| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Michelle Malkin" |
| Date: |
09 May 2006 07:18:53 PM |
| Object: |
Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
--
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
Michelle Malkin (Mickey) aa list#1
BAAWA Knight & Bible Thumper Thumper
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
With or without (religion) you would have good people
doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But
for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.
- Steven Weinberg, Physicists and Nobel Laureate
^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^ ^^
.
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
12 May 2006 06:32:10 PM |
|
|
On 12 May 2006 11:24:09 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C155234582Cfstone69@66.150.105.47>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:el4862h733i1n0lil04g5aphg6ri808sbr@4ax.com:
On 11 May 2006 23:12:50 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C0CD4EBF794fstone69@66.150.105.47>:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1267a7rllqq8ib1@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:o5i462dlpgse8qbnu1fseg0hfehfsp9jcc@4ax.com:
...
I don't answer non sequiturs unless I feel like it, Matt.
It was not a non-sequitur. You asserted that the Democrats stop
the expansion of supply. I asked about some relevant Republicans
to see if they were acting in a particular way to increase supply.
Instead of responding to the on-topic question you responded with
a non-sequitur about Cuba.
Pardon us, but when has the GOP ever pushed for drilling off of
California or Florida seriously?
All they have ranted and raved about was ANWR.
Who has controlled the Congress since 1995?
The GOP. They have now controlled all for 6 years.
What di dthey do?
The Democrats in the Senate have had the ability to filibuster
anything they wanted to block all that time. While the GOP could pass
anything the Democrats agreed to, they could not do anything that the
Democrats were prepared to oppose.
It worked that way when the Republicans were in the minority as well.
That forced the Democrats to compromise when they were in power. Why
do Republicans think that they can run roughshod over moderates today?
Well, that's the way it works, so don't blame the Republicans for what
the Democrats won't go along with doing.
Ranted and raved about ANWR and cut secret deals with
oil companies to let them set policy.
The GOP is the problem.
Wrong. Your Democratic buddies in the Senate have filibustered any
attempts to do anything serious about energy policy for fifty years or
more.
When have Republicans wanted to do anything but give welfare to oil
companies?
Is it "welfare for oil companies" that makes Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Venezuela into oil-money havens for terrorists and thugs?
When George Bush invades Iraq because Saudi Arabia is afraid of Saddam.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
12 May 2006 08:17:10 PM |
|
|
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:sm6a6294psuc3qmdigdjpm2ubvt55aeh4o@4ax.com:
On 12 May 2006 11:24:09 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C155234582Cfstone69@66.150.105.47>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:el4862h733i1n0lil04g5aphg6ri808sbr@4ax.com:
On 11 May 2006 23:12:50 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C0CD4EBF794fstone69@66.150.105.47>:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1267a7rllqq8ib1@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:o5i462dlpgse8qbnu1fseg0hfehfsp9jcc@4ax.com:
...
I don't answer non sequiturs unless I feel like it, Matt.
It was not a non-sequitur. You asserted that the Democrats stop
the expansion of supply. I asked about some relevant Republicans
to see if they were acting in a particular way to increase
supply. Instead of responding to the on-topic question you
responded with a non-sequitur about Cuba.
Pardon us, but when has the GOP ever pushed for drilling off of
California or Florida seriously?
All they have ranted and raved about was ANWR.
Who has controlled the Congress since 1995?
The GOP. They have now controlled all for 6 years.
What di dthey do?
The Democrats in the Senate have had the ability to filibuster
anything they wanted to block all that time. While the GOP could
pass anything the Democrats agreed to, they could not do anything
that the Democrats were prepared to oppose.
It worked that way when the Republicans were in the minority as
well. That forced the Democrats to compromise when they were in
power. Why do Republicans think that they can run roughshod over
moderates today?
Well, that's the way it works, so don't blame the Republicans for what
the Democrats won't go along with doing.
Ranted and raved about ANWR and cut secret deals with
oil companies to let them set policy.
The GOP is the problem.
Wrong. Your Democratic buddies in the Senate have filibustered any
attempts to do anything serious about energy policy for fifty years
or more.
When have Republicans wanted to do anything but give welfare to oil
companies?
Is it "welfare for oil companies" that makes Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Venezuela into oil-money havens for terrorists and thugs?
When George Bush invades Iraq because Saudi Arabia is afraid of
Saddam.
Saudi Arabia was afraid of Saddam? I thought Saddam was no threat to
anybody? Oh, wait, that was the excuse for when we say Saddam was a
threat...
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Wunderkind" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
13 May 2006 11:16:14 AM |
|
|
Fred Stone wrote:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:sm6a6294psuc3qmdigdjpm2ubvt55aeh4o@4ax.com:
On 12 May 2006 11:24:09 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C155234582Cfstone69@66.150.105.47>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:el4862h733i1n0lil04g5aphg6ri808sbr@4ax.com:
On 11 May 2006 23:12:50 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C0CD4EBF794fstone69@66.150.105.47>:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1267a7rllqq8ib1@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:o5i462dlpgse8qbnu1fseg0hfehfsp9jcc@4ax.com:
...
I don't answer non sequiturs unless I feel like it, Matt.
It was not a non-sequitur. You asserted that the Democrats stop
the expansion of supply. I asked about some relevant Republicans
to see if they were acting in a particular way to increase
supply. Instead of responding to the on-topic question you
responded with a non-sequitur about Cuba.
Pardon us, but when has the GOP ever pushed for drilling off of
California or Florida seriously?
All they have ranted and raved about was ANWR.
Who has controlled the Congress since 1995?
The GOP. They have now controlled all for 6 years.
What di dthey do?
The Democrats in the Senate have had the ability to filibuster
anything they wanted to block all that time. While the GOP could
pass anything the Democrats agreed to, they could not do anything
that the Democrats were prepared to oppose.
It worked that way when the Republicans were in the minority as
well. That forced the Democrats to compromise when they were in
power. Why do Republicans think that they can run roughshod over
moderates today?
Well, that's the way it works, so don't blame the Republicans for what
the Democrats won't go along with doing.
Ranted and raved about ANWR and cut secret deals with
oil companies to let them set policy.
The GOP is the problem.
Wrong. Your Democratic buddies in the Senate have filibustered any
attempts to do anything serious about energy policy for fifty years
or more.
When have Republicans wanted to do anything but give welfare to oil
companies?
Is it "welfare for oil companies" that makes Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Venezuela into oil-money havens for terrorists and thugs?
When George Bush invades Iraq because Saudi Arabia is afraid of
Saddam.
Saudi Arabia was afraid of Saddam? I thought Saddam was no threat to
anybody? Oh, wait, that was the excuse for when we say Saddam was a
threat...
Saudi Arabia could well have been afraid of Saddam Hussein because he
was a secular ruler with equal rights for all citizens. This contrasts
starkly with the strict religious nature of Saudi society wherein women
can't drive and all must abide by a very strict interpretation of Shari'ah.
WK
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
13 May 2006 11:10:20 AM |
|
|
Wunderkind <a@b.com> wrote in
news:iDn9g.86369$dW3.14879@newssvr21.news.prodigy.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:sm6a6294psuc3qmdigdjpm2ubvt55aeh4o@4ax.com:
On 12 May 2006 11:24:09 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C155234582Cfstone69@66.150.105.47>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:el4862h733i1n0lil04g5aphg6ri808sbr@4ax.com:
On 11 May 2006 23:12:50 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C0CD4EBF794fstone69@66.150.105.47>:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1267a7rllqq8ib1@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:o5i462dlpgse8qbnu1fseg0hfehfsp9jcc@4ax.com:
...
I don't answer non sequiturs unless I feel like it, Matt.
It was not a non-sequitur. You asserted that the Democrats
stop the expansion of supply. I asked about some relevant
Republicans to see if they were acting in a particular way to
increase supply. Instead of responding to the on-topic
question you responded with a non-sequitur about Cuba.
Pardon us, but when has the GOP ever pushed for drilling off of
California or Florida seriously?
All they have ranted and raved about was ANWR.
Who has controlled the Congress since 1995?
The GOP. They have now controlled all for 6 years.
What di dthey do?
The Democrats in the Senate have had the ability to filibuster
anything they wanted to block all that time. While the GOP could
pass anything the Democrats agreed to, they could not do anything
that the Democrats were prepared to oppose.
It worked that way when the Republicans were in the minority as
well. That forced the Democrats to compromise when they were in
power. Why do Republicans think that they can run roughshod over
moderates today?
Well, that's the way it works, so don't blame the Republicans for
what the Democrats won't go along with doing.
Ranted and raved about ANWR and cut secret deals with
oil companies to let them set policy.
The GOP is the problem.
Wrong. Your Democratic buddies in the Senate have filibustered
any attempts to do anything serious about energy policy for fifty
years or more.
When have Republicans wanted to do anything but give welfare to
oil companies?
Is it "welfare for oil companies" that makes Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Venezuela into oil-money havens for terrorists and thugs?
When George Bush invades Iraq because Saudi Arabia is afraid of
Saddam.
Saudi Arabia was afraid of Saddam? I thought Saddam was no threat to
anybody? Oh, wait, that was the excuse for when we say Saddam was a
threat...
Saudi Arabia could well have been afraid of Saddam Hussein because he
was a secular ruler with equal rights for all citizens. This contrasts
starkly with the strict religious nature of Saudi society wherein
women can't drive and all must abide by a very strict interpretation
of Shari'ah.
Saddam had equal rights for all citizens? Yeah right, equal rights for
all Baath party members, to lord it over all the other citizens. And
equal rights for all the Shi'ite women to be raped while their men
watch.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Free Lunch" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
12 May 2006 10:15:32 PM |
|
|
On 13 May 2006 01:17:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C1E2629E515fstone69@66.150.105.47>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:sm6a6294psuc3qmdigdjpm2ubvt55aeh4o@4ax.com:
On 12 May 2006 11:24:09 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C155234582Cfstone69@66.150.105.47>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:el4862h733i1n0lil04g5aphg6ri808sbr@4ax.com:
On 11 May 2006 23:12:50 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C0CD4EBF794fstone69@66.150.105.47>:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1267a7rllqq8ib1@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:o5i462dlpgse8qbnu1fseg0hfehfsp9jcc@4ax.com:
...
I don't answer non sequiturs unless I feel like it, Matt.
It was not a non-sequitur. You asserted that the Democrats stop
the expansion of supply. I asked about some relevant Republicans
to see if they were acting in a particular way to increase
supply. Instead of responding to the on-topic question you
responded with a non-sequitur about Cuba.
Pardon us, but when has the GOP ever pushed for drilling off of
California or Florida seriously?
All they have ranted and raved about was ANWR.
Who has controlled the Congress since 1995?
The GOP. They have now controlled all for 6 years.
What di dthey do?
The Democrats in the Senate have had the ability to filibuster
anything they wanted to block all that time. While the GOP could
pass anything the Democrats agreed to, they could not do anything
that the Democrats were prepared to oppose.
It worked that way when the Republicans were in the minority as
well. That forced the Democrats to compromise when they were in
power. Why do Republicans think that they can run roughshod over
moderates today?
Well, that's the way it works, so don't blame the Republicans for what
the Democrats won't go along with doing.
Ranted and raved about ANWR and cut secret deals with
oil companies to let them set policy.
The GOP is the problem.
Wrong. Your Democratic buddies in the Senate have filibustered any
attempts to do anything serious about energy policy for fifty years
or more.
When have Republicans wanted to do anything but give welfare to oil
companies?
Is it "welfare for oil companies" that makes Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Venezuela into oil-money havens for terrorists and thugs?
When George Bush invades Iraq because Saudi Arabia is afraid of
Saddam.
Saudi Arabia was afraid of Saddam? I thought Saddam was no threat to
anybody? Oh, wait, that was the excuse for when we say Saddam was a
threat...
Remember that Saudi Arabia is a worthless pile of corruption sitting on
lots of oil. They hire all of their work done. They don't have a
reliable military of Arabians so they rely on us as their hired hands.
Had we never been enticed into putting troops there, it is very likely
that OBL would not have focused on the US when he did. We distracted him
from his war on corruption within Islam by putting ourselves into it --
and we did it to protect one of the worst regimes in the world.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
13 May 2006 06:20:49 AM |
|
|
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:njja62l3jmubrd0q6lk5u9dg03m69o1i13@4ax.com:
On 13 May 2006 01:17:10 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C1E2629E515fstone69@66.150.105.47>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:sm6a6294psuc3qmdigdjpm2ubvt55aeh4o@4ax.com:
On 12 May 2006 11:24:09 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C155234582Cfstone69@66.150.105.47>:
Free Lunch <lunch@nofreelunch.us> wrote in
news:el4862h733i1n0lil04g5aphg6ri808sbr@4ax.com:
On 11 May 2006 23:12:50 GMT, in alt.atheism
Fred Stone <fstone69@earthling.com> wrote in
<Xns97C0CD4EBF794fstone69@66.150.105.47>:
wbarwell <wbarwell@mylinuxisp.com> wrote in
news:1267a7rllqq8ib1@corp.supernews.com:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:o5i462dlpgse8qbnu1fseg0hfehfsp9jcc@4ax.com:
...
I don't answer non sequiturs unless I feel like it, Matt.
It was not a non-sequitur. You asserted that the Democrats
stop the expansion of supply. I asked about some relevant
Republicans to see if they were acting in a particular way to
increase supply. Instead of responding to the on-topic
question you responded with a non-sequitur about Cuba.
Pardon us, but when has the GOP ever pushed for drilling off of
California or Florida seriously?
All they have ranted and raved about was ANWR.
Who has controlled the Congress since 1995?
The GOP. They have now controlled all for 6 years.
What di dthey do?
The Democrats in the Senate have had the ability to filibuster
anything they wanted to block all that time. While the GOP could
pass anything the Democrats agreed to, they could not do anything
that the Democrats were prepared to oppose.
It worked that way when the Republicans were in the minority as
well. That forced the Democrats to compromise when they were in
power. Why do Republicans think that they can run roughshod over
moderates today?
Well, that's the way it works, so don't blame the Republicans for
what the Democrats won't go along with doing.
Ranted and raved about ANWR and cut secret deals with
oil companies to let them set policy.
The GOP is the problem.
Wrong. Your Democratic buddies in the Senate have filibustered any
attempts to do anything serious about energy policy for fifty
years or more.
When have Republicans wanted to do anything but give welfare to
oil companies?
Is it "welfare for oil companies" that makes Saudi Arabia, Iran and
Venezuela into oil-money havens for terrorists and thugs?
When George Bush invades Iraq because Saudi Arabia is afraid of
Saddam.
Saudi Arabia was afraid of Saddam? I thought Saddam was no threat to
anybody? Oh, wait, that was the excuse for when we say Saddam was a
threat...
Remember that Saudi Arabia is a worthless pile of corruption sitting
on lots of oil. They hire all of their work done. They don't have a
reliable military of Arabians so they rely on us as their hired hands.
Had we never been enticed into putting troops there, it is very likely
that OBL would not have focused on the US when he did. We distracted
him from his war on corruption within Islam by putting ourselves into
it -- and we did it to protect one of the worst regimes in the world.
All the Arab countries are like that. As soon as they discovered oil
there it was inevitable that their regimes would be "corrupted" (in the
eyes of radical Islamists) by Western influences. Osama would be focused
on the US no matter what we did or said, whether we were in Saudi Arabia
or not, as long as we are the major influence on Western culture. The
"root causes" of Islamic terrorism go clear back to Mohammad himself.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Morongo Valley" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
11 May 2006 04:50:38 PM |
|
|
wbarwell wrote:
Fred Stone wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:o5i462dlpgse8qbnu1fseg0hfehfsp9jcc@4ax.com:
I don't answer non sequiturs unless I feel like it, Matt.
It was not a non-sequitur. You asserted that the Democrats stop the
expansion of supply. I asked about some relevant Republicans to see if
they were acting in a particular way to increase supply. Instead of
responding to the on-topic question you responded with a non-sequitur
about Cuba.
Pardon us, but when has the GOP ever pushed for drilling off of
California or Florida seriously?
Florida Governor Jeb Bush didn't want any drilling to take place close
to the Florida coast, so a deal was reached with the Department of the
Interior in 2001 that would block all such drilling within 100 - 300
miles of the coast. As a result, only 1.5 million acres were leased to
oil companies (instead of 6 million acres) in the Gulf of Mexico, all
way, way away from shore.
Naturally, this deal by President Bush's Department of the Interior
that was a response to Governor Bush's request is the fault of
Democrats ...
As for California, there *is* drilling off the coast. After all, there
is a reason they built those oil platforms out there. However, there
has been a moratorium on any new drilling for the past 24 years. Some
have moved to lift this moratorium. Others - such as Governor
Schwarzenegger - oppose any new drilling off the California coast.
Naturally, the fact that the GOP Senate, the GOP House and the GOP
President can't somehow pass legislation to end this moratorium is all
the fault of Democrats ...
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
12 May 2006 01:02:32 PM |
|
|
On 10 May 2006 21:37:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BFBD23A2E0Afstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:o5i462dlpgse8qbnu1fseg0hfehfsp9jcc@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 18:58:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BFA228816A0fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:08f462tkgorulnlacghfejsk1s3enlmm8u@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 14:14:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BF71FA8EBD4fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
[snip]
Oh, that's *different* because the money would go to the the
government instead of those eeeeevil oil companies.
Stop playing with those strawmen. It is the evil countries like
Saudi and Iran and such that I am concerned with.
Oh, sorry, Matt, strawmen are your gig, aren't they?
Sorry, Fred, but you came up with the strawman "eeeeevil oil
companies". Instead of responding by attacking me why not refute the
claim. If I use a strawman call me on it.
I've called you on enough strawmen to cast every showing of the Wizard
of Oz ever.
Even if so, so what? You made a strawman regarding "eeeeevil oil
companies". Deal with that rather than attacking me. 1,000 strawmen on
my part does not make yours not a fallacy.
Nice snip, by the way. You walked right into that one,
didn't you?
Whatever.
The government
already gets the lion's share of the price of gasoline sales anyway.
For what notion of "lion's" share?
The usual notion.
More than 50%?
but has been obstructed by Democrats.
Has his brother pushed for drilling off the coast of Florida? Has
he or his brother pushed for a repeal of import duties on sugar
and ethanol?
There is more to oil exploration than drilling off the coast of
Florida. But since you mention it, why should we let Cuba have it
while we wring our hands about the environmental impact? Castro
isn't going to let that bother *him*.
I notice that you did not answer the question.
I don't answer non sequiturs unless I feel like it, Matt.
It was not a non-sequitur. You asserted that the Democrats stop the
expansion of supply. I asked about some relevant Republicans to see if
they were acting in a particular way to increase supply. Instead of
responding to the on-topic question you responded with a non-sequitur
about Cuba.
I mentioned an entire political party and it's consistent policy over a
period of decades. You tried to divert attention to two people. That's a
non-sequitur.
IOW you made a general aspersion and I made a specific point.
The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Which part, the 31% that still support him or the rest?
You'll believe anything, Matt, even some obviously slanted MSM poll.
Fox says he has 33% approval. Are they controlled by the Democratic
party as well? What do you think his real approval rating is? 34%?
35%? What?
Again, Matt, I don't answer non sequiturs.
Again, not a non-sequitur. The issue was public support for the
president. You asserted that the public was not stupid so I asked
about reports on that support in regards to that stupidity. You then
challenged the poll so I mentioned a poll from a source you can't
attack the same way. So now you ignore it.
And again, Matt, you're just trying to divert attention.
From what? My point was and is on-topic.
--
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: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
12 May 2006 01:34:45 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:6aj96252ccubavbkqv32c5k4anbp5c0l41@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 21:37:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BFBD23A2E0Afstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:o5i462dlpgse8qbnu1fseg0hfehfsp9jcc@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 18:58:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BFA228816A0fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:08f462tkgorulnlacghfejsk1s3enlmm8u@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 14:14:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns97BF71FA8EBD4fstone69@66.150.105.47> wrote:
[snip]
Oh, that's *different* because the money would go to the the
government instead of those eeeeevil oil companies.
Stop playing with those strawmen. It is the evil countries like
Saudi and Iran and such that I am concerned with.
Oh, sorry, Matt, strawmen are your gig, aren't they?
Sorry, Fred, but you came up with the strawman "eeeeevil oil
companies". Instead of responding by attacking me why not refute the
claim. If I use a strawman call me on it.
I've called you on enough strawmen to cast every showing of the Wizard
of Oz ever.
Even if so, so what? You made a strawman regarding "eeeeevil oil
companies". Deal with that rather than attacking me. 1,000 strawmen on
my part does not make yours not a fallacy.
Your buddies in the Congress don't act like it was a strawman; they want
that eeeeevil oil company profit to hand out as pork via a "windfall
profits tax".
Nice snip, by the way. You walked right into that one,
didn't you?
Whatever.
ROFL!
<...>
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
12 May 2006 03:27:20 PM |
|
|
On 12 May 2006 18:34:45 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97C19E264671Bfstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:6aj96252ccubavbkqv32c5k4anbp5c0l41@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 21:37:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BFBD23A2E0Afstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:o5i462dlpgse8qbnu1fseg0hfehfsp9jcc@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 18:58:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BFA228816A0fstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:08f462tkgorulnlacghfejsk1s3enlmm8u@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 14:14:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns97BF71FA8EBD4fstone69@66.150.105.47> wrote:
[snip]
Oh, that's *different* because the money would go to the the
government instead of those eeeeevil oil companies.
Stop playing with those strawmen. It is the evil countries like
Saudi and Iran and such that I am concerned with.
Oh, sorry, Matt, strawmen are your gig, aren't they?
Sorry, Fred, but you came up with the strawman "eeeeevil oil
companies". Instead of responding by attacking me why not refute the
claim. If I use a strawman call me on it.
I've called you on enough strawmen to cast every showing of the Wizard
of Oz ever.
Even if so, so what? You made a strawman regarding "eeeeevil oil
companies". Deal with that rather than attacking me. 1,000 strawmen on
my part does not make yours not a fallacy.
Your buddies in the Congress don't act like it was a strawman; they want
that eeeeevil oil company profit to hand out as pork via a "windfall
profits tax".
My buddies? Rather than admit you set up a strawman you try for guilt
by association. I am sorry, but if it your point was relevant, which
it is not, a windfall profits tax is not evidence that anyone thinks
the companies are evil. It is recognition that the country has
supplied billions of dollars and thousands of lives to maintain those
profits.
Nice snip, by the way. You walked right into that one,
didn't you?
Whatever.
ROFL!
<...>
Nice 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: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
12 May 2006 02:44:40 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:fqr9625vk0cnl7u98ft81q276hsptb0ds9@4ax.com:
On 12 May 2006 18:34:45 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97C19E264671Bfstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote in
news:6aj96252ccubavbkqv32c5k4anbp5c0l41@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 21:37:29 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in <Xns97BFBD23A2E0Afstone69@66.150.105.47>
wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com> wrote
in news:o5i462dlpgse8qbnu1fseg0hfehfsp9jcc@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 18:58:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns97BFA228816A0fstone69@66.150.105.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:08f462tkgorulnlacghfejsk1s3enlmm8u@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 14:14:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns97BF71FA8EBD4fstone69@66.150.105.47> wrote:
[snip]
Oh, that's *different* because the money would go to the the
government instead of those eeeeevil oil companies.
Stop playing with those strawmen. It is the evil countries like
Saudi and Iran and such that I am concerned with.
Oh, sorry, Matt, strawmen are your gig, aren't they?
Sorry, Fred, but you came up with the strawman "eeeeevil oil
companies". Instead of responding by attacking me why not refute
the claim. If I use a strawman call me on it.
I've called you on enough strawmen to cast every showing of the
Wizard of Oz ever.
Even if so, so what? You made a strawman regarding "eeeeevil oil
companies". Deal with that rather than attacking me. 1,000 strawmen
on my part does not make yours not a fallacy.
Your buddies in the Congress don't act like it was a strawman; they
want that eeeeevil oil company profit to hand out as pork via a
"windfall profits tax".
My buddies? Rather than admit you set up a strawman you try for guilt
by association.
If the shoe fits...
I am sorry, but if it your point was relevant, which
it is not, a windfall profits tax is not evidence that anyone thinks
the companies are evil. It is recognition that the country has
supplied billions of dollars and thousands of lives to maintain those
profits.
It's recognition of the fact that there's some loose money to be grabbed
and some grandstanding to be done that people like you can feel all
self-righteous about.
<...>
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "James Burns" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 05:50:28 PM |
|
|
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 10 May 2006 18:58:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns97BFA228816A0fstone69@66.150.105.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:08f462tkgorulnlacghfejsk1s3enlmm8u@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 14:14:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
wrote:
The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Which part, the 31% that still support him or the rest?
You'll believe anything, Matt, even some obviously
slanted MSM poll.
Fox says he has 33% approval. Are they controlled by
the Democratic party as well? What do you think his real
approval rating is? 34%? 35%? What?
Again, Matt, I don't answer non sequiturs.
Again, not a non-sequitur. The issue was public support for
the president. You asserted that the public was not stupid
so I asked about reports on that support in regards to that
stupidity. You then challenged the poll so I mentioned a
poll from a source you can't attack the same way. So now
you ignore it.
You don't understand. Sure, Fox isn't biased, but the
American people are when they report their opinions.
After all, "reality is well-known to have a liberal bias."
Jim Burns
.
|
|
|
| User: "Fred Stone" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 08:22:09 PM |
|
|
James Burns <burns.87@osu.edu> wrote in news:44626E34.5070506@osu.edu:
Matt Silberstein wrote:
On 10 May 2006 18:58:22 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
<Xns97BFA228816A0fstone69@66.150.105.47> wrote:
Matt Silberstein <RemoveThisPrefixmatts2nospam@ix.netcom.com>
wrote in news:08f462tkgorulnlacghfejsk1s3enlmm8u@4ax.com:
On 10 May 2006 14:14:13 GMT, in alt.atheism , Fred Stone
<fstone69@earthling.com> in
wrote:
The public isn't stupid, Matt.
Which part, the 31% that still support him or the rest?
You'll believe anything, Matt, even some obviously
slanted MSM poll.
Fox says he has 33% approval. Are they controlled by
the Democratic party as well? What do you think his real
approval rating is? 34%? 35%? What?
Again, Matt, I don't answer non sequiturs.
Again, not a non-sequitur. The issue was public support for
the president. You asserted that the public was not stupid
so I asked about reports on that support in regards to that
stupidity. You then challenged the poll so I mentioned a
poll from a source you can't attack the same way. So now
you ignore it.
You don't understand. Sure, Fox isn't biased, but the
American people are when they report their opinions.
After all, "reality is well-known to have a liberal bias."
All your truthiness is just another way of avoiding the Democrats'
responsibility for the problems you want to blame on Bush.
--
Fred Stone
aa# 1369
Master of Orion 3 lives!
Patch 1.2.5 - http://moo3.quicksilver.com/official/patch071803.html
Strawberry Mod - http://www.moo3.at/mods/link.php?id=142
*** Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com ***
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 08:42:03 AM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Matt Silberstein in episode
<5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is in
office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market no
President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed for
higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a significant gas
tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is responsible for much
of the current problem.
Six years is no way enough to do anything significant. Our infrastructure
is just too big to turn on a dime.
He could have *started dealing with it to be sure. For one thing, the tax
incentives for hybrids Congress came up with are a joke. As if they were
trying to be funny. He could tell the truth about ANWR instead of
misleading the public into thinking it's going to benefit them instead of
being short term profit for a small number.
There's a lot he could do but, at the same time, he'd have to be honest
with the public and admit it's going to be a very bumpy ride...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
| User: "Matt Silberstein" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
10 May 2006 10:07:43 AM |
|
|
On Wed, 10 May 2006 08:42:03 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in <w9-dnYNNxt86cPzZRVn-ug@megapath.net>
wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Matt Silberstein in episode
<5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is in
office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market no
President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed for
higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a significant gas
tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is responsible for much
of the current problem.
Six years is no way enough to do anything significant. Our infrastructure
is just too big to turn on a dime.
6 years is not a dime and he did not even try to start the turn.
He could have *started dealing with it to be sure. For one thing, the tax
incentives for hybrids Congress came up with are a joke. As if they were
trying to be funny. He could tell the truth about ANWR instead of
misleading the public into thinking it's going to benefit them instead of
being short term profit for a small number.
There's a lot he could do but, at the same time, he'd have to be honest
with the public and admit it's going to be a very bumpy ride...
Yep. There is not a useful thing he has done on the issue. For that he
deserves blame.
--
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: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Shrub and Nixon - Chart Buddies |
11 May 2006 10:18:54 PM |
|
|
Previously, on alt.atheism, Matt Silberstein in episode
<6c0462p4jqnhn38gvm1o7gfjd7bjq25tfh@4ax.com>...
On Wed, 10 May 2006 08:42:03 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in <w9-dnYNNxt86cPzZRVn-ug@megapath.net>
wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Matt Silberstein in episode
<5sm2625f733sh1uplkbnms6gv3nml80a9j@4ax.com>...
On Tue, 09 May 2006 22:07:34 -0500, in alt.atheism , "Mark K. Bilbo"
<alt-atheism@org.webmaster> in
<BKmdnZ2OrqtuxfzZnZ2dnUVZ_sednZ2d@megapath.net> wrote:
Previously, on alt.atheism, Michelle Malkin in episode
<17-dndX7kMP8rPzZRVn-rA@comcast.com>...
http://thismodernworld.com/2887
Just wait. The public--bless their pointy heads--blames whoever is in
office for gas prices even though we're talking a global market no
President nor Congress can do much about.
But Bush has been so in bed with those bozos, he deserves taking the
flack...
Actually Shrub has had 6 years to deal with it. He could have pushed
for higher, not lower, mileage. He could have pushed for a significant
gas tax, something we have needed since 1974. Etc. He is responsible
for much of the current problem.
Six years is no way enough to do anything significant. Our infrastructure
is just too big to turn on a dime.
6 years is not a dime and he did not even try to start the turn.
For a country this large, 6 years is not much more than a nickel. But it
could have been a *start.
Then again, so could the Clinton years. But while he had an actual idea of
what governance was as opposed to the Idiot in Chief we have now, Clinton
was far, far too much of a politician to tell the public the bad news. If
you go all the way back to Carter, that's one of the things that tanked
his presidency. He told the truth. Reagan came in singing "happy days are
here again" and we all forgot the oil shocks.
He could have *started dealing with it to be sure. For one thing, the tax
incentives for hybrids Congress came up with are a joke. As if they were
trying to be funny. He could tell the truth about ANWR instead of
misleading the public into thinking it's going to benefit them instead of
being short term profit for a small number.
There's a lot he could do but, at the same time, he'd have to be honest
with the public and admit it's going to be a very bumpy ride...
Yep. There is not a useful thing he has done on the issue. For that he
deserves blame.
That's true. He hasn't even *tried. All the yapping about ANWR is blowing
smoke. There apparently are a fair number of people in the US that think
it'll "solve" something when it won't do anything. Even if we'd started in
the *first Bush administration and ANWR was producing at full capacity,
that only means we'd see $70+ this fall instead of right now.
Whoopee.
But even a "crash" program to get serious about the matter would take over
a decade and upwards of two decades. Our chance actually came in the 70s.
And, for a while, we were starting to get serious about conservation,
smaller cars, such things.
If there's any one president to be blamed, it's Reagan. He won on the
whole "morning in America" thing and got the cheap foreign oil flowing.
Everybody forgot the oil shocks and went back to sleep.
Twenty-six years of working toward a solution... *that could have made a
dent in things by now...
--
Mark K. Bilbo
--------------------------------------------------
"As hip as it is for outsiders to blame New Orleans
for everything bad that happened during and after
Hurricane Katrina, the truth is that the people
who lived here were much more prepared for a big
storm than the federal government that promised
us flood protection." [Jarvis DeBerry]
http://makeashorterlink.com/?V180525DC
"Everything New Orleans"
http://www.nola.com
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
