OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?

Religions > Atheism > OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?

LINK TO THIS PAGE

rating : 0 | 0

Page 1 of 1

Topic:	Religions > Atheism
User:	"Matt Silberstein"
Date:	18 Nov 2007 08:22:34 PM
Object:	OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?

I wonder if anyone reading this group is supporting any of the
Republican candidates for president? Are you willing to engage in a
discussion of that support, willing to tell us why you think people
should vote for that candidate? Please don't tell me what is wrong
with Clinton, tell me why you think you candidate would make a good
president. Fred? Fester? Kurt? Any of you willing to say something for
a Republican candidate?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "John Graeme"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For anyRepublican candidate?	20 Nov 2007 12:22:38 PM

On Nov 18, 9:22 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

As I always say, the difference between Democrats and Republicans is
like the difference between horse ***** and cow *****. But while I'm
not supporting any Republican or Democratic candidate, I can say
something good about at least one Republican candidate.
Dr. Ron Paul is the only candidate I know of who has consistently
opposed the Iraq war and indeed any involvement in Iraq. Unlike the
mealy-mouthed Democrats, who continue to vote funding for the war,
Paul has voted against every appropriations bill for it. And he is
the only candidate who advocates a change in our policy of foreign
intervention in general--kind of like what the founding fathers
advocated.
"Free trade means no sanctions against Iran, or Cuba or anyone else
for that matter. Entangling alliances with no one means no foreign
aid to Pakistan, or Egypt, or Israel, or anyone else for that matter.
If an American citizen determines a foreign country or cause is worthy
of their money, let them send it, and encourage their neighbors to
send money too, but our government has no authority to use hard-earned
American taxpayer dollars to mire us in these nightmarishly
complicated, no-win entangling alliances."
--Ron Paul
http://www.house.gov/paul/
November 11, 2007: Entangling Alliances
"Peace, commerce, and honest friendship, with all nations - entangling
alliances with none." "Our first and fundamental maxim should be,
never to entangle ourselves in the broils of Europe."
--Thomas Jefferson
"The great rule of conduct for us in regard to foreign nations is, in
extending our commercial relations to have with them as little
political connection as possible....'Tis our true policy to steer
clear of permanent Alliances, with any portion of the foreign World."
--George Washington
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	21 Nov 2007 08:51:16 AM

On Tue, 20 Nov 2007 10:22:38 -0800 (PST), in alt.atheism , John Graeme
<jdgraeme@my-deja.com> in
<16d95c66-26dc-43b2-971c-ed195d8c2542@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

On Nov 18, 9:22 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

He is also the only one to try to give the states the power to impose
religions discrimination, school prayer, creationism, etc. Do you
support his _We The People Act_? His signature legislation?

Unlike the
mealy-mouthed Democrats, who continue to vote funding for the war,
Paul has voted against every appropriations bill for it.

It is easy to be idealistic when you have no power.

And he is
the only candidate who advocates a change in our policy of foreign
intervention in general--kind of like what the founding fathers
advocated.

Those are the Founding Fathers who started a war of aggression to try
to get Canada, right? Worship of "original intent" is silly for many
reason, not the least of which is that there were so many different
conflicting intents.
[snip]
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "V"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For anyRepublican candidate?	18 Nov 2007 10:44:44 PM

On Nov 18, 9:22=EF=BF=BDpm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

You think it is political biz as usual in the US?
If the brainiacs cannot 'kind a'' replace crude with a sustainable
alternative we are headed for disaster.
So Dem or Rep...any politician in charge had better come to terms with
how things really are and not live in dream land...we are running out
of time.
It seems everyone wishes to hide their heads in the sand when it comes
to this subject of peak oil. We can't depend on the President to come
clean with the public. All his energies are spent just trying to keep
the oil flowing. He can't admit that the oil will stop in the not so
distant future, no matter what we do. It is a problem beyond his as
well as all of our control.
As they say in 12 Step programs - admitting you have a problem is step
1. And our country cannot admit it, after all, admitting this problem
would raise hell with our retirement funds. And until we can admit it,
we cannot begin on our long road to a 'semblance' of recovery.
And in the big picture, we can't fix the problem, we can only postpone
the inevitable. But buying a little more time would make things much
more livable in the not so distant future than the current path we are
headed in.
The world is in a death spiral and politicians as well as industry are
pretending this problem does not exist. We can only blame ourselves,
for it is just how we have built our world over the years....too many
people, living outside of natures intended balance and not an infinite
supply of energy to fuel all our demands.
It would be one thing if we all reverted back to rural living, burning
trees for fuel and housing and living within our comfortable means
allotted to us by nature, as our ancestors did back in the day. But
ten billion people can't burn the trees! (Ten billion people is a
conservative estimate of world population in the not so distant
future. We are at 7 people billion now.)
The World Coal Institute estimates world energy reserves as follows:
"At current production levels coal will be available for at least the
next 155 years compared to 41 years for oil and 65 years for gas."
http://www.worldcoal.org/pages/content/index.asp?PageID=3D21
Even though this was written a few years ago and it is based on
'current production and consumption' it gives the same haunting
message to the generations to come.
We may not exactly see the end of our free flowing energy as we know
it - but some of our descendants will in the not so distant future.
This is the legacy they will inherit from us. But before the energy
dries up completely massive changes in our world will have taken
place.
Our population has grown to levels where it has passed the point of no
return for supporting a sustainable human population as we know it
today when it comes to their energy demands.
And leading the pack of over consumers is the USA.
http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/ene_oil_con-energy-oil-consumption
Consumption is ingrained in us and we know no other way. And even if
we wished to amend our ways, how could all our retirement funds take
the hit? America is built on borrowed money, spending and consumerism.
And what does all that consumerism lead to?
It leads to the mess we are in now and the bigger mess the world will
be in once India and China pick up momentum to copycat the envious
lifestyle that they have held in high esteem as the 'American Dream'
You see, the problem is not with the earth having enough land for all
its people - the problem is with earth providing ad infinitum for all
the needs the people crave.
The more people born, the more heat is produced from their life and
all their cravings, As such, the warmer and more polluted the earth
gets and the more energy they all use and the earths resources are
depleted.
Fueling the problem of consumption is the games the Federal and World
banks play with interest rates. They manage the economies in ways to
fuel consumption and mask the real trend. Witness the recent cries for
Federal bankers to lower interest rates...so the stock market can go
up...fueled by spending of the consumer.
It is drug habit that Greenspan got us hooked on and we just can't get
away from.
Our economy is not based on sustainable health - it is based low
interest credit to encourage compulsive spending, debt and living a
life of constant consumption with a 'disposable mentality' when it
comes to durable goods.
All this consumption to artificially fuel our economy to make our
retirement funds only go up contributes to more and more global
warming and the depletion of our natural resources. Then the
governments juggle the numbers to make the inflation figures seem
artificially low, so everyone's retirement portfolio will make them
happy so they will continue to buy and consume more...and on it
goes....IT IS ALL WE KNOW
You see, no other animal destroys its environment except mankind. We
are the only ones that do not accept and live within our comfortable
means. We not only debt with our finances we debt with our
environment. What we are borrowing in terms of petroleum, coal and
natural gas takes millions of years for nature to make. Yet we are
using it all up in just a few hundred years...we can never pay it
back.
I think our countries future will be....'America...a Democratic,
Communist Nation Under God.'
And maybe I am using the wrong word with communism? Maybe it should be
Nationalism? Socialism? I don't know since I have little interest in
politics.
As far for what I means, it could be compared somewhat to Plato's
Republic. Where the republic came first and people came second. But
with the US, the injection of Democratic values as well as a spiritual
foundation that supports our country would 'hopefully' separate us
from the atheist based communists that have been run as
dictatorships.
Without energy our country is open for takeover ... no jets...no
tanks...no transport on the ground or in the air. Luckily we will
still have nuclear powered submarines and aircraft carriers as long as
the uranium holds out. But the jets on the flattop all use jet fuel.
All the supplies for those subs and carriers petroleum dependent. So
long before the crude dries up the government must 'secure a supply'
of crude for it own needs.
Other countries such as Russia that have a good supply of crude may
not be so kind to keep on selling it to us and we need a 'local and
continual' source somewhat within our borders. You see, jet fuel as
well as gasoline deteriorates and cannot be stored indefinitely. So we
must always be producing some of it to replace the stale stuff to
supply the military. But, that's why we elect politicians to deal with
these troubles
As our world changes and our drug supply dries up, things will only
get worse. And the bigger the city - the bigger the hellhole it will
become. And this time RIGHT NOW is the defining moment as to whether
most of our population will die off or not in the crisis that awaits
us in the not so distant future.
When it comes to the future, I see people living in miniature houses
(the lucky ones that survive that is, after all most of the population
died off long ago from starvation, freezing to death or from the
riots) with roofs shingled completely with solar material.
They drive up to their house on an electric scooter that is recharged
from their solar roof. If they are higher up the totem pole they may
have a solar golf cart. But in either case, luck must still be on
their side for without the sun shinning to charge it, their
transportation sits idle. (Not much lead left to build big
batteries...China gobbled it all up, so we have to make due with very
small storage cells.)
They work for the government and in exchange the government feeds and
clothes them from their warehouses. You see, we have become a sort of
'Communist Democracy' for without that bold leap and a desire 'to put
our country first' Russia or China would have stepped in to acquire
some new real estate.
The warehouses are fed from government owned coal fired steam
locomotives. Diesel dried up long ago, so it was either wood or coal
to fuel the trains. It did not take our government long to realize
this. the electric plants only had to shut down sporadically for 8
months so until they could build the first of a large fleet of steam
locomotives.
This was a 'slight' government oversight. They never figured that the
coal fired power plants were fed with 'diesel powered' locomotives.
They kept concentrated on the prediction that we had a hundred of
years of coal left, but were oblivious as to how that coal is
delivered to the power plant. But all these changes have some bright
spots in them. As the coal producers were able to hire many more
workers to manually mine coal, as the diesel powered mining equipment
sit idle from lack of diesel fuel.
Now some of the states or bigger cities had the foresight to build one
or two electric rail trolleys for public transport. Your only problem
is getting to the main road to catch the trolley and then it is a
straight ride to the government warehouse.
What happened to Private industry & Money?
Money is nothing more than stored energy. But since the crude dried
up, the 'real energy' behind the money has vanished...and so did
private industry. What about the coal mines...all government owned. If
you want to eat you work..it is that simple.
So, what is money good for nowadays...to wipe your *****?
Not really, the government supplied toilet paper works better than
that.
Martha Stewart syndrome died out long ago, now people are happy to eat
rice and beans and get a clean glass of water to drink.
After all, the government can't afford to fool around decorating
everyone's house, they can hardly produce enough food to keep a
fraction of the population alive. Yes, tractors, reapers and farming
is very crude intensive...but no one bothered to think about that as
they continued to squander the worlds petroleum resources.
On a positive note, since most of the population died off from
'natural causes', the government does not have to worry about passing
'population control' any longer. They tried to get that universally
opposed program passed for many years, but the public just would not
go for it...too UN-American...goes against our religious
upbringings...too controversial and all of the rest. We can still hear
the cries now...Communist!...Atheist!...Baby
Killer....Hitler....Impeach the President!!!!
Such objections are only subjective and prejudicial states of mind.
As such, all problems related to 'controversial subjects' such as this
are problems created in the mind...the mind of ego based, prejudicial
man. If you find yourself being distracted with such thoughts as 'too
controversial' just ask yourself if the proposed controversy is true,
false or I don't know?
This introspective method may help you become truth based and not ego
based. You will have made a 'choice divorced of need'...you wont 'need
your ego' to support the truth...the truth will be able to stand on
its own.
But nature helped us humans out with that hard decision - for nature
does not discriminate nor find the truth too controversial or
provocative or opinionated to be true. And in the end, nature settled
the dispute of population control with even handed justice of 75% of
our population dying off, ever reminding us all that nature does not
bow to man...it is always man that bows to nature.
But, people hold no grudges against nature and are more in harmony
with nature and enjoy a simpler life nowadays. People pick pine
needles from trees to make their tea, since there is no jet fuel to
import any Darjeeling tea or coffee. Once in a while people are able
to kill a bird, a rat or cat to supplement their diet - so we still
can find a place of gratitude in our life for such gifts.
Of course one problem still haunts the world?
The last remaining buckets of crude will soon be gone and they have
still not found out how to make the tires for the solar powered golf
carts and scooters without that critical ingredient of crude oil?
Add it all together and you have 'America...a Democratic, Communist
Nation Under God.' as the 'best fit ' equation.
And for dessert add 'politics as usual' and we can see nothing
substantive will be done in the US to fix our energy woes until it is
too late. (Really it can't be fixed, we can only slowed down the
inevitable at this point.)
See:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Who_Killed_the_Electric_Car%3F
BTW, do I like communism?
No, I like things EXACTLY as they are. But what I like doesn't
matter...neither does what you like matter. That's the point, for the
US to survive, we must put 'what matters to our country' on the front
burner. And as our country survives so do we survive.
Alan Watts used to say, it doesn't matter what you think, it doesn't
matter what you like, it doesn't matter what you hope for...all that
really matters is what IS.
Sure we keep our treasured paper money, our guns, and what have you.
The atheists can still be atheists and the Christians, Muslims and
Jews can still worship as they like...that is why we would be a free
democracy...of sorts.
But the difference is, instead of the ego based decisions that
politicians and the titans of business get sucked into, they will put
the long term viability as top priority over personal profit. We must
all pull together and stop pulling in counterproductive directions.
The gov needs to cut the fat and stop all this foolish sickness that
they are addicted to in Washington. Hire yourself some truth based
philosophers and futurists as Socrates suggested in the Republic as an
oversight committee to keep you guys on track.
One important thing would be to add an addendum to the constitution or
bill of rights or whatever other documents that outlines what we are
'now' all about...something that is clear advice that we can all look
to and not the 1000 page BS that politician use to hide their
sickness.
And yes,...hiding behavior is a signpost of die-ease.
And put it right upfront in the addendum as to why things changed...we
were energy whores and had no other choice.
But realize this, throughout history many great nations that once were
are not around any longer. Hopefully the US will understand this and
start accepting the truth that something has to give and it can't be
business as usual...it doesn't matter what you like...it doesn't
matter what you hope for...all that really matters is what is.
See:
http://www.algore.org/forum/al_gore_news_and_events/gores_work_combat_climat=
e_crisis/why_dont_we_do_anything_about_global_
http://www.amazon.com/Out-Gas-End-Age-Oil/dp/0393058573
http://www.amazon.com/Hubberts-Peak-Impending-World-Shortage/dp/0691116253
http://www.lastoilshock.com/
http://www.sonyclassics.com/whokilledtheelectriccar/
http://www.amazon.com/Resource-Wars-Landscape-Conflict-Introduction/dp/08050=
55762
http://www.amazon.com/Long-Emergency-Converging-Catastrophes-Twenty-First/dp=
/0871138883
http://dieoff.org/
Take care,
V (Male)
Agnostic Freethinker
Practical Philosopher
Futurist
.

User: ""
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	18 Nov 2007 10:15:52 PM

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for any
candidate from either major party anymore.
atheist@home#1554
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	19 Nov 2007 12:06:34 PM

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s53sb@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for any
candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences? Do you think that
Gore would have gotten us in this mess?
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	19 Nov 2007 01:16:32 PM

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:i4k3k3hf2nprrnglo5g54e25p5pnbideej@4ax.com:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s53sb@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

for

a Republican candidate?

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for any
candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences? Do you think that
Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

Gore would have got us into a *worse* mess. And you'd be blaming
everybody BUT Gore for it.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their
lives and freedoms." - RAH "Starship Troopers"
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	19 Nov 2007 02:07:28 PM

On 19 Nov 2007 19:16:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99ED918593F22freddybear@216.151.153.45> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:i4k3k3hf2nprrnglo5g54e25p5pnbideej@4ax.com:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s53sb@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

for

a Republican candidate?

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for any
candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences? Do you think that
Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

Gore would have got us into a *worse* mess.

Not even close. He would not have put incompetents in charge of FEMA.
He would not have turned government science over to religious dogma.
He would not have grossly politicized the DoJ. He would not have
gotten us into the mess in Iraq and if he did, he would not have
screwed it up this badly.

And you'd be blaming
everybody BUT Gore for it.

Hey, nice way to avoid the subject Fred. Care to defend anyone
running? Instead you take the side issue and then make stuff up about
me. So, gonna defend Giuliani or Romney or someone? Anything positive
to say about any of them or their policies? Here is your chance Fred,
convince people to vote for someone.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	19 Nov 2007 08:41:32 PM

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:03r3k3lbf529q37pc8cer36etg53fkq0p8@4ax.com:

On 19 Nov 2007 19:16:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99ED918593F22freddybear@216.151.153.45> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:i4k3k3hf2nprrnglo5g54e25p5pnbideej@4ax.com:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

atheist@home.com

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s53sb@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

for

a Republican candidate?

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for

any

candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences? Do you think that
Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

Gore would have got us into a *worse* mess.

Not even close. He would not have put incompetents in charge of FEMA.

Wouldn't have mattered.

He would not have turned government science over to religious dogma.

Pope Al's Globaloney is religious dogma.

He would not have grossly politicized the DoJ.

Hogwash.

He would not have
gotten us into the mess in Iraq and if he did, he would not have
screwed it up this badly.

Hogwash again.

And you'd be blaming
everybody BUT Gore for it.

Hey, nice way to avoid the subject Fred. Care to defend anyone
running?

Nope. I'm here to criticize you, not to give you excuses to change the
subject.

Instead you take the side issue and then make stuff up about
me. So, gonna defend Giuliani or Romney or someone? Anything positive
to say about any of them or their policies? Here is your chance Fred,
convince people to vote for someone.

Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their
lives and freedoms." - RAH "Starship Troopers"
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	19 Nov 2007 10:38:12 PM

On 20 Nov 2007 02:41:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99EDDCECA68D3freddybear@216.151.153.44> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:03r3k3lbf529q37pc8cer36etg53fkq0p8@4ax.com:

On 19 Nov 2007 19:16:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99ED918593F22freddybear@216.151.153.45> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:i4k3k3hf2nprrnglo5g54e25p5pnbideej@4ax.com:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

atheist@home.com

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s53sb@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

for

a Republican candidate?

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for

any

candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences? Do you think that
Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

Gore would have got us into a *worse* mess.

Not even close. He would not have put incompetents in charge of FEMA.

Wouldn't have mattered.

I certainly understand you view, which you share with Shrub, that
government is bad and therefore it does not matter that grossly
incompetent people are put in charge. Most of the rest of us disagree.

He would not have turned government science over to religious dogma.

Pope Al's Globaloney is religious dogma.

No, Fred, it is not. But abstinence education is and that is one of
Shrub's achievements.

He would not have grossly politicized the DoJ.

Hogwash.

Well, there is no evidence he tried while your Shrub let over 100 of
Pat Robertson's lawyers into the DoJ. And the primary standard, asked
illegally, was if they were Republicans who support Shrub.

He would not have
gotten us into the mess in Iraq and if he did, he would not have
screwed it up this badly.

Hogwash again.

You really think he would have screwed up as badly as Shrub?

And you'd be blaming
everybody BUT Gore for it.

Hey, nice way to avoid the subject Fred. Care to defend anyone
running?

Nope.

As we can see. You have been offered opportunity after opportunity to
do so, but you won't. You know that not one of the Republican
candidates can stand up to any scrutiny here. You can't try to sell
some atheists on Huckabee's evangelical prowess or Giuliani's contempt
for the First Amendment.

I'm here to criticize you,

ROTFLMAO. Every so often you are honest. Now please remember this then
next time you hide behind "ad hominem".

not to give you excuses to change the
subject.

Fred, that was the *subject*. I started this thread, it is in the
subject line, it is the subject. But you won't do it, you won't say a
word in defense of any of the Republican candidates because you know
they are all indefensible.

Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?

Because all you have are lesser and greater in an election. All you
have are comparisons between options, so someone is the less evil,
someone is the greater good. I guess you want the tin-pot would be
Mussolini serial liar Giuliani despite his incompetence in the face of
terrorism and his contempt for free speech but you know there is no
way you can defend him. So you try to attack the Democrats. But you
know that on any issue, any substance, the Democratic candidates are
better than the Republicans, so you try for the minor nonsense.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "G-Ride"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	19 Nov 2007 11:53:07 PM

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:9lo4k355naoe3ekfvrl2o9oj96ksam29k6@4ax.com...

He would not have
gotten us into the mess in Iraq and if he did, he would not have
screwed it up this badly.

Hogwash again.

You really think he would have screwed up as badly as Shrub?

I highly doubt that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq to begin with.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	20 Nov 2007 01:41:34 AM

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:53:07 -1000, in alt.atheism , "G-Ride"
<grideholdthespam42@yahoo.com> in <5qfb2aFvg88jU1@mid.individual.net>
wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:9lo4k355naoe3ekfvrl2o9oj96ksam29k6@4ax.com...

He would not have
gotten us into the mess in Iraq and if he did, he would not have
screwed it up this badly.

Hogwash again.

You really think he would have screwed up as badly as Shrub?

I highly doubt that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq to begin with.

If you mean that you think that Gore would have invaded Iraq I ask
why? Iraq was not involved in 9/11, was not promoting terrorism, was
not a reasonable target.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "G-Ride"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	20 Nov 2007 11:22:30 AM

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:6r35k3d1o05dg45oo4q01h3v2071tr6rva@4ax.com...

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 19:53:07 -1000, in alt.atheism , "G-Ride"
<grideholdthespam42@yahoo.com> in <5qfb2aFvg88jU1@mid.individual.net>
wrote:

"Matt Silberstein" <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
message news:9lo4k355naoe3ekfvrl2o9oj96ksam29k6@4ax.com...

He would not have
gotten us into the mess in Iraq and if he did, he would not have
screwed it up this badly.

Hogwash again.

You really think he would have screwed up as badly as Shrub?

I highly doubt that he wouldn't have invaded Iraq to begin with.

If you mean that you think that Gore would have invaded Iraq I ask
why? Iraq was not involved in 9/11, was not promoting terrorism, was
not a reasonable target.

Sorry - that was a typo. Should have read (re: Gore):
I highly doubt that he would have invaded Iraq to begin with.
--
Aloha, G-Ride
The force that's forcing you to feel like busting up a Starbucks.
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	20 Nov 2007 06:38:48 AM

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:9lo4k355naoe3ekfvrl2o9oj96ksam29k6@4ax.com:

On 20 Nov 2007 02:41:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99EDDCECA68D3freddybear@216.151.153.44> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:03r3k3lbf529q37pc8cer36etg53fkq0p8@4ax.com:

On 19 Nov 2007 19:16:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99ED918593F22freddybear@216.151.153.45> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:i4k3k3hf2nprrnglo5g54e25p5pnbideej@4ax.com:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

atheist@home.com

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s53sb@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

for

a Republican candidate?

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for

any

candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences? Do you think
that Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

Gore would have got us into a *worse* mess.

Not even close. He would not have put incompetents in charge of
FEMA.

Wouldn't have mattered.

You do like your strawmen, Matt, don't you?

He would not have turned government science over to religious dogma.

Pope Al's Globaloney is religious dogma.

No, Fred, it is not. But abstinence education is and that is one of
Shrub's achievements.

Yes, Matt, Al Gore's version of Anthropogenic Global Warming is
religious dogma. It is accepted on faith, not by scientific proof.
Gore's propaganda is directly contradicted by scientific research, and
yet his flock of sheep (like you) baa right along.

He would not have grossly politicized the DoJ.

Hogwash.

Well, there is no evidence he tried while your Shrub let over 100 of
Pat Robertson's lawyers into the DoJ.

Let's see you prove that Pat Robertson has even one DoJ lawyer on
retainer.

And the primary standard, asked
illegally, was if they were Republicans who support Shrub.

Prove that was the primary standard.

He would not have
gotten us into the mess in Iraq and if he did, he would not have
screwed it up this badly.

Hogwash again.

You really think he would have screwed up as badly as Shrub?

Worse.

And you'd be blaming
everybody BUT Gore for it.

Hey, nice way to avoid the subject Fred. Care to defend anyone
running?

Nope.

Not interested in listening to your kvetching about Republicans, and
certainly not going to play straight man for it.

I'm here to criticize you,

ROTFLMAO. Every so often you are honest. Now please remember this then
next time you hide behind "ad hominem".

not to give you excuses to change the
subject.

YOU made Gore the subject, Matt, not me.

Instead you take the side issue and then make stuff up about
me. So, gonna defend Giuliani or Romney or someone? Anything
positive to say about any of them or their policies? Here is your
chance Fred, convince people to vote for someone.

Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?

Because all you have are lesser and greater in an election. All you
have are comparisons between options, so someone is the less evil,
someone is the greater good.

All I've seen so far is evil. Bad evil and worse evil.

I guess you want the tin-pot would be
Mussolini serial liar Giuliani despite his incompetence in the face of
terrorism and his contempt for free speech but you know there is no
way you can defend him. So you try to attack the Democrats. But you
know that on any issue, any substance, the Democratic candidates are
better than the Republicans, so you try for the minor nonsense.

You're a lousy guesser. Giuliani would be preferable to any of the
Democrats, but he wouldn't be my first choice among Republicans, if I
were here to "defend" Republicans, which I'm not.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their
lives and freedoms." - RAH "Starship Troopers"
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	20 Nov 2007 12:18:17 PM

On 20 Nov 2007 12:38:48 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99EE4E0C1C9A8freddybear@216.151.153.44> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:9lo4k355naoe3ekfvrl2o9oj96ksam29k6@4ax.com:

On 20 Nov 2007 02:41:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99EDDCECA68D3freddybear@216.151.153.44> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:03r3k3lbf529q37pc8cer36etg53fkq0p8@4ax.com:

On 19 Nov 2007 19:16:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99ED918593F22freddybear@216.151.153.45> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:i4k3k3hf2nprrnglo5g54e25p5pnbideej@4ax.com:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

atheist@home.com

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s53sb@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

for

a Republican candidate?

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for

any

candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences? Do you think
that Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

Gore would have got us into a *worse* mess.

Not even close. He would not have put incompetents in charge of
FEMA.

Wouldn't have mattered.

You do like your strawmen, Matt, don't you?

This is effectively the position you and Shrub have both presented.
You dislike government. So if grossly incompetent people fail at the
job you just say, as you did above, that it does not matter.

He would not have turned government science over to religious dogma.

Pope Al's Globaloney is religious dogma.

No, Fred, it is not. But abstinence education is and that is one of
Shrub's achievements.

Yes, Matt, Al Gore's version of Anthropogenic Global Warming is
religious dogma.

Fred, you keep showing major ignorance regarding climate change. You
can't figure out what is cooling vs. warming nor short vs. long term
trends. That you don't understand does not make Gore's position
religion. Shrub, OTOH, takes actual religious people and positions and
imposes them on the scientists in government.

It is accepted on faith, not by scientific proof.
Gore's propaganda is directly contradicted by scientific research, and
yet his flock of sheep (like you) baa right along.

No, Fred, it isn't. But let's discuss that in the Switzerland thread
you started.

He would not have grossly politicized the DoJ.

Hogwash.

Well, there is no evidence he tried while your Shrub let over 100 of
Pat Robertson's lawyers into the DoJ.

Let's see you prove that Pat Robertson has even one DoJ lawyer on
retainer.

Over 100 of the graduates of his fourth ranked (as in fourth level,
not forth overall) law school were hired by Monica Goodling. Ignore
that all you want.

And the primary standard, asked
illegally, was if they were Republicans who support Shrub.

Prove that was the primary standard.

Fred, I will bother to back something up when you do. Meanwhile the
rest of us have read article after article where people were illegally
asked their political positions during job interviews. For the DoJ,
for the occupation of Iraq, etc.

He would not have
gotten us into the mess in Iraq and if he did, he would not have
screwed it up this badly.

Hogwash again.

You really think he would have screwed up as badly as Shrub?

Worse.

ROTFLMAO.

And you'd be blaming
everybody BUT Gore for it.

Hey, nice way to avoid the subject Fred. Care to defend anyone
running?

Nope.

Not interested in listening to your kvetching about Republicans, and
certainly not going to play straight man for it.

Translation: there is no positive statement about any Republican
candidates that I can defend.

I'm here to criticize you,

ROTFLMAO. Every so often you are honest. Now please remember this then
next time you hide behind "ad hominem".

not to give you excuses to change the
subject.

YOU made Gore the subject, Matt, not me.

No, Fred, I did not. But your need to avoid defending the Republicans
is obvious.

Instead you take the side issue and then make stuff up about
me. So, gonna defend Giuliani or Romney or someone? Anything
positive to say about any of them or their policies? Here is your
chance Fred, convince people to vote for someone.

Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?

Because all you have are lesser and greater in an election. All you
have are comparisons between options, so someone is the less evil,
someone is the greater good.

All I've seen so far is evil. Bad evil and worse evil.

And the Republicans are all the worse, each and every one of them.

You're a lousy guesser. Giuliani would be preferable to any of the
Democrats, but he wouldn't be my first choice among Republicans, if I
were here to "defend" Republicans, which I'm not.

You would prefer the serial liar Giuliani? The man who thinks that
government museums have to bow down to the Church? The man who put the
city emergency command post across from the WTC? Him?
So if it not Giuliani, who? Ron Paul, who wants to strip our 1st
Amendment protections against the states? Please tell me it isn't
Paul.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: "Fred Stone"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	20 Nov 2007 05:55:45 PM

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:ln86k3p0orckhdtnvpmcg580dobb4dc5co@4ax.com:

On 20 Nov 2007 12:38:48 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99EE4E0C1C9A8freddybear@216.151.153.44> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:9lo4k355naoe3ekfvrl2o9oj96ksam29k6@4ax.com:

On 20 Nov 2007 02:41:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99EDDCECA68D3freddybear@216.151.153.44> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:03r3k3lbf529q37pc8cer36etg53fkq0p8@4ax.com:

On 19 Nov 2007 19:16:32 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns99ED918593F22freddybear@216.151.153.45> wrote:

Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:i4k3k3hf2nprrnglo5g54e25p5pnbideej@4ax.com:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

atheist@home.com

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s53sb@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

for

a Republican candidate?

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote
for

any

candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences? Do you think
that Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

Gore would have got us into a *worse* mess.

Not even close. He would not have put incompetents in charge of
FEMA.

Wouldn't have mattered.

You do like your strawmen, Matt, don't you?

This is effectively the position you and Shrub have both presented.

In your not-so-humble strawman opinion.

You dislike government. So if grossly incompetent people fail at the
job you just say, as you did above, that it does not matter.

I dislike *inappropriate uses of government power*. I dislike people
like you who demand that the government use its power inappropriately
and then whine and complain when the government fucks up things that
isn't any good at anyway.

He would not have turned government science over to religious
dogma.

Pope Al's Globaloney is religious dogma.

No, Fred, it is not. But abstinence education is and that is one of
Shrub's achievements.

Yes, Matt, Al Gore's version of Anthropogenic Global Warming is
religious dogma.

That I *DO* understand Gore's position leads me to conclude that it is
indistinguishable from religious dogma. Those who disagree with Pope Al
are even branded as heretics ("deniers") and accused of being in league
with the devil ("oil companies"). That is religion talking, not science.

Shrub, OTOH, takes actual religious people and positions and
imposes them on the scientists in government.

If you're talking about embryonic stem cells, I am forced to conclude
that you are not in favor of political compromises, unless it's the sort
of "compromise" that gives you everything you want in return for
nothing.

It is accepted on faith, not by scientific proof.
Gore's propaganda is directly contradicted by scientific research, and
yet his flock of sheep (like you) baa right along.

No, Fred, it isn't. But let's discuss that in the Switzerland thread
you started.

Yes, Matt, it is. His propaganda film is full of claims that are
contrary to the evidence and based on leftist dogma and not on science.

He would not have grossly politicized the DoJ.

Hogwash.

Well, there is no evidence he tried while your Shrub let over 100 of
Pat Robertson's lawyers into the DoJ.

Let's see you prove that Pat Robertson has even one DoJ lawyer on
retainer.

Over 100 of the graduates of his fourth ranked (as in fourth level,
not forth overall) law school were hired by Monica Goodling. Ignore
that all you want.

I don't have to ignore your non-sequiturs, Matt. Your conclusions are
not supported by the evidence you present.

And the primary standard, asked
illegally, was if they were Republicans who support Shrub.

Prove that was the primary standard.

I will bother to repeat citations that I have given in the past when you
bother to treat them as something to address seriously and not to ignore
or dismiss with handwaving. You have done that ever since the first time
we "discussed" your globaloney.

He would not have
gotten us into the mess in Iraq and if he did, he would not have
screwed it up this badly.

Hogwash again.

You really think he would have screwed up as badly as Shrub?

Worse.

ROTFLMAO.

Laugh, clown, laugh.

And you'd be blaming
everybody BUT Gore for it.

Hey, nice way to avoid the subject Fred. Care to defend anyone
running?

Nope.

As we can see. You have been offered opportunity after opportunity
to do so, but you won't. You know that not one of the Republican
candidates can stand up to any scrutiny here. You can't try to sell
some atheists on Huckabee's evangelical prowess or Giuliani's
contempt for the First Amendment.

Not interested in listening to your kvetching about Republicans, and
certainly not going to play straight man for it.

Translation: there is no positive statement about any Republican
candidates that I can defend.

This should need no translation: I'm not a Republican, and I don't like
any of them.

I'm here to criticize you,

ROTFLMAO. Every so often you are honest. Now please remember this
then next time you hide behind "ad hominem".

not to give you excuses to change the
subject.

Fred, that was the *subject*. I started this thread, it is in the
subject line, it is the subject. But you won't do it, you won't say
a word in defense of any of the Republican candidates because you
know they are all indefensible.

YOU made Gore the subject, Matt, not me.

No, Fred, I did not. But your need to avoid defending the Republicans
is obvious.

Yes, Matt, you did. And you're running away from him as fast as you can
to keep from having to defend his profiteering, aren't you?

Instead you take the side issue and then make stuff up about
me. So, gonna defend Giuliani or Romney or someone? Anything
positive to say about any of them or their policies? Here is your
chance Fred, convince people to vote for someone.

Cthulhu for President! Why vote for a lesser evil?

Because all you have are lesser and greater in an election. All you
have are comparisons between options, so someone is the less evil,
someone is the greater good.

All I've seen so far is evil. Bad evil and worse evil.

And the Republicans are all the worse, each and every one of them.

And your proof of this is that you handwave away all the Democrats
failings and scandals. But Shillary's negatives won't go away that
easily.

I guess you want the tin-pot would be
Mussolini serial liar Giuliani despite his incompetence in the face
of terrorism and his contempt for free speech but you know there is
no way you can defend him. So you try to attack the Democrats. But
you know that on any issue, any substance, the Democratic candidates
are better than the Republicans, so you try for the minor nonsense.

You're a lousy guesser. Giuliani would be preferable to any of the
Democrats, but he wouldn't be my first choice among Republicans, if I
were here to "defend" Republicans, which I'm not.

You would prefer the serial liar Giuliani? The man who thinks that
government museums have to bow down to the Church?

As opposed to bowing down to the Muslims? Your double standards are
showing again.

The man who put the
city emergency command post across from the WTC? Him?

As opposed to, I suppose, Alaska, like your Democrats would have done
(as in the way Murthafucker suggested "redeploying" from Iraq to
Okinawa?)

So if it not Giuliani, who? Ron Paul, who wants to strip our 1st
Amendment protections against the states? Please tell me it isn't
Paul.

How many times do I have to tell you, Matt, I don't like any of them.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
"Violence, naked force, has settled more issues in history than has any
other factor, and the contrary opinion is wishful thinking at its worst.
Breeds that forget this basic truth have always paid for it with their
lives and freedoms." - RAH "Starship Troopers"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	19 Nov 2007 01:34:23 PM

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:06:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s53sb@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for any
candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences?

That's a difficult question.
Meaningful in what way?

Do you think that Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

I have no idea.
He may not have made the mistakes Bush has made, he might have done
better, but he might have done worse in ways we obviously can't be
aware of due to the fact that he didn't have the opportunity.
I don't believe there is anyone out there who can honestly say and I
personally think its pointless to even consider the possibilities
because we don't have the information necessary to make a comparison.
Gore is just a man to me and the same holds true of Bush.
I don't consider either of them to be overly bright or especially
competent in anything.
But one will get us into some sort of mess and the other will get us
into a mess of another sort.
Thus the trouble I have with the definition of "meaningful
differences."
atheist@home#1554
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	19 Nov 2007 02:16:45 PM

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:34:23 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <3mm3k3pm20ahqdc728pgrngqtt1mg926l4@4ax.com> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:06:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s53sb@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for any
candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences?

That's a difficult question.
Meaningful in what way?

None of the Democrats say they don't believe in evolution. None of
them want to make this a Christian nation. None of them want to
increase the size of Gitmo and increase the use of torture. None of
them have the record of incompetence that Giuliani has. How's that for
a start?

Do you think that Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

I have no idea.

Really? You have no idea if Gore would have been as incompetent and
corrupt as Bush? No idea at all?

He may not have made the mistakes Bush has made, he might have done
better, but he might have done worse in ways we obviously can't be
aware of due to the fact that he didn't have the opportunity.

Wow, you have just discovered that we can't be sure about things and
so, apparently, you propose ignorance and nihilism as the only
options. I will remember this if you try some subjunctive some time.

I don't believe there is anyone out there who can honestly say and I
personally think its pointless to even consider the possibilities
because we don't have the information necessary to make a comparison.

Of course we do. We have Gore's 8 years as VP and his 7 year since to
see how he prioritizes and how he chooses people and such. Close your
eyes if you want.

Gore is just a man to me and the same holds true of Bush.

Oh, wow, just a man. I never would have thought that, I though he was
a black forest cake. Or, just maybe, the opponent of Shrub in 2000.

I don't consider either of them to be overly bright or especially
competent in anything.
But one will get us into some sort of mess and the other will get us
into a mess of another sort.

So why care about anything?

Thus the trouble I have with the definition of "meaningful
differences."

Because, apparently, nothing has meaning.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.

User: ""
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	19 Nov 2007 11:23:31 PM

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 15:16:45 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:34:23 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <3mm3k3pm20ahqdc728pgrngqtt1mg926l4@4ax.com> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:06:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s53sb@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for any
candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences?

That's a difficult question.
Meaningful in what way?

Not too spiffy.
Meaningless actually.
If you want to talk about really meaningful differences you should
probably consider their positions on economics, taxes, the
Constitution, the federal courts and so on.

Do you think that Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

I have no idea.

Really? You have no idea if Gore would have been as incompetent and
corrupt as Bush? No idea at all?

No.
And neither do you.

He may not have made the mistakes Bush has made, he might have done
better, but he might have done worse in ways we obviously can't be
aware of due to the fact that he didn't have the opportunity.

I discovered that well before your father shot his wad and had to
suffer the indignity and shame of you being the sad result.
You want to have a civil discussion jerkoff?
If not leave me the hell alone.
I don't have anymore time to waste on this sort of thing.

Of course we do. We have Gore's 8 years as VP and his 7 year since to
see how he prioritizes and how he chooses people and such. Close your
eyes if you want.

Yeah...8 years of *****.
Gore is a damned fake and not even a good one at that.
It doesn't bother me a bit that he has you fooled.
And it doesn't surprise me either.

Gore is just a man to me and the same holds true of Bush.

Oh, wow, just a man. I never would have thought that, I though he was
a black forest cake. Or, just maybe, the opponent of Shrub in 2000.

Yadda, yadda!
You elevate him in your feeble little brain all you like.
I don't really care.

I don't consider either of them to be overly bright or especially
competent in anything.
But one will get us into some sort of mess and the other will get us
into a mess of another sort.

So why care about anything?

I *don't* really care about much.
Especially politics.
It's mostly lying ***** ***** and I'm increasingly bored by the mean
spirited, hypocritical, bleating idiocy of it.

Thus the trouble I have with the definition of "meaningful
differences."

Because, apparently, nothing has meaning.

Yeah, you're born, life is ***** and then you die.
Big fucking deal.
Here's the fact pal; We come into this world stark naked, screaming at
the insult, waving our pudgy little arms about like helicopter blades
while our fat little hands grasp at everything within reach.
And then society clothes us in whatever style is fashionable at the
time and they train us how to think, how to act and how to feel; and
God help us if we step out of line.
We do everything they tell us to do and sometimes we do what we want
but we do it the whole while still grasping at everything we can get
our hands on.
And if we give up on the gods well hell, that's ok, we'll just make
gods of men and let them rule over us.
And when its all over, when we've finally been drained of everything
of value that our betters demand from us the pasty men in the dark
suits and long black limousines come to take us home.
And they strip us of our clothes, drop our dead carcasses onto a cold
hard slab and there we lay...naked as the day we were born, arms at
our sides, palms up and empty while they prepare the meat for the
maggot's feast.
Here's a clue great shakes; the world didn't pause to celebrate your
birth and it isn't going to pause to mourn your passing.
It's you who will end up meaningless, just like the rest of us.
And that's life Bopeep.
If you want to spend your time wallowing in that stinking, filthy
sewer called politics have at it.
You keep the faith that your man will somehow be better than the last
one.
I don't believe he will.
I just believe he will use us in a different way.
Meanwhile I'm going to keep flipping off the big man and cheat his
sorry, lying ***** every chance I get.
I'm going to have a blast doing whatever I want to do without
anybody's permission or approval and the Devil be damned.
That's the only meaning in life.
And when they come for me they're going to haul off a carcass with
rigor mortis in his out stretched middle fingers and a "***** you!"
smirk on his face.
They're going to bury me on my stomach so the world can kiss my *****
goodbye.
And you should let me know how my relatives can get in touch with you
so that when I pass on you can be first in line.
atheist@home#1554
.

User: "Kate"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For anyRepublican candidate?	19 Nov 2007 03:09:14 PM

On Nov 19, 12:16 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:34:23 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <3mm3k3pm20ahqdc728pgrngqtt1mg92...@4ax.com> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:06:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s5...@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for any
candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences?

That's a difficult question.
Meaningful in what way?

Do you think that Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

I have no idea.

Really? You have no idea if Gore would have been as incompetent and
corrupt as Bush? No idea at all?

He may not have made the mistakes Bush has made, he might have done
better, but he might have done worse in ways we obviously can't be
aware of due to the fact that he didn't have the opportunity.

Of course we do. We have Gore's 8 years as VP and his 7 year since to
see how he prioritizes and how he chooses people and such. Close your
eyes if you want.

Gore is just a man to me and the same holds true of Bush.

Oh, wow, just a man. I never would have thought that, I though he was
a black forest cake. Or, just maybe, the opponent of Shrub in 2000.

I don't consider either of them to be overly bright or especially
competent in anything.
But one will get us into some sort of mess and the other will get us
into a mess of another sort.

So why care about anything?

Thus the trouble I have with the definition of "meaningful
differences."

Because, apparently, nothing has meaning.

--
Matt Silberstein

Do something today about the Darfur Genocide

http://www.beawitness.orghttp://www.darfurgenocide.orghttp://www.savedarfur.org

"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Ah come on, at least he was trying. You slapped him down for replying
honestly.
I think he deserves an apology.
And as far as Gore vs Bush, it's obvious that Gore gives a damn about
the world and wants to know more about it, and Bush does not.
.

User: "Matt Silberstein"
Title: Re: OT: Anyone willing to defend support for Giuliani? For any Republican candidate?	19 Nov 2007 10:29:23 PM

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:09:14 -0800 (PST), in alt.atheism , Kate
<Kate@twoangryliberals.com> in
<7311cba2-d3d0-4a58-92f6-ce3600b2c3ad@s36g2000prg.googlegroups.com>
wrote:

On Nov 19, 12:16 pm, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:34:23 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <3mm3k3pm20ahqdc728pgrngqtt1mg92...@4ax.com> wrote:

On Mon, 19 Nov 2007 13:06:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 22:15:52 -0600, in alt.atheism ,

in <ca32k3lbclb8smi7ig7m9t79t93i3s5...@4ax.com> wrote:

On Sun, 18 Nov 2007 21:22:34 -0500, Matt Silberstein
<RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nos...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:

Hell, I can't even play Devil's advocate with a straight face
regarding any of them.
In fact I would consider it to be an act of immorality to vote for any
candidate from either major party anymore.

Really? You don't see any meaningful differences?

That's a difficult question.
Meaningful in what way?

Do you think that Gore would have gotten us in this mess?

I have no idea.

Really? You have no idea if Gore would have been as incompetent and
corrupt as Bush? No idea at all?

He may not have made the mistakes Bush has made, he might have done
better, but he might have done worse in ways we obviously can't be
aware of due to the fact that he didn't have the opportunity.

Of course we do. We have Gore's 8 years as VP and his 7 year since to
see how he prioritizes and how he chooses people and such. Close your
eyes if you want.

Gore is just a man to me and the same holds true of Bush.

Oh, wow, just a man. I never would have thought that, I though he was
a black forest cake. Or, just maybe, the opponent of Shrub in 2000.

I don't consider either of them to be overly bright or especially
competent in anything.
But one will get us into some sort of mess and the other will get us
into a mess of another sort.

So why care about anything?

Thus the trouble I have with the definition of "meaningful
differences."

Because, apparently, nothing has meaning.

Ah come on, at least he was trying. You slapped him down for replying
honestly.

I am not sure it was honest, but it sure was empty.

I think he deserves an apology.

An interesting notion. Think anyone else on this newsgroup will
apologize to some theist who was sincere and honest?

And as far as Gore vs Bush, it's obvious that Gore gives a damn about
the world and wants to know more about it, and Bush does not.

We could probably fill a book with why Gore would have been better,
but it would not constitute *proof* and that the standard
"atheist@home.com" demands.
--
Matt Silberstein
Do something today about the Darfur Genocide
http://www.beawitness.org
http://www.darfurgenocide.org
http://www.savedarfur.org
"Darfur: A Genocide We can Stop"
.