11-29 21:18:13 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jer
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Jer
The left has lost their way and insist on staying lost by always
blaming someone else for the problems they created themselves.
Excellent Jer! I'm going to respectfully call you Hammerhead, becaue you nael
it! I have yet to hear someone on the left take a step back and say, "wow,
perhaps our ideology is a problem". I will stay lost until they reassess that.
Chuck
That is my point exactly! Yes, I am a die hard extreme right-wing
zealot.
In Italy during WW2, I think they called that "fascist".
Kami
2004-11-30 15:11:44 UTC
Permalink
The 23rd Sigh

Bush is my shepherd; I dwell in want.
He maketh logs to be cut down in national forests.
He leadeth trucks into the still wilderness.
He restoreth my fears.
He leadeth me in the paths of international disgrace for his ego's sake.
Yea, though I walk through the valley of pollution and war, I
will find no exit, for thou art in office.
Thy tax cuts for the rich and thy media control, they discomfort me.
Thou preparest an agenda of deception in the presence of thy religion.
Thou anointest my head with foreign oil.
My health insurance runneth out.
Surely megalomania and false patriotism shall follow me all the days of thy
term,
And my jobless child shall dwell in my basement forever.
Post by Jer
Post by ChuckMSRD
Post by Jer
The left has lost their way and insist on staying lost by always
blaming someone else for the problems they created themselves.
Excellent Jer! I'm going to respectfully call you Hammerhead, becaue you nael
it! I have yet to hear someone on the left take a step back and say, "wow,
perhaps our ideology is a problem". I will stay lost until they reassess that.
Chuck
That is my point exactly! Yes, I am a die hard extreme right-wing
zealot. I do not admit that; I proudly proclaim that! However, that
aside, my problem with the left is one of questioning their ability to
think with reason and clarity.
What scares me and causes me great fear is I live in America with a
party I totally disagree with and that is as it should be. But damn,
when I walk into a concrete block wall and I butt my head against it a
few times and that doesn't work to get through the wall I have enough
grey matter to try other ways to get through that wall. It doesn't
take me long to figure out, "this just aint' workin! I better stop,
reason a new method to achieve my goals. But to sit and cry foul,
blame everyone and anyone for my inability to get on the otherside of
that wall accomplishes nothing but to waste my time, my tears, my
brain cells, my voice, and a whole lot of calories.
Crying about the past, claiming great conspiracies, and other such
silliness, at the end accomplishes nothing. Besides, the last time I
had to deal with that kind of thinking and reasoning, all it took was
to change her diaper and everything was fine.
Here, I thought liberals would get a clue and adjust not only their
strategy but also their agenda. Any reasoning person would realize,
"I am getting nothing but scars on my forehead from banging my head
against this concrete block wall."
Alas, liberals do not wish to stop, look around, listen (requires
shutting their mouth for a time and laying down that pen for a time),
reason and think. Think, "Maybe we are wrong, maybe we need to adjust
here, move there, do this, and not do that."
One individual wrote this election was about fear. No this election
was not at all about fear. Fear was what came after the election.
The liberals rants about the election created fear. Fear created by
the realization of fellow citizens (liberals)are stuck in the past,
cannot take responsibility for their own losses, and cannot fathom
their agenda no longer works and the country is rejecting their
agenda(s). The welfare state liberals created to secure votes turned
on them, the "poor" minorities have turned on them, the union bosses
have lost their grip on their members and the members have turned on
the liberals, all because of the liberal agenda(s) and the fact that
those that have turned on them realize those agenda(s) have, in the
long run, have not advanced their lives but rather further
impoverished them.
Yes, my fear is the realization I am living amoungst those (excuse my
over simplification and directness) "stuck on stupid!" and refuse to
do anything about it. They scare me! Cause me great fear! People
who fail to reason and adjust really do scare me!
We, I say we, because I failed to realize it until now, have created a
society of victims. No one takes responsibility for their own
failures. Some one else is always to blame. And if things don't go
the way we want it to get out the trusty index finger and point it at
everyone else as the blame for our failures, actions and inactions.
This recent election, if anything points that out in letters 100 feet
high. Liberals see themselves as victims and as long as they see
themselves as victims they will remain victims. I am concerned!
I am a right wing conservative zealot.... and proud of it. I am a
homophobe....and proud of it. I am a Christian....and proud of it. I
am a Vietnam era vet....and proud of it. I am a
antiabortionist....and proud of it. I am a freedom monger....and
proud of it. I am a privacy advocate....and proud of it. I am a
prayer in school advocate....and proud of it. I am 10 Commandment in
government buildings advocate....and proud of it. I am a private
property ownership advocate....and proud of it. I am a
capitalist...and proud of it. One thing I am not, alas, is a
"red-neck," I am a "red-neck wanna be!"
I beleive people are where they are at because that is where they want
to be.....or they would be making minute by minute, hour by hour, day
by day, month by month, year by year, strides to be somewhere else.
The last great thing a liberal said worth noting and living by is,
"Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your
country." And the liberals have lost their way since then.
Jer
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free by AVG and Kami D.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.801 / Virus Database: 544 - Release Date: 11/24/2004
Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...