| Topic: |
Science > Abortion |
| User: |
"J Young" |
| Date: |
10 Feb 2006 11:02:20 PM |
| Object: |
Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
The American people seem to love Ann Coulter; she may yet be the first
female American President.
http://www.humaneventsonline.com/blog-detail.php?id=12359
Ann Coulter, Human Events legislative correspondent, was definitely Friday's
biggest draw at CPAC 2006. From the get-go Ann had the crowd cheering and
was frequently interrupted during by applause. Many of Coulter's talking
points came from recent news events -- such as "the great Danish cartoon
caper" and President Bush's Supreme Court nominees.
"Muslims are the only group who kill because people call them violent," she
said of Islam's rage over the printing of Muhammad cartoons.
Not only did she express elation at Justice Samuel Alito's confirmation, she
also shared her feelings on Chief Justice John Roberts ("If John Roberts is
a conservative -- and he appears to be -- he was put on the Supreme Court
by the Bush Administration completely by accident.") and Harriet Miers, who
she says was served with "a plate of cookies" by "Washington weenies."
"Only because of a revolt against Miers were Republicans in Washington
finally forced to face their worst nightmare: an out-of-closet conservative
nominee to the Supreme Court," Coulter said.
Coulter had fun impersonating Sen. Hillary Clinton, mocking Clinton's MLK
Day remarks on "the slave plantation" in the House of Representatives,
adding: "And you know what I'm talkin' about, girlfriend."
"I can say that by the way," she said. "My party freed the slaves."
Democrats have three major planks, she explained: "Abortion on demand, gay
marriage and banning the Boy Scouts. Someday they'll find a way to combine
them all and figure out how to abort all future Boy Scouts."
Coulter closed by reminding Republicans what the GOP really stands for:
"We're the party that defends human life in all its forms," she said. "So
don't believe it when the same Washington weenies who gave us Harriet Miers,
who ran like little girls from the Federalist's Society, and who continually
associate with Bill Clinton, come to you and say, ' We've got to run a
pro-choice Republican if we're going to be Hillary.' That's not our party."
When she finished, Coulter was honored with a standing ovation from her
fans.
--
"Honesty, Integrity, Compassion, and Decency"
.
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 12:44:01 PM |
|
|
In article <jgkeegan-7D64E5.13392512022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <AfGdnVgCZ6jGwnLeRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220061745556523%dbarnes@aol.com...
Rice is incompetent, as seen by the recent Palestinian election, and
she couldn't get the Republican racist vote - she is black.
Barnes shows his racism by attacking Rice because she is black.
you must be really intimidated by barnes to post such a transparent
and blatant lie.
He is. And I love it!
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 12:47:11 PM |
|
|
In article <120220061044017924%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-7D64E5.13392512022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <AfGdnVgCZ6jGwnLeRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220061745556523%dbarnes@aol.com...
Rice is incompetent, as seen by the recent Palestinian election, and
she couldn't get the Republican racist vote - she is black.
Barnes shows his racism by attacking Rice because she is black.
you must be really intimidated by barnes to post such a transparent
and blatant lie.
He is. And I love it!
i think he is having a breakdown; his lies are so obvious.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 12:52:20 PM |
|
|
In article <jgkeegan-41913C.13471112022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <120220061044017924%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-7D64E5.13392512022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <AfGdnVgCZ6jGwnLeRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220061745556523%dbarnes@aol.com...
Rice is incompetent, as seen by the recent Palestinian election, and
she couldn't get the Republican racist vote - she is black.
Barnes shows his racism by attacking Rice because she is black.
you must be really intimidated by barnes to post such a transparent
and blatant lie.
He is. And I love it!
i think he is having a breakdown; his lies are so obvious.
I think you are right. It has been happening over the past six months
or so. He has had so many people catch him in his lies that I think he
has simply accepted that he is irrelevant. The smart move would be to
move on and post his hate somewhere else where he isn't known. But
Osprey is far from smart.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 05:07:49 PM |
|
|
In article <120220061052207853%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-41913C.13471112022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <120220061044017924%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-7D64E5.13392512022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <AfGdnVgCZ6jGwnLeRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220061745556523%dbarnes@aol.com...
Rice is incompetent, as seen by the recent Palestinian election, and
she couldn't get the Republican racist vote - she is black.
Barnes shows his racism by attacking Rice because she is black.
you must be really intimidated by barnes to post such a transparent
and blatant lie.
He is. And I love it!
i think he is having a breakdown; his lies are so obvious.
I think you are right. It has been happening over the past six months
or so. He has had so many people catch him in his lies that I think he
has simply accepted that he is irrelevant. The smart move would be to
move on and post his hate somewhere else where he isn't known. But
Osprey is far from smart.
he seems to seek out abuse; even beg for it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 07:20:53 PM |
|
|
In article <jgkeegan-208A33.18074912022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <120220061052207853%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-41913C.13471112022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <120220061044017924%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-7D64E5.13392512022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <AfGdnVgCZ6jGwnLeRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220061745556523%dbarnes@aol.com...
Rice is incompetent, as seen by the recent Palestinian election,
and
she couldn't get the Republican racist vote - she is black.
Barnes shows his racism by attacking Rice because she is black.
you must be really intimidated by barnes to post such a transparent
and blatant lie.
He is. And I love it!
i think he is having a breakdown; his lies are so obvious.
I think you are right. It has been happening over the past six months
or so. He has had so many people catch him in his lies that I think he
has simply accepted that he is irrelevant. The smart move would be to
move on and post his hate somewhere else where he isn't known. But
Osprey is far from smart.
he seems to seek out abuse; even beg for it.
I agree. But why?
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
13 Feb 2006 06:47:53 AM |
|
|
In article <120220061720539981%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-208A33.18074912022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <120220061052207853%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-41913C.13471112022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <120220061044017924%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-7D64E5.13392512022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <AfGdnVgCZ6jGwnLeRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220061745556523%dbarnes@aol.com...
Rice is incompetent, as seen by the recent Palestinian election,
and
she couldn't get the Republican racist vote - she is black.
Barnes shows his racism by attacking Rice because she is black.
you must be really intimidated by barnes to post such a transparent
and blatant lie.
He is. And I love it!
i think he is having a breakdown; his lies are so obvious.
I think you are right. It has been happening over the past six months
or so. He has had so many people catch him in his lies that I think he
has simply accepted that he is irrelevant. The smart move would be to
move on and post his hate somewhere else where he isn't known. But
Osprey is far from smart.
he seems to seek out abuse; even beg for it.
I agree. But why?
perhaps, on some levels, he recognizes the ugliness of his behaviors
and he seeks to be punished.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
13 Feb 2006 01:07:10 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:20:53 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-208A33.18074912022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <120220061052207853%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-41913C.13471112022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <120220061044017924%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-7D64E5.13392512022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <AfGdnVgCZ6jGwnLeRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220061745556523%dbarnes@aol.com...
Rice is incompetent, as seen by the recent Palestinian election,
and
she couldn't get the Republican racist vote - she is black.
Barnes shows his racism by attacking Rice because she is black.
you must be really intimidated by barnes to post such a transparent
and blatant lie.
He is. And I love it!
i think he is having a breakdown; his lies are so obvious.
I think you are right. It has been happening over the past six months
or so. He has had so many people catch him in his lies that I think he
has simply accepted that he is irrelevant. The smart move would be to
move on and post his hate somewhere else where he isn't known. But
Osprey is far from smart.
he seems to seek out abuse; even beg for it.
I agree. But why?
The usual - any attention is better than nothing. He's not so good at
getting people to talk to him, so he annoys so at least we swat at
him.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
13 Feb 2006 09:20:18 AM |
|
|
In article <44072f8c.864433015@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate
<cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
On Mon, 13 Feb 2006 01:20:53 GMT, "David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com>
wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-208A33.18074912022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <120220061052207853%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-41913C.13471112022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <120220061044017924%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-7D64E5.13392512022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <AfGdnVgCZ6jGwnLeRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220061745556523%dbarnes@aol.com...
Rice is incompetent, as seen by the recent Palestinian
election,
and
she couldn't get the Republican racist vote - she is black.
Barnes shows his racism by attacking Rice because she is black.
you must be really intimidated by barnes to post such a
transparent
and blatant lie.
He is. And I love it!
i think he is having a breakdown; his lies are so obvious.
I think you are right. It has been happening over the past six months
or so. He has had so many people catch him in his lies that I think he
has simply accepted that he is irrelevant. The smart move would be to
move on and post his hate somewhere else where he isn't known. But
Osprey is far from smart.
he seems to seek out abuse; even beg for it.
I agree. But why?
The usual - any attention is better than nothing. He's not so good at
getting people to talk to him, so he annoys so at least we swat at
him.
I equate him to a sunfish. Fun to catch, let go, and catch again, but
no real challenge.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 06:50:40 PM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <120220061052207853%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-41913C.13471112022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <120220061044017924%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
In article <jgkeegan-7D64E5.13392512022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <AfGdnVgCZ6jGwnLeRVn-uw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220061745556523%dbarnes@aol.com...
Rice is incompetent, as seen by the recent Palestinian election, and
she couldn't get the Republican racist vote - she is black.
Barnes shows his racism by attacking Rice because she is black.
you must be really intimidated by barnes to post such a transparent
and blatant lie.
He is. And I love it!
i think he is having a breakdown; his lies are so obvious.
I think you are right. It has been happening over the past six months
or so. He has had so many people catch him in his lies that I think he
has simply accepted that he is irrelevant. The smart move would be to
move on and post his hate somewhere else where he isn't known. But
Osprey is far from smart.
he seems to seek out abuse; even beg for it.
EVEN NEGATIVE ATTENTION IS BETTER THAN NO ATTENTION AT ALL.
.
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
13 Feb 2006 06:46:34 AM |
|
|
In article <hJQHf.21232$ZA5.8077@fed1read05>,
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <120220061052207853%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
you must be really intimidated by barnes to post such a transparent
and blatant lie.
He is. And I love it!
i think he is having a breakdown; his lies are so obvious.
I think you are right. It has been happening over the past six months
or so. He has had so many people catch him in his lies that I think he
has simply accepted that he is irrelevant. The smart move would be to
move on and post his hate somewhere else where he isn't known. But
Osprey is far from smart.
he seems to seek out abuse; even beg for it.
EVEN NEGATIVE ATTENTION IS BETTER THAN NO ATTENTION AT ALL.
i think that concept enters into coward bobby's posts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
13 Feb 2006 08:38:42 AM |
|
|
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <hJQHf.21232$ZA5.8077@fed1read05>,
Mimi Cohen <mimiNOSPAMgal@cox.net> wrote:
james g. keegan jr. wrote:
In article <120220061052207853%dbarnes@aol.com>,
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote:
you must be really intimidated by barnes to post such a transparent
and blatant lie.
He is. And I love it!
i think he is having a breakdown; his lies are so obvious.
I think you are right. It has been happening over the past six months
or so. He has had so many people catch him in his lies that I think he
has simply accepted that he is irrelevant. The smart move would be to
move on and post his hate somewhere else where he isn't known. But
Osprey is far from smart.
he seems to seek out abuse; even beg for it.
EVEN NEGATIVE ATTENTION IS BETTER THAN NO ATTENTION AT ALL.
i think that concept enters into coward bobby's posts.
:)
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 11:18:52 AM |
|
|
In article <AfGdnVgCZ6jGwnLeRVn-uw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:110220061745556523%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <1139670053.789560.299370@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:40:26 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ZLednRZFk6l08nDeRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
The American people seem to love Ann Coulter; she may yet be the
first
female American President.
Wouldn't s/he have to be female to accomplish that?
No, she would have to not be female to accomplish that. The neo cons
would never vote for a real woman, so they got someone to pose as one.
And you lib's are cowards, especially when confronted with a question.
You ran away from my question. Why?
Oh, and yes I would vote for a real woman. I think Elizabeth Dole is
wonderful and Rice is extremely intelligent.
Rice is incompetent, as seen by the recent Palestinian election, and
she couldn't get the Republican racist vote - she is black.
Barnes shows his racism by attacking Rice because she is black.
Moron.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 07:44:03 AM |
|
|
On 11 Feb 2006 07:00:53 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:40:26 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ZLednRZFk6l08nDeRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
The American people seem to love Ann Coulter; she may yet be the first
female American President.
Wouldn't s/he have to be female to accomplish that?
No, she would have to not be female to accomplish that. The neo cons
would never vote for a real woman, so they got someone to pose as one.
And you lib's are cowards, especially when confronted with a question.
You ran away from my question. Why?
Oh, and yes I would vote for a real woman. I think Elizabeth Dole is
wonderful and Rice is extremely intelligent. They are real women, and
I would vote for them in a heartbeat.
Rice is one of the ones that caused the 9/11 attack because she
shirked her job. She's lazy and a coward. She's been given
everything she has. Probably because she's black and pretend anything
for corporations.
I don't know that much about Dole.
Are you admitting to being a neo con? LOL, you do know that's a major
put down.
Now, how about you explain why you ran away from...
Uh, I ran away from what? I see no question that I ran away from -
not that I usually have time to follow every single post that is ever
posted, or always see them.
Path:
g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.abortion,alt.politics.british,alt.society.liberalism,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Subject: Re: More Voter Fraud
Date: 6 Feb 2006 22:23:31 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <1139293411.680539.232600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References:
<020220062124041876%dbarnes@aol.com><%UrFf.1234$NR.831@dukeread12>
<43e8733c.226391906@news-west.newscene.com>
<APuFf.1254$NR.551@dukeread12>
<43e6917a$0$58062$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
<xTzFf.1691$NR.100@dukeread12>
<43ea6abf.289755468@news-west.newscene.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.21.1.240
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1139293416 23657 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2006
06:23:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:23:36 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <43ea6abf.289755468@news-west.newscene.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=167.21.1.240;
posting-account=uc2VKwwAAAB71DC5b_mHt0cE57XxAPdB
Kate wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:00:26 -0600, "Reasoned Insanity"
<mintclov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43e6917a$0$58062$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Reasoned Insanity <mintclov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
"Reasoned Insanity"
So reducing the military budget more than it ever has been reduced
protects
us from terrorists? THAT'S what Clinton did to protect us. As I said
before,
you have no one better to offer and with logic like that, it's no
wonder.
LOL, apparently you haven't been paying attention. Clinton actually
worked on getting rid of Al Queda. To the point everyone thought he
was obsessed with it.
If that is so, why didn't he get rid of Bid Laden when he had the chance
to
get him handed over with a bow on his head.
Because, you stupid moron, that would have been illegal.
Want to back up that statement with some proof? Even if it was illegal
though, it would have been for the greater good. Lying under oath is illegal
too, but he did that. I wonder how many other illegal activities he was
responsible for. Whitewater is one. Illegal campaign contributions are
another. There are probably more, but that's all I can think of right now. I
wonder why Clinton has so much regard for not breaking the law to bring in a
terrorist, but has so little regard for the laws in his own country.
This is exactly the problem with people like you. You think the ends
justifies the means. That's a sign of major stupidity and exactly how
terrorist think.
Did you know you were thinking terrorist thoughts? That's why your
way is failing so horribly.
Reading most of your postings I can see you are not worth discussing an
issue with. You are FAR too biased and to the left and you have shown
major hypocrisy on your part.
Ah, yes the unsupported assertion of hypocrisy - I'm soooo impressed.
But I do have one question for you.
You appear to be saying that there are no circumstances in which
choosing to break a law would be the right thing to do?
Not if supporting the law is what you are trying to do.
There are times in which sometimes for the better good (utilitarianism)
that we make choices that violate a law or rule.
Do you disagree or agree?
Remember, you said that it's a sign of major stupidity and exactly how
terrorist think if someone feels that there are times when it's
necessary to break a law or rule for the better good. Choosing lesser
evil over greater evil.
LOL, so unsurprising - You have just admitted you have no morals or
ethical standards. Maintaining your morals is always more important
than the quick fix. You don't break the law to maintain the law.
Your idea is essentially advocating that things like fixing the vote
so that people you think will support democracy will be voted in
rather than someone who is more popular. You destroyed the very thing
you were trying to support because you don't understand what it is.
And obviously you don't understand utilitarianism. It doesn't help
the whole to bend the rules when you think it will help things fast.
The long run - that the rules can be depended on is what is important.
I'm sorry you don't like my opinions and feel the need to shut your
eyes to them. No doubt they get in the way of reality for you far too
often for you to be comfortable for them.
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 10:18:53 AM |
|
|
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4401381e.801090671@news-west.newscene.com...
On 11 Feb 2006 07:00:53 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:40:26 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ZLednRZFk6l08nDeRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
The American people seem to love Ann Coulter; she may yet be the
first
female American President.
Wouldn't s/he have to be female to accomplish that?
No, she would have to not be female to accomplish that. The neo cons
would never vote for a real woman, so they got someone to pose as one.
And you lib's are cowards, especially when confronted with a question.
You ran away from my question. Why?
Oh, and yes I would vote for a real woman. I think Elizabeth Dole is
wonderful and Rice is extremely intelligent. They are real women, and
I would vote for them in a heartbeat.
Rice is one of the ones that caused the 9/11 attack because she
shirked her job. She's lazy and a coward. She's been given
everything she has. Probably because she's black and pretend anything
for corporations.
I don't know that much about Dole.
I think you are just mad because Rice is far more intelligent than you are.
Are you admitting to being a neo con? LOL, you do know that's a major
put down.
You don't know what neo con means.
Now, how about you explain why you ran away from...
Uh, I ran away from what? I see no question that I ran away from -
not that I usually have time to follow every single post that is ever
posted, or always see them.
You saw my question, and I even posted it below.
Path:
g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.abortion,alt.politics.british,alt.society.liberalism,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Subject: Re: More Voter Fraud
Date: 6 Feb 2006 22:23:31 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <1139293411.680539.232600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References:
<020220062124041876%dbarnes@aol.com><%UrFf.1234$NR.831@dukeread12>
<43e8733c.226391906@news-west.newscene.com>
<APuFf.1254$NR.551@dukeread12>
<43e6917a$0$58062$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
<xTzFf.1691$NR.100@dukeread12>
<43ea6abf.289755468@news-west.newscene.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.21.1.240
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1139293416 23657 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2006
06:23:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:23:36 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <43ea6abf.289755468@news-west.newscene.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=167.21.1.240;
posting-account=uc2VKwwAAAB71DC5b_mHt0cE57XxAPdB
Kate wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:00:26 -0600, "Reasoned Insanity"
<mintclov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43e6917a$0$58062$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Reasoned Insanity <mintclov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
"Reasoned Insanity"
So reducing the military budget more than it ever has been reduced
protects
us from terrorists? THAT'S what Clinton did to protect us. As I
said
before,
you have no one better to offer and with logic like that, it's no
wonder.
LOL, apparently you haven't been paying attention. Clinton
actually
worked on getting rid of Al Queda. To the point everyone thought
he
was obsessed with it.
If that is so, why didn't he get rid of Bid Laden when he had the
chance
to
get him handed over with a bow on his head.
Because, you stupid moron, that would have been illegal.
Want to back up that statement with some proof? Even if it was illegal
though, it would have been for the greater good. Lying under oath is
illegal
too, but he did that. I wonder how many other illegal activities he was
responsible for. Whitewater is one. Illegal campaign contributions are
another. There are probably more, but that's all I can think of right
now. I
wonder why Clinton has so much regard for not breaking the law to bring
in a
terrorist, but has so little regard for the laws in his own country.
This is exactly the problem with people like you. You think the ends
justifies the means. That's a sign of major stupidity and exactly how
terrorist think.
Did you know you were thinking terrorist thoughts? That's why your
way is failing so horribly.
Reading most of your postings I can see you are not worth discussing an
issue with. You are FAR too biased and to the left and you have shown
major hypocrisy on your part.
Ah, yes the unsupported assertion of hypocrisy - I'm soooo impressed.
It's not unsupported..you support it.
But I do have one question for you.
You appear to be saying that there are no circumstances in which
choosing to break a law would be the right thing to do?
Not if supporting the law is what you are trying to do.
So you are saying there are NO circumstances in which choosing to break the
law is the right thing to do.
There are times in which sometimes for the better good (utilitarianism)
that we make choices that violate a law or rule.
Do you disagree or agree?
Remember, you said that it's a sign of major stupidity and exactly how
terrorist think if someone feels that there are times when it's
necessary to break a law or rule for the better good. Choosing lesser
evil over greater evil.
LOL, so unsurprising - You have just admitted you have no morals or
ethical standards.
You are trying to ignore my question.
Maintaining your morals is always more important
than the quick fix. You don't break the law to maintain the law.
Your idea is essentially advocating that things like fixing the vote
so that people you think will support democracy will be voted in
rather than someone who is more popular. You destroyed the very thing
you were trying to support because you don't understand what it is.
And obviously you don't understand utilitarianism. It doesn't help
the whole to bend the rules when you think it will help things fast.
The long run - that the rules can be depended on is what is important.
I'm sorry you don't like my opinions and feel the need to shut your
eyes to them. No doubt they get in the way of reality for you far too
often for you to be comfortable for them.
So you have a dying person in your car, you have to speed to get this person
to the emergency room or that person might die. You would choose to let the
person die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 11:18:52 AM |
|
|
In article <ZrOdnWX3yr93wnLenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4401381e.801090671@news-west.newscene.com...
On 11 Feb 2006 07:00:53 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:40:26 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ZLednRZFk6l08nDeRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
The American people seem to love Ann Coulter; she may yet be the
first
female American President.
Wouldn't s/he have to be female to accomplish that?
No, she would have to not be female to accomplish that. The neo cons
would never vote for a real woman, so they got someone to pose as one.
And you lib's are cowards, especially when confronted with a question.
You ran away from my question. Why?
Oh, and yes I would vote for a real woman. I think Elizabeth Dole is
wonderful and Rice is extremely intelligent. They are real women, and
I would vote for them in a heartbeat.
Rice is one of the ones that caused the 9/11 attack because she
shirked her job. She's lazy and a coward. She's been given
everything she has. Probably because she's black and pretend anything
for corporations.
I don't know that much about Dole.
I think you are just mad because Rice is far more intelligent than you are.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
Are you admitting to being a neo con? LOL, you do know that's a major
put down.
You don't know what neo con means.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
Now, how about you explain why you ran away from...
Uh, I ran away from what? I see no question that I ran away from -
not that I usually have time to follow every single post that is ever
posted, or always see them.
You saw my question, and I even posted it below.
Osprey thinks that because everyone ignores him, they "don't know."
Path:
g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-fo
r-mail
From: "osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.abortion,alt.politics.british,alt.society.liberalism,alt.r
eligion.christian.roman-catholic
Subject: Re: More Voter Fraud
Date: 6 Feb 2006 22:23:31 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <1139293411.680539.232600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References:
<020220062124041876%dbarnes@aol.com><%UrFf.1234$NR.831@dukeread12>
<43e8733c.226391906@news-west.newscene.com>
<APuFf.1254$NR.551@dukeread12>
<43e6917a$0$58062$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
<xTzFf.1691$NR.100@dukeread12>
<43ea6abf.289755468@news-west.newscene.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.21.1.240
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1139293416 23657 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2006
06:23:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:23:36 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <43ea6abf.289755468@news-west.newscene.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=167.21.1.240;
posting-account=uc2VKwwAAAB71DC5b_mHt0cE57XxAPdB
Kate wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:00:26 -0600, "Reasoned Insanity"
<mintclov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43e6917a$0$58062$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Reasoned Insanity <mintclov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
"Reasoned Insanity"
So reducing the military budget more than it ever has been reduced
protects
us from terrorists? THAT'S what Clinton did to protect us. As I
said
before,
you have no one better to offer and with logic like that, it's no
wonder.
LOL, apparently you haven't been paying attention. Clinton
actually
worked on getting rid of Al Queda. To the point everyone thought
he
was obsessed with it.
If that is so, why didn't he get rid of Bid Laden when he had the
chance
to
get him handed over with a bow on his head.
Because, you stupid moron, that would have been illegal.
Want to back up that statement with some proof? Even if it was illegal
though, it would have been for the greater good. Lying under oath is
illegal
too, but he did that. I wonder how many other illegal activities he was
responsible for. Whitewater is one. Illegal campaign contributions are
another. There are probably more, but that's all I can think of right
now. I
wonder why Clinton has so much regard for not breaking the law to bring
in a
terrorist, but has so little regard for the laws in his own country.
This is exactly the problem with people like you. You think the ends
justifies the means. That's a sign of major stupidity and exactly how
terrorist think.
Did you know you were thinking terrorist thoughts? That's why your
way is failing so horribly.
Reading most of your postings I can see you are not worth discussing an
issue with. You are FAR too biased and to the left and you have shown
major hypocrisy on your part.
Ah, yes the unsupported assertion of hypocrisy - I'm soooo impressed.
It's not unsupported..you support it.
Like this?
OSPREY ADMITS BEING AROUSED BY YOUNG GIRLS
Osprey inadvertently admits to being sexually aroused by young girls.
³We can allow girls to go to school in short mini skirts and revealing
tight tops and that isnıt distractive, but itıs a distraction if a girl
has the confederate flag on her purse?³
- A comment made by Robert ³Osprey² Heishman in which he accidentally
admits to being turned on by school girls in mini skirts and tight tops
while arguing that the Confederate Flag is not a racist symbol.
(January 10, 2006)
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_thread/thread/e4417a
f6119147c5/1177613f915079b0?lnk=st&q=We+can+allow+girls+to+go+to+school+
in+short+mini+skirts+and+revealing+group%3Aalt.abortion+author%3AOsprey&
rnum=3&hl=en#1177613f915079b0>
But I do have one question for you.
You appear to be saying that there are no circumstances in which
choosing to break a law would be the right thing to do?
Not if supporting the law is what you are trying to do.
So you are saying there are NO circumstances in which choosing to break the
law is the right thing to do.
Osprey can't face the truth, so he distorts what others say.
There are times in which sometimes for the better good (utilitarianism)
that we make choices that violate a law or rule.
Do you disagree or agree?
Remember, you said that it's a sign of major stupidity and exactly how
terrorist think if someone feels that there are times when it's
necessary to break a law or rule for the better good. Choosing lesser
evil over greater evil.
LOL, so unsurprising - You have just admitted you have no morals or
ethical standards.
You are trying to ignore my question.
Why were you reprimanded at your, so called, job?
Maintaining your morals is always more important
than the quick fix. You don't break the law to maintain the law.
Your idea is essentially advocating that things like fixing the vote
so that people you think will support democracy will be voted in
rather than someone who is more popular. You destroyed the very thing
you were trying to support because you don't understand what it is.
And obviously you don't understand utilitarianism. It doesn't help
the whole to bend the rules when you think it will help things fast.
The long run - that the rules can be depended on is what is important.
I'm sorry you don't like my opinions and feel the need to shut your
eyes to them. No doubt they get in the way of reality for you far too
often for you to be comfortable for them.
So you have a dying person in your car, you have to speed to get this person
to the emergency room or that person might die. You would choose to let the
person die.
It would be illegal to speed, guard. What if you killed a little girl
walking on the side of the road? Would you claim you were justified?
.
|
|
|
| User: "osprey" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 12:04:25 PM |
|
|
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120220060918526590%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <ZrOdnWX3yr93wnLenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4401381e.801090671@news-west.newscene.com...
On 11 Feb 2006 07:00:53 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:40:26 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ZLednRZFk6l08nDeRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
The American people seem to love Ann Coulter; she may yet be the
first
female American President.
Wouldn't s/he have to be female to accomplish that?
No, she would have to not be female to accomplish that. The neo cons
would never vote for a real woman, so they got someone to pose as
one.
And you lib's are cowards, especially when confronted with a question.
You ran away from my question. Why?
Oh, and yes I would vote for a real woman. I think Elizabeth Dole is
wonderful and Rice is extremely intelligent. They are real women, and
I would vote for them in a heartbeat.
Rice is one of the ones that caused the 9/11 attack because she
shirked her job. She's lazy and a coward. She's been given
everything she has. Probably because she's black and pretend anything
for corporations.
I don't know that much about Dole.
I think you are just mad because Rice is far more intelligent than you
are.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
You are a racist who attacked Rice because she is a black woman.
Are you admitting to being a neo con? LOL, you do know that's a major
put down.
You don't know what neo con means.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
Proof is above, none of you know what it means.
Now, how about you explain why you ran away from...
Uh, I ran away from what? I see no question that I ran away from -
not that I usually have time to follow every single post that is ever
posted, or always see them.
You saw my question, and I even posted it below.
Osprey thinks that because everyone ignores him, they "don't know."
Path:
g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-fo
r-mail
From: "osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.abortion,alt.politics.british,alt.society.liberalism,alt.r
eligion.christian.roman-catholic
Subject: Re: More Voter Fraud
Date: 6 Feb 2006 22:23:31 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <1139293411.680539.232600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References:
<020220062124041876%dbarnes@aol.com><%UrFf.1234$NR.831@dukeread12>
<43e8733c.226391906@news-west.newscene.com>
<APuFf.1254$NR.551@dukeread12>
<43e6917a$0$58062$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
<xTzFf.1691$NR.100@dukeread12>
<43ea6abf.289755468@news-west.newscene.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.21.1.240
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1139293416 23657 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2006
06:23:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:23:36 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <43ea6abf.289755468@news-west.newscene.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=167.21.1.240;
posting-account=uc2VKwwAAAB71DC5b_mHt0cE57XxAPdB
Kate wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:00:26 -0600, "Reasoned Insanity"
<mintclov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43e6917a$0$58062$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Reasoned Insanity <mintclov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
"Reasoned Insanity"
So reducing the military budget more than it ever has been
reduced
protects
us from terrorists? THAT'S what Clinton did to protect us. As I
said
before,
you have no one better to offer and with logic like that, it's
no
wonder.
LOL, apparently you haven't been paying attention. Clinton
actually
worked on getting rid of Al Queda. To the point everyone
thought
he
was obsessed with it.
If that is so, why didn't he get rid of Bid Laden when he had the
chance
to
get him handed over with a bow on his head.
Because, you stupid moron, that would have been illegal.
Want to back up that statement with some proof? Even if it was
illegal
though, it would have been for the greater good. Lying under oath is
illegal
too, but he did that. I wonder how many other illegal activities he
was
responsible for. Whitewater is one. Illegal campaign contributions
are
another. There are probably more, but that's all I can think of
right
now. I
wonder why Clinton has so much regard for not breaking the law to
bring
in a
terrorist, but has so little regard for the laws in his own country.
This is exactly the problem with people like you. You think the ends
justifies the means. That's a sign of major stupidity and exactly
how
terrorist think.
Did you know you were thinking terrorist thoughts? That's why your
way is failing so horribly.
Reading most of your postings I can see you are not worth discussing an
issue with. You are FAR too biased and to the left and you have shown
major hypocrisy on your part.
Ah, yes the unsupported assertion of hypocrisy - I'm soooo impressed.
It's not unsupported..you support it.
Like this?
?? OSPREY ADMITS BEING AROUSED BY YOUNG GIRLS ??
Osprey inadvertently admits to being sexually aroused by young girls.
³We can allow girls to go to school in short mini skirts and revealing
tight tops and that isnıt distractive, but itıs a distraction if a girl
has the confederate flag on her purse?³
- A comment made by Robert ³Osprey² Heishman in which he accidentally
admits to being turned on by school girls in mini skirts and tight tops
while arguing that the Confederate Flag is not a racist symbol.
(January 10, 2006)
<http://groups.google.com/group/alt.abortion/browse_thread/thread/e4417a
f6119147c5/1177613f915079b0?lnk=st&q=We+can+allow+girls+to+go+to+school+
in+short+mini+skirts+and+revealing+group%3Aalt.abortion+author%3AOsprey&
rnum=3&hl=en#1177613f915079b0>
But I do have one question for you.
You appear to be saying that there are no circumstances in which
choosing to break a law would be the right thing to do?
Not if supporting the law is what you are trying to do.
So you are saying there are NO circumstances in which choosing to break
the
law is the right thing to do.
Osprey can't face the truth, so he distorts what others say.
There are times in which sometimes for the better good (utilitarianism)
that we make choices that violate a law or rule.
Do you disagree or agree?
Remember, you said that it's a sign of major stupidity and exactly how
terrorist think if someone feels that there are times when it's
necessary to break a law or rule for the better good. Choosing lesser
evil over greater evil.
LOL, so unsurprising - You have just admitted you have no morals or
ethical standards.
You are trying to ignore my question.
Why were you reprimanded at your, so called, job?
Why can't you prove that claim?
Come on, let Kate see you lied too. Everyone else has seen you lie and said
you lied.
Maintaining your morals is always more important
than the quick fix. You don't break the law to maintain the law.
Your idea is essentially advocating that things like fixing the vote
so that people you think will support democracy will be voted in
rather than someone who is more popular. You destroyed the very thing
you were trying to support because you don't understand what it is.
And obviously you don't understand utilitarianism. It doesn't help
the whole to bend the rules when you think it will help things fast.
The long run - that the rules can be depended on is what is important.
I'm sorry you don't like my opinions and feel the need to shut your
eyes to them. No doubt they get in the way of reality for you far too
often for you to be comfortable for them.
So you have a dying person in your car, you have to speed to get this
person
to the emergency room or that person might die. You would choose to let
the
person die.
It would be illegal to speed, guard. What if you killed a little girl
walking on the side of the road? Would you claim you were justified?
So you would let someone die.
I think before Kate gets too buddy buddy with you, she should see what
others have said about you....
From: "Scout" <4guns@adelphia.removeme.this2.nospam.net>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2005 05:14:53 -0400
Message-ID: <caKdnYXD4KMOqObfRVn-rA@adelphia.com>
"Just because you distort what people say doesn't mean he has to say it."
From: Bama Brian <bamaNOTbrian@mindspring.com>
Message-ID: <6lIee.4822$7F4.4678@newsread2.news.atl.earthlink.net>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 11:15:14 GMT
"IOW, you can't do it. Also translated as: You're full of *****."
From: Chris Morton <cmorton@newsguy.com>
Date: 6 May 2005 08:48:23 -0700
Message-ID: <d5g3k701upv@drn.newsguy.com>
"Then you're ignorant, stupid or both."
From: Chris Morton <cmor...@newsguy.com>
Date: 6 May 2005 08:57:28 -0700
Message-ID: <d5g458020gg@drn.newsguy.com>
"Not to put too fine a point on it, you're a liar."
From: Brian Henderson <BrianL.Henderson@NOSPAM.verizon.net>
Message-ID: <cd6n71d2itoeueefl329qvevg8l9qv6gv8@4ax.com>
Date: Fri, 06 May 2005 16:25:27 GMT
"You just proved yourself to be an immature twit, which is hardly a
surprise."
From: (Jim Bianchi)
Message-Id: <slrnd7odgj.v1j.jimbo@bolt.sonic.net>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 03:29:23 GMT
"..ah, answer the question, please. (You DO know what a question is,
don't you?)"
From: "BTMO" <btmo@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <VUWee.4464$Od6.617595@news.xtra.co.nz>
Date: Sat, 7 May 2005 15:22:26 +1200
"And you are a dishonest fool."
From: "BTMO" <btmo@hotmail.com>
Message-ID: <e8dfe.4652$Od6.642920@news.xtra.co.nz>
Date: Sun, 8 May 2005 12:33:16 +1200
Did you learn to be so stupid and skew reality (ie, evidence) in cop school
or law school?
*****, if you are a lawyer, maybe Homer Simpson is a qualified nuclear
technician after all! And I suspect you went to the same school...
From: "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman@(spamlock)comcast.net>
Message-ID: <Xns964F8CEAD261Ahopewell@216.196.97.136>
Date: Sat, 07 May 2005 15:51:10 -0500
"No, I think you're a jerk for the reason I stated."
From:
Date: 9 May 2005 07:25:17 -0700
Message-ID: <1115648717.881094.61790@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>
"Why don't you just google "'appeal to authority' fallacy" and stop
embarrassing yourself?
If you still can't figure it out, let me know and I'll gently lead you
by the hand."
From:
Date: 11 Jan 2006 20:45:26 -0800
Message-ID: <1137041126.126323.90760@g49g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
You wouldn't recognize a cogent answer if it slapped you across the
face.
From: "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <G%xyf.7376$NE.6476@dukeread12>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:07:42 -0600
And if you were president I'm sure everyone with a different opinion would
be shot on sight. Good thing you hold no power.
From: "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclovers@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <n4yyf.7379$NE.5982@dukeread12>
Date: Sun, 15 Jan 2006 14:12:16 -0600
Note to David...you've kicked no one's ***** in this thread. You aren't the
***** kicker you think you are, you are just too stupid to admit defeat.
From: YankFan <yankFan@nospam.net>
Message-ID: <csByf.774$Ou1.343@tornado.socal.rr.com>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 00:06:32 GMT
You know what? Stop representing yourself as a police officer. You are a
piece of *****. You're as low as they come. You'll stop at nothing in
trying to spew out your left wing propaganda. I have family members and
friends that are police officers and obviously don't know what the *****
you're talking about. We are sure glad and thankful that a piece of *****
like you is not serving in any department. I sure hope that next time
you need assistance from a cop that they take their time in getting to
you. You quit for better and bigger things my *****.
From: "Reasoned Insanity" <mintclov...@yahoo.com>
Message-ID: <DiVyf.7506$NE.2259@dukeread12>
Date: Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:39:46 -0600
I contend that you are putting words into their mouth so add your own
assumption to that. Then again, putting words into the mouths of others is
nothing new to you is it?
From: " Malto" <..Ma...@offski.commiee.com>
Date: Tue, 17 Jan 2006 18:53:46 +1100
Message-ID: <dqi8i4$b6d$0@pita.alt.net>
No *****, he said "they laughed at you".
No surprise there, the whole of usenet laughs at you on a daily basis.;)
From: "Billy" <nevermind@cox.net>
Message-ID: <1SLGf.57087$V.15569@fed1read04>
Date: Thu, 9 Feb 2006 10:29:46 -0800
You're not dealing with the truth very well/
From: "Johnny Lingo" <johnnylingo@spammenot.com>
Message-ID: <ZGnHf.768775$_o.727542@attbi_s71>
Date: Sat, 11 Feb 2006 15:48:09 GMT
David Barnes lives in his own little fantasy world! If he says it is
so, then it must be so...ROTFLMAO!
David Barnes is either a complete liberal brainwashed loon, a kid, a troll,
or all of the above.
.
|
|
|
| User: "the14thdisciple" |
|
| Title: Ann Coulter Erupts, Crowd Ducks Quickly |
12 Feb 2006 12:49:20 PM |
|
|
.... i think its funnier this whey, doanet hugh?
loaf Form 14
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "james g. keegan jr." |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 12:37:45 PM |
|
|
In article <NJOdnT16wpcD5XLeRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120220060918526590%dbarnes@aol.com...
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
You are a racist who attacked Rice because she is a black woman.
stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 12:41:14 PM |
|
|
In article <jgkeegan-7FE102.13374512022006@individual.net>, james g.
keegan jr. <jgkeegan@gmail.com> wrote:
In article <NJOdnT16wpcD5XLeRVn-vw@comcast.com>,
"osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120220060918526590%dbarnes@aol.com...
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
You are a racist who attacked Rice because she is a black woman.
stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
Osprey can't think of any reason to not support a black woman other
than the fact that she is a black woman, so he figures his comment
makes sense.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 12:41:12 PM |
|
|
In article <NJOdnT16wpcD5XLeRVn-vw@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120220060918526590%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <ZrOdnWX3yr93wnLenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4401381e.801090671@news-west.newscene.com...
On 11 Feb 2006 07:00:53 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:40:26 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ZLednRZFk6l08nDeRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
The American people seem to love Ann Coulter; she may yet be the
first
female American President.
Wouldn't s/he have to be female to accomplish that?
No, she would have to not be female to accomplish that. The neo cons
would never vote for a real woman, so they got someone to pose as
one.
And you lib's are cowards, especially when confronted with a question.
You ran away from my question. Why?
Oh, and yes I would vote for a real woman. I think Elizabeth Dole is
wonderful and Rice is extremely intelligent. They are real women, and
I would vote for them in a heartbeat.
Rice is one of the ones that caused the 9/11 attack because she
shirked her job. She's lazy and a coward. She's been given
everything she has. Probably because she's black and pretend anything
for corporations.
I don't know that much about Dole.
I think you are just mad because Rice is far more intelligent than you
are.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
You are a racist who attacked Rice because she is a black woman.
What makes you think that? (This will be good.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Ray Fischer" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 02:16:25 PM |
|
|
osprey <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"David W. Barnes" <dbarnes@aol.com> wrote in message
news:120220060918526590%dbarnes@aol.com...
In article <ZrOdnWX3yr93wnLenZ2dnUVZ_vydnZ2d@comcast.com>, osprey
<noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4401381e.801090671@news-west.newscene.com...
On 11 Feb 2006 07:00:53 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:40:26 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ZLednRZFk6l08nDeRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
The American people seem to love Ann Coulter; she may yet be the
first
female American President.
Wouldn't s/he have to be female to accomplish that?
No, she would have to not be female to accomplish that. The neo cons
would never vote for a real woman, so they got someone to pose as
one.
And you lib's are cowards, especially when confronted with a question.
You ran away from my question. Why?
Oh, and yes I would vote for a real woman. I think Elizabeth Dole is
wonderful and Rice is extremely intelligent. They are real women, and
I would vote for them in a heartbeat.
Rice is one of the ones that caused the 9/11 attack because she
shirked her job. She's lazy and a coward. She's been given
everything she has. Probably because she's black and pretend anything
for corporations.
I don't know that much about Dole.
I think you are just mad because Rice is far more intelligent than you
are.
Stop pretending to know things you couldn't possibly know.
You are a racist who attacked Rice because she is a black woman.
You're lying, *****.
--
Ray Fischer
rfischer@sonic.net
.
|
|
|
| User: "the14thdisciple" |
|
| Title: Ann Speaks Fluent Crowd, Coulter Erupts, Pants Get Sticky, Big Mess At The End |
12 Feb 2006 03:38:29 PM |
|
|
no, It IS funnier this whey ...
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mimi Cohen" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 02:32:49 PM |
|
|
osprey lied:
troll
"One last note: I am very surprised at your reaction especially after
just a few short months ago I provided a copy of my DD214 Right in
box 18...1st line it says... SERVED 2 AUG 90 TO 1 OCT 94 IN SUPPORT
OF OPERATION DESERT SHIELD/STORM and in box 13 NATIONAL DEFENSE SERVICE
MEDAL Funny how you have selective memory, why? Yes, I served in combat
during Desert Storm."
http://groups.google.com/group/talk.abortion/msg/38f5de5691243868?dmode=source&hl=en
"Fine, if you want to play on words...no I was not in actual "combat" "
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/db12fe6b6ec66a35?dmode=source&hl=en
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Kate " |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 03:09:03 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:18:53 -0500, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4401381e.801090671@news-west.newscene.com...
On 11 Feb 2006 07:00:53 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:40:26 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ZLednRZFk6l08nDeRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
The American people seem to love Ann Coulter; she may yet be the
first
female American President.
Wouldn't s/he have to be female to accomplish that?
No, she would have to not be female to accomplish that. The neo cons
would never vote for a real woman, so they got someone to pose as one.
And you lib's are cowards, especially when confronted with a question.
You ran away from my question. Why?
Oh, and yes I would vote for a real woman. I think Elizabeth Dole is
wonderful and Rice is extremely intelligent. They are real women, and
I would vote for them in a heartbeat.
Rice is one of the ones that caused the 9/11 attack because she
shirked her job. She's lazy and a coward. She's been given
everything she has. Probably because she's black and pretend anything
for corporations.
I don't know that much about Dole.
I think you are just mad because Rice is far more intelligent than you are.
LOL. That I don't have to worry about. Not to mention I have ethics.
She doesn't.
Are you admitting to being a neo con? LOL, you do know that's a major
put down.
You don't know what neo con means.
You think so, eh? - and you still think you are one? Because if you
do, no doubt, you don't know what it means.
Now, how about you explain why you ran away from...
Uh, I ran away from what? I see no question that I ran away from -
not that I usually have time to follow every single post that is ever
posted, or always see them.
You saw my question, and I even posted it below.
You posted a new question. I don't see any old questions.
Path:
g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: "osprey" <noneedtok...@mail.com>
Newsgroups:
alt.atheism,alt.abortion,alt.politics.british,alt.society.liberalism,alt.religion.christian.roman-catholic
Subject: Re: More Voter Fraud
Date: 6 Feb 2006 22:23:31 -0800
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 61
Message-ID: <1139293411.680539.232600@g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
References:
<020220062124041876%dbarnes@aol.com><%UrFf.1234$NR.831@dukeread12>
<43e8733c.226391906@news-west.newscene.com>
<APuFf.1254$NR.551@dukeread12>
<43e6917a$0$58062$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>
<xTzFf.1691$NR.100@dukeread12>
<43ea6abf.289755468@news-west.newscene.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 167.21.1.240
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1139293416 23657 127.0.0.1 (7 Feb 2006
06:23:36 GMT)
X-Complaints-To:
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 7 Feb 2006 06:23:36 +0000 (UTC)
In-Reply-To: <43ea6abf.289755468@news-west.newscene.com>
User-Agent: G2/0.2
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.0; Windows NT 5.1;
SV1; .NET CLR 1.1.4322),gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
Complaints-To:
Injection-Info: g43g2000cwa.googlegroups.com;
posting-host=167.21.1.240;
posting-account=uc2VKwwAAAB71DC5b_mHt0cE57XxAPdB
Kate wrote:
On Sun, 5 Feb 2006 20:00:26 -0600, "Reasoned Insanity"
<mintclov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Ray Fischer" <rfisc...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:43e6917a$0$58062$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
Reasoned Insanity <mintclov...@yahoo.com> wrote:
"Kate " <cob...@newscene.com> wrote in message
"Reasoned Insanity"
So reducing the military budget more than it ever has been reduced
protects
us from terrorists? THAT'S what Clinton did to protect us. As I
said
before,
you have no one better to offer and with logic like that, it's no
wonder.
LOL, apparently you haven't been paying attention. Clinton
actually
worked on getting rid of Al Queda. To the point everyone thought
he
was obsessed with it.
If that is so, why didn't he get rid of Bid Laden when he had the
chance
to
get him handed over with a bow on his head.
Because, you stupid moron, that would have been illegal.
Want to back up that statement with some proof? Even if it was illegal
though, it would have been for the greater good. Lying under oath is
illegal
too, but he did that. I wonder how many other illegal activities he was
responsible for. Whitewater is one. Illegal campaign contributions are
another. There are probably more, but that's all I can think of right
now. I
wonder why Clinton has so much regard for not breaking the law to bring
in a
terrorist, but has so little regard for the laws in his own country.
This is exactly the problem with people like you. You think the ends
justifies the means. That's a sign of major stupidity and exactly how
terrorist think.
Did you know you were thinking terrorist thoughts? That's why your
way is failing so horribly.
Reading most of your postings I can see you are not worth discussing an
issue with. You are FAR too biased and to the left and you have shown
major hypocrisy on your part.
Ah, yes the unsupported assertion of hypocrisy - I'm soooo impressed.
It's not unsupported..you support it.
LOL, you seem to have some real issues with logic. Try again.
But I do have one question for you.
You appear to be saying that there are no circumstances in which
choosing to break a law would be the right thing to do?
Not if supporting the law is what you are trying to do.
So you are saying there are NO circumstances in which choosing to break the
law is the right thing to do.
Nope. Didn't say anything like that. Try reading it again. This time
the words on the screen instead of the ones in your head.
There are times in which sometimes for the better good (utilitarianism)
that we make choices that violate a law or rule.
Do you disagree or agree?
Remember, you said that it's a sign of major stupidity and exactly how
terrorist think if someone feels that there are times when it's
necessary to break a law or rule for the better good. Choosing lesser
evil over greater evil.
LOL, so unsurprising - You have just admitted you have no morals or
ethical standards.
You are trying to ignore my question.
Since you answered my answer, were you typing with your eyes closed?
That explains a lot.
Maintaining your morals is always more important
than the quick fix. You don't break the law to maintain the law.
Your idea is essentially advocating that things like fixing the vote
so that people you think will support democracy will be voted in
rather than someone who is more popular. You destroyed the very thing
you were trying to support because you don't understand what it is.
And obviously you don't understand utilitarianism. It doesn't help
the whole to bend the rules when you think it will help things fast.
The long run - that the rules can be depended on is what is important.
I'm sorry you don't like my opinions and feel the need to shut your
eyes to them. No doubt they get in the way of reality for you far too
often for you to be comfortable for them.
So you have a dying person in your car, you have to speed to get this person
to the emergency room or that person might die. You would choose to let the
person die.
What are you trying to do? Create good law or save someone's life?
If you are trying to create good law, you failed by breaking it.
If you are trying to save someone's life, you still failed because it
is usually better to call an ambulence than try to save someone by
taking them to the hospital yourself. They are more likely to die
that way.
If you think that you should be able to speed in those cases, the
thing to do is to change the law so that people in emergencies can
speed, not to just forget about it and speed whenever you think it's
OK.
Basically you totally missed the point casting around for non
sequiturs that make you feel good.
You don't make good democracies by illegally fixing the vote so
democracies are voted for or so your side wins. You don't set good
world standards of nonviolent behavior (as in you don't kill 3000
innocent people to make a point) by killing thousands more innocents.
You don't discourage torture by others by torturing people yourself -
all that ever does is encourage the other side to torture their
captives and gives you nothing - no infomation, no edge. You don't
assasinate other leaders or you make people in other countries feel
its OK with you for them to assasinate your leader if they don't like
him.
That's how it works. It wasn't my idea. All you have to do is stop
long enough and think through the consequences of what you do when you
break the rules.
The problem with the world is that there is no set of laws over
countries. So that's what we created the UN for. But unfortunately
the US is not the majority in the UN - it takes diplomacy and
negotiation to get the laws the way we want them - a long and hard won
process. Something the neo cons don't have the patience for. So they
put down the UN because its toooooo haaaaaaard for them to work with.
They'd rather the US stomp around and try to kick other countries
(with an extremely reduced army made up of bad contracts no less).
Obviously that doesn't work, because bullying only begets bullying and
most of what the problem was was set up previously by other neo-cons
trying to do things the easy way and fucking it up.
You guys are just bad at what you are trying to do. You have no
patience, no brains, and no forethought and whine continually whenever
anyone expects you to take responsibility for your actions.
.
|
|
|
| User: "David W. Barnes" |
|
| Title: Re: Ann Coulter Speaks, Crowd Erupts |
12 Feb 2006 03:24:20 PM |
|
|
In article <44049e7d.827298343@news-west.newscene.com>, Kate
<cobalt@newscene.com> wrote:
On Sun, 12 Feb 2006 11:18:53 -0500, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com>
wrote:
"Kate " <cobalt@newscene.com> wrote in message
news:4401381e.801090671@news-west.newscene.com...
On 11 Feb 2006 07:00:53 -0800, "osprey" <noneedtoknow@mail.com> wrote:
Kate wrote:
On Sat, 11 Feb 2006 05:40:26 GMT, "Dale" <dmgreer@nspm.airmail.net>
wrote:
"J Young" <youngopinions@aol.com> wrote in message
news:ZLednRZFk6l08nDeRVn-oQ@giganews.com...
The American people seem to love Ann Coulter; she may yet be the
first
female American President.
| | | | |
