| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Dorres T" |
| Date: |
17 Jan 2004 10:57:21 AM |
| Object: |
Why America Hates the democRATs! |
Why America Hates the democRATs
What is with the democRATs lately? This past week they were nastier to
each other than we could ever be.
Andrew Cuomo blasted his party as "soulless and clueless" and even
praised President Bush.
Sen. Zell Miller renamed the White House wannabes and other leftists
for pushing the "shrinking party" into a "breakdown." Howard Dean
lashed back at Rep. ***** Gephardt and other rivals for "distorting his
positions for months" when, "with a combined three-quarters of a
century in Washington, D.C., they have delivered few real results."
New York democRATs such as Rep. Charlie Rangel lashed out at Wesley
Clark for his doomed support of the military's crucial base on
Vieques, Puerto Rico. (This just weeks after Rangel was lavishing
praise on the retired general.)
Even the presidential contenders admit that Americans don't like the
democRAT party. Their views on why this is so are fascinating.
David Brooks noted in the New York Times that the Dems campaigning in
New Hampshire and Iowa have been trying to explain why democRATs have
plunged from 49 percent of the electorate in the days of FDR to 32
percent today.
Dean says the party must return to its roots instead of compromising
with Republicans.
Gephardt says free trade has betrayed workers. Lieberman notes that
the party has gone too far left and too secular.
"John Edwards has the most persuasive theory," Brooks wrote. Voters
"are really good at knowing who respects them and who doesn't.
Edwards' theory is that the democRATs' besetting sin over the past few
decades has been snobbery."
The senator, a multimillionaire trial lawyer whose father worked in a
textile mill, said when announcing his candidacy, "democRATs too often
act like rural America is just someplace to fly over between a
fundraiser in Manhattan and a fundraiser in Beverly Hills."
Brooks wrote: "When I interviewed people during the 2000 campaign I
found some voters preferred democRAT policies to Republican ones. But
they didn't trust Al Gore because they thought he looked down on them.
They felt Bush could come to their barbershop and fit right in.
"Except for Bill Clinton, democRATs have nominated presidential
candidates who try to figure out Middle American values by reading the
polls, instead of feeling them in their gut. If they do it again, the
long, slow slide will continue."
There's just one problem with Edwards' analysis: he himself has
demonstrated a Gore-like contempt for the folks in North Carolina and
the rest of "flyover country" by making a condescending remark about
farmers and saying he no longer listened to country music, paid
attention to NASCAR races, or even owned a gun.
And the "long, slow slide" continues.
.
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
17 Jan 2004 11:06:20 PM |
|
|
"Dorres T" <torresddx@yahoo.com> wrote
[---snip spam---]
NNTP-Posting-Host: 216.8.44.180
Internet Service Provider: ziplink.net
Acceptable Use Policy: http://www.ziplink.net/accept.html
E-mail Complaints to:
Followups Reset To: alt.atheism
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
17 Jan 2004 11:00:06 PM |
|
|
"Dorres T" <torresddx@yahoo.com> wrote
Why America Hates the democRATs
Bush lost by more than 500,000 votes.
Americans must truly *Despise* Republicans, if
what you say is true.
.
|
|
|
| User: "First Maje" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
18 Jan 2004 04:35:53 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:00:06 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bush lost by more than 500,000 votes.
*****. Bush did not lose.
Consult the Constitution and get a clue how the president wins
elections.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
"What is the State? The State is people - people who believe
they have a right to rule others. These people are the thieving,
murdering brutes responsible for war, conscription, taxation,
massacres, slave camps, gas chambers, killing fields, nuclear
missles, and endless death stretching back ten thousand years.
Luckily for all, the State is only people. And, generally, the
least competent of people. They are the ones who cannot innovate,
only steal. They cannot reason, only kill. They are brutes who
see the greatest efforts of mankind as loot to seize and control.
Yet when they seize the creations of greater minds, the works
crumble in their hands, for they cannot control what they are
incapable of understanding."
-- "Kings of the High Frontier"
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
18 Jan 2004 04:49:50 AM |
|
|
"First Maje" <spam@spam.com> wrote
Bush lost by more than 500,000 votes.
*****. Bush did not lose.
Are you insane?
Consult the Constitution and get a clue how the president
wins elections.
I did. Under Florida law, Florida's Electoral Votes must be
pledged to the winner of the popular vote.
Under the 12th amendment of the U.S. constitution, Bush &
Cheney can't both claim the Electoral Votes from Texas.
Cheney has a court decision that says that those Electoral
Votes are his.
So, if you want to go by the popular vote then Bush is the
loser.
If you want to go by Florida's Electoral Votes, Bush is the
loser.
If you insist on ignoring all that in favor of the U.S.
constitution, Bush is the loser.
Judging from your ignorant musings here, this is why you
worship Bush. As the supreme loser, I'm certain that he's
someone you can relate to.
.
|
|
|
| User: "First Maje" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
18 Jan 2004 09:21:21 AM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 05:49:50 -0500, "JTEM" <gymraven@hotmail.com>
wrote:
Bush lost by more than 500,000 votes.
*****. Bush did not lose.
Are you insane?
Bush did not lose. It is you who is insane.
Consult the Constitution and get a clue how the president
wins elections.
I did. Under Florida law, Florida's Electoral Votes must be
pledged to the winner of the popular vote.
The recount showed that Bush won the popular vote in Florida. That
recount was conducted by the Demoncraps.
Under the 12th amendment of the U.S. constitution, Bush &
Cheney can't both claim the Electoral Votes from Texas.
Cheney has a court decision that says that those Electoral
Votes are his.
If the issue of claiming votes in the same state is taken into
account, then Bush gets those votes and Cheney loses them.
So, if you want to go by the popular vote then Bush is the
loser.
The popular vote is not used to elect the president directly.
If you want to go by Florida's Electoral Votes, Bush is the
loser.
Bush won the popular vote in Florida and as you pointed out he also
won the electoral votes.
If you insist on ignoring all that in favor of the U.S.
constitution, Bush is the loser.
It won't work. Bush won and the Demoncrap Party conceded it. Only a
handful of FarLeft idiots claim otherwise.
Judging from your ignorant musings here, this is why you
worship Bush. As the supreme loser, I'm certain that he's
someone you can relate to.
You are irrelevant.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
"What is the State? The State is people - people who believe
they have a right to rule others. These people are the thieving,
murdering brutes responsible for war, conscription, taxation,
massacres, slave camps, gas chambers, killing fields, nuclear
missles, and endless death stretching back ten thousand years.
Luckily for all, the State is only people. And, generally, the
least competent of people. They are the ones who cannot innovate,
only steal. They cannot reason, only kill. They are brutes who
see the greatest efforts of mankind as loot to seize and control.
Yet when they seize the creations of greater minds, the works
crumble in their hands, for they cannot control what they are
incapable of understanding."
-- "Kings of the High Frontier"
.
|
|
|
| User: "JTEM" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
18 Jan 2004 11:07:42 PM |
|
|
"First Maje" <spam@spam.com> wrote
Under the 12th amendment of the U.S. constitution, Bush &
Cheney can't both claim the Electoral Votes from Texas.
Cheney has a court decision that says that those Electoral
Votes are his.
If the issue of claiming votes in the same state is taken into
account, then Bush gets those votes and Cheney loses them.
The constitution does not require this at all, and ***** Cheney
has a court decision saying that they're his.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
18 Jan 2004 11:08:20 AM |
|
|
Bush lost by more than 500,000 votes.
*****. Bush did not lose.
Consult the Constitution and get a clue how the president wins
elections.
I did. Selection by what is often called an "extremist liberal" Supreme Court
isn't part of the selection process.
It is quite instructive that the neo-cons are so openly hostile to the
separation of powers and the so-called liberal courts but they run to them like
crying babies when they don't get their way. Just goes to show how
fundamentally opposed to conservatism the neo-cons are.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "First Maje" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
18 Jan 2004 11:37:10 AM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2004 17:08:20 GMT, forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
Consult the Constitution and get a clue how the president wins
elections.
I did. Selection by what is often called an "extremist liberal" Supreme Court
isn't part of the selection process.
It is quite instructive that the neo-cons are so openly hostile to the
separation of powers and the so-called liberal courts but they run to them like
crying babies when they don't get their way. Just goes to show how
fundamentally opposed to conservatism the neo-cons are.
Jeez, what cave have you been living for the last 10 years?
I hate to tell you but the US SC is slightly tilted to the
Conservative side. Sandra Day O'Connor is the swing vote on a 4-4-1
panel of Justices. She tends to vote Conservative more than Liberal.
It is totally anachronistic to claim that the US SC is "extremist
liberal" in this era.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
"What is the State? The State is people - people who believe
they have a right to rule others. These people are the thieving,
murdering brutes responsible for war, conscription, taxation,
massacres, slave camps, gas chambers, killing fields, nuclear
missles, and endless death stretching back ten thousand years.
Luckily for all, the State is only people. And, generally, the
least competent of people. They are the ones who cannot innovate,
only steal. They cannot reason, only kill. They are brutes who
see the greatest efforts of mankind as loot to seize and control.
Yet when they seize the creations of greater minds, the works
crumble in their hands, for they cannot control what they are
incapable of understanding."
-- "Kings of the High Frontier"
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
18 Jan 2004 12:47:15 PM |
|
|
I hate to tell you but the US SC is slightly tilted to the
Conservative side. Sandra Day O'Connor is the swing vote on a 4-4-1
panel of Justices. She tends to vote Conservative more than Liberal.
It is totally anachronistic to claim that the US SC is "extremist
liberal" in this era.
That's not my argument. It's the neo-cons argument. I think the politicized
boondoggles of Bush v. Gore and Zelman v. Harris, as well as the reaction by
the neo-cons to Newdow v. Congress are perfect examples that the courts are
anything but "extremist liberal," no matter how many times the neo-cons try to
spout the lie that they are.
The math is very clear. Seven justices on the court were appointed by the same
party. That party was not the Dems. This court is quite split between
doctrinaire liberals like Ginsburg, moderates like O'Connor and extremist
totalitarians like Scalia and Rehnquist.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "First Maje" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
18 Jan 2004 01:32:25 PM |
|
|
On 18 Jan 2004 18:47:15 GMT, forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
This court is quite split between
doctrinaire liberals like Ginsburg, moderates like O'Connor and extremist
totalitarians like Scalia and Rehnquist.
And what makes you thing that "extremist liberals" like Ginsberg are
not totalitarians?
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try
and find oil? You're crazy."
--Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his
project to drill for oil in 1859.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lord Calvert" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
18 Jan 2004 11:02:15 PM |
|
|
This court is quite split between
doctrinaire liberals like Ginsburg, moderates like O'Connor and extremist
totalitarians like Scalia and Rehnquist.
And what makes you thing that "extremist liberals" like Ginsberg are
not totalitarians?
Because in the last decade or so we have been seeing a rather radical shift in
American politics. Those who consider themselves "conservative" are now
supporting what used to be considered the "liberal" point of view regarding the
government power...ruling in favour of increased regulation and increased
government authority and power. Judge Roy Moore is the most obvious example of
this. Those who consider themselves "liberal" are now supporting what used to
be considered the "conservative" point of view regarding government
power...ruling in favour of less government regulation and limited government
authority. The change did not happen overnight and there is certainly still
quite some bit of crossover as the positions sort themselves out but it IS
happening.
However some conservative jurists still rule as traditional conservatives did
40 years ago...as Alfred Goodwin did in the Newdow case. The price was
villification by his party. Goodwin, being the old-school conservative that he
is, didn't give a crap.
Rich Goranson, Amherst, NY, USA (aa#MCMXCIX, a-vet#1)
EAC Department of Applied Rattan Use
"Without faith we might relapse into scientific or rational thinking, which
leads by a slippery slope toward constitutional democracy." - Robert Anton
Wilson
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
19 Jan 2004 07:14:49 PM |
|
|
And so upon Mon, 19 Jan 2004 05:02:15 +0000 didst Lord Calvert speak
thusly:
This court is quite split between
doctrinaire liberals like Ginsburg, moderates like O'Connor and extremist
totalitarians like Scalia and Rehnquist.
And what makes you thing that "extremist liberals" like Ginsberg are
not totalitarians?
Because in the last decade or so we have been seeing a rather radical shift in
American politics. Those who consider themselves "conservative" are now
supporting what used to be considered the "liberal" point of view regarding the
government power...ruling in favour of increased regulation and increased
government authority and power.
Which is one of the weirder things going on in the US today. That they've
*reversed* the meanings.
Federal intervention in the election proceedings of a state is a *liberal
position. Not to mention that the 2000 ruling had no real basis in the
Constitution and if you read the majority opinion, you can see they *knew
that. The majority opinion flops around like a fish out of water.
Sometimes, it flat *babbles.
The old, strict interpretation of the Constitution associated with
"conservatives" would not allow for such an intervention. Unless the state
was in violation of an act of Congress passed under the powers of the
14th, there simply isn't any basis to intervene in a purely state matter.
One of my favorite reversals of "conservative" has to be the justification
(of the week) for the attack of Iraq which insists "the Iraqis are better
off!"
Maybe. But the last superpower that went around "liberating" countries and
exporting the revolution was the USSR. The idea of "exporting democracy"
is not even liberal per se. It's *leftist. The neo-cons sound down right
*Soviet on this one. Such as Pearle's new book where the US is going to
"fix" some 43 countries. Export the revolution comrade!
I'm always amused watching "conservatives" defend Bush (though many of
them do *not defend him and actually attack him for being, well, a
liberal). The Bush budgets blew past Clinton's spending rate almost
immediately. To find a president who spends as much as Bush, you have to
look back to... wait for it... JIMMY CARTER.
(But, then, we are to understand "deficits don't matter" as Cheney
claimed. This from the party that spent FORTY YEARS bitching at the
Democrats about spending and deficits.)
Conservatives have long been against federal intervention in education.
Even to the point that during the Reagan era, the Dept. of Education was
targeted for being *abolished. Bush isn't just proposing boosting funding
for federal intervention in schools but for actual *mandates and
*controls. Something that actually put him to the *left of Gore in the
debates (I'll *never forget the spectacle of a Republican razzing a
Democrat for *not supporting federal controls of schools... it's good
Goldwater died before seeing that).
Shrug.
I remember saying to people back then that Bush was to the left of
Clinton. They thought I was being funny or something. But the Bushes have
*never* been conservatives. Daddy was, at best, a moderate Republican.
Junior's just openly liberal.
I never would have believed there could be so total a reversal that the
fiscally conservative Democrats would be running against the budget
busting Republicans.
Boggles the mind...
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Christopher A. Lee" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
18 Jan 2004 12:30:44 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:37:10 GMT, (First Maje) wrote:
On 18 Jan 2004 17:08:20 GMT, forlornh@aol.complex (Lord Calvert)
wrote:
Consult the Constitution and get a clue how the president wins
elections.
I did. Selection by what is often called an "extremist liberal" Supreme Court
isn't part of the selection process.
It is quite instructive that the neo-cons are so openly hostile to the
separation of powers and the so-called liberal courts but they run to them like
crying babies when they don't get their way. Just goes to show how
fundamentally opposed to conservatism the neo-cons are.
Jeez, what cave have you been living for the last 10 years?
I hate to tell you but the US SC is slightly tilted to the
Conservative side. Sandra Day O'Connor is the swing vote on a 4-4-1
panel of Justices. She tends to vote Conservative more than Liberal.
It is totally anachronistic to claim that the US SC is "extremist
liberal" in this era.
That's why he put it in quotes. But the court is constantly accusede
of being liberal by those further to the right wing: the religious
right etc.
Note the reaction of Moore's followers to the Alabama state supreme
court which merely upheld the law.
.
|
|
|
| User: "First Maje" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
18 Jan 2004 01:30:50 PM |
|
|
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:30:44 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
It is totally anachronistic to claim that the US SC is "extremist
liberal" in this era.
That's why he put it in quotes. But the court is constantly accusede
of being liberal by those further to the right wing: the religious
right etc.
That was years ago. No one in his right mind would claim that the US
SC is "extremist liberal" in this era.
Note the reaction of Moore's followers to the Alabama state supreme
court which merely upheld the law.
There is a much larger issue involved than that case represents.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://www.freewebs.com/vrwc/
"Drill for oil? You mean drill into the ground to try
and find oil? You're crazy."
--Drillers who Edwin L. Drake tried to enlist to his
project to drill for oil in 1859.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
19 Jan 2004 12:10:18 PM |
|
|
And so upon Sun, 18 Jan 2004 19:30:50 +0000 didst First Maje speak thusly:
On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 18:30:44 GMT, Christopher A. Lee
<calee@optonline.net> wrote:
It is totally anachronistic to claim that the US SC is "extremist
liberal" in this era.
That's why he put it in quotes. But the court is constantly accusede
of being liberal by those further to the right wing: the religious
right etc.
That was years ago. No one in his right mind would claim that the US
SC is "extremist liberal" in this era.
The Moore case was "years ago?"
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "First Maje" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
19 Jan 2004 07:32:53 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:10:18 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
That's why he put it in quotes. But the court is constantly accusede
of being liberal by those further to the right wing: the religious
right etc.
That was years ago. No one in his right mind would claim that the US
SC is "extremist liberal" in this era.
The Moore case was "years ago?"
You are without a doubt one of the most idiotic posters on this ng.
I was referring to the ruling that led to so-called "separation of
church and state". That was perpetrated by a commie named Brennan who
was Chief Justice a long time ago. The Moore case is very recent.
Everyone who read my comment, except you, understood what I meant. But
because you are an idiot, you did not.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
"The reason why fighting in academia is so
vicious is because the stakes are so small."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
19 Jan 2004 08:13:54 PM |
|
|
And so upon Tue, 20 Jan 2004 01:32:53 +0000 didst First Maje speak thusly:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 12:10:18 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo" <y@hoo.com-amikchi>
wrote:
That's why he put it in quotes. But the court is constantly accusede
of being liberal by those further to the right wing: the religious
right etc.
That was years ago. No one in his right mind would claim that the US
SC is "extremist liberal" in this era.
The Moore case was "years ago?"
You are without a doubt one of the most idiotic posters on this ng.
I was referring to the ruling that led to so-called "separation of
church and state". That was perpetrated by a commie named Brennan who
was Chief Justice a long time ago. The Moore case is very recent.
Everyone who read my comment, except you, understood what I meant. But
because you are an idiot, you did not.
You have something of a problem with English apparently.
The *immediate antecedent was the Moore case which was presented as a
*current example of Rich's reference to those who call the *current court
"extremist liberal."
To wit:
I did. Selection by what is often called an "extremist liberal" Supreme
Court isn't part of the selection process.
See, that's a reference to the 2000 case. The Moore case was brought in by
Christopher as example of how conservative, strict constructionist judges
are being called "liberals" by certain elements in the US today.
In short, *you have missed the point of the last several posts which makes
it ever so funny when you shriek at me. Not to mention that ***** of
"everyone who read" understanding your "point." Anybody reading can see
you've nabbed a few key words and revved up some simplistic rants.
Anyway.
The separation you spit and howl about originated with Madison who was the
author of the original 1st and who played a major part in getting the
amendment out. It's historical fact--not that you are capable of reading
the actual sources and comprehending them--that the intent was, as Madison
put it, the "perfect separation" of church and state.
If you ever get a handle on that reading comprehension problem, you should
try reading Memorial and Remonstrance as well as Detached Memoranda. Just
a few examples from the latter:
"Strongly guarded as is the separation between Religion & Govt in the
Constitution of the United States the danger of encroachment by
Ecclesiastical Bodies, may be illustrated by precedents already furnished
in their short history."
The danger Madison warned against was the encroachment by RELIGION. Given
the history of Europe, he had reason to warn people that religion must be
kept at bay.
"Is the appointment of Chaplains to the two Houses of Congress consistent
with the Constitution, and with the pure principle of religious freedom?
In strictness the answer on both points must be in the negative. The
Constitution of the U. S. forbids everything like an establishment of a
national religion. The law appointing Chaplains establishes a religious
worship for the national representatives, to be performed by Ministers of
religion, elected by a majority of them; and these are to be paid out of
the national taxes. Does not this involve the principle of a national
establishment, applicable to a provision for a religious worship for the
Constituent as well as of the representative Body, approved by the
majority, and conducted by Ministers of religion paid by the entire nation?"
Madison also opposed chaplains in the military.
"Better also to disarm in the same way, the precedent of Chaplainships for
the army and navy, than erect them into a political authority in matters
of religion. The object of this establishment is seducing; the motive to
it is laudable. But is it not safer to adhere to a right principle, and
trust to its consequences, than confide in the reasoning however specious
in favor of a wrong one."
Madison--who wrote our 1st Amendment--would be attacked as a "liberal"
these days. He meant *total separation. And fought against even the
smallest encroachment of religion on the government. Even to the point of
being against proclamations of "thanksgivings and feasts" such as we see
today in declarations of "national day of prayer" and the like.
And he was *adamantly against any treasury money *at *all being given to
churches. His opinion on "faith based initiatives" is quite clear. As in,
he was against any money at all at any time.
If he were alive today, I'm sure you'd hate his guts.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Enkidu" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
19 Jan 2004 09:34:33 PM |
|
|
First Maje wrote:
Everyone who read my comment, except you, understood what I meant. But
because you are an idiot, you did not.
Mark is far from an idiot. At least I think he is. Mark, you aren't in
Texas, are you?
(No, I'm not saying all Texans are stupid. But two are, and First Maje is
one of them.)
--
Enkidu
AA 2165
http://www.mylinuxisp.com/~raymond/alt.atheism/who.php?w=enkidu.jpg
hhe1mxo02@sneakemail.com
PGP KeyID 0xC5FEABDF
-----
Of all things, good sense is the most fairly distributed: everyone
thinks he is so well supplied with it that even those who are the
hardest to satisfy in every other respect never desire more of it than
they already have.
René Descartes, Discours de la Méthode. 1637.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
19 Jan 2004 10:18:39 PM |
|
|
And so upon Mon, 19 Jan 2004 19:34:33 -0800 didst Enkidu speak thusly:
First Maje wrote:
Everyone who read my comment, except you, understood what I meant. But
because you are an idiot, you did not.
Mark is far from an idiot. At least I think he is. Mark, you aren't in
Texas, are you?
(No, I'm not saying all Texans are stupid. But two are, and First Maje is
one of them.)
Uh. Erm. Well. Not *in Texas.
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "First Maje" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
20 Jan 2004 12:52:07 AM |
|
|
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:18:39 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
Mark, you aren't in Texas, are you?
Uh. Erm. Well. Not *in Texas.
Thank God.
There's enough leftist queers around here as it is.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
"The reason why fighting in academia is so
vicious is because the stakes are so small."
.
|
|
|
| User: "maff" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
20 Jan 2004 04:37:45 AM |
|
|
(First Maje) wrote in message news:<400ccff9.64849158@news-server.houston.rr.com>...
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:18:39 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
Mark, you aren't in Texas, are you?
Uh. Erm. Well. Not *in Texas.
Thank God.
There's enough leftist queers around here as it is.
Are you still contnuing your Confederate bombast and bluster, Confederate scum?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
20 Jan 2004 10:37:58 AM |
|
|
And so upon Tue, 20 Jan 2004 06:52:07 +0000 didst First Maje speak thusly:
On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 22:18:39 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
Mark, you aren't in Texas, are you?
Uh. Erm. Well. Not *in Texas.
Thank God.
There's enough leftist queers around here as it is.
Yeah. I'm so leftist my first vote in any presidential race was for
Reagan. Damn me for being a commie pinko *****! Hell, I even went and
joined the Libertarian party I'm so leftist!
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
| User: "First Maje" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
21 Jan 2004 08:31:48 AM |
|
|
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:37:58 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
Yeah. I'm so leftist my first vote in any presidential race was for
Reagan. Damn me for being a commie pinko *****! Hell, I even went and
joined the Libertarian party I'm so leftist!
That also makes you a fool.
--
Map Of The Vast Right Wing Conspiracy:
http://home.houston.rr.com/rkba/vrwc.html
"The reason why fighting in academia is so
vicious is because the stakes are so small."
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mark K. Bilbo" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
21 Jan 2004 09:41:47 AM |
|
|
And so upon Wed, 21 Jan 2004 14:31:48 +0000 didst First Maje speak thusly:
On Tue, 20 Jan 2004 10:37:58 -0600, "Mark K. Bilbo"
<y@hoo.com-amikchi> wrote:
Yeah. I'm so leftist my first vote in any presidential race was for
Reagan. Damn me for being a commie pinko *****! Hell, I even went and
joined the Libertarian party I'm so leftist!
That also makes you a fool.
The voting for Reagan part?
--
Mark K. Bilbo - a.a. #1423
EAC Department of Linguistic Subversion
"There is no system but GNU, and Linux is one of its kernels."
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eklund" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
17 Jan 2004 12:53:11 PM |
|
|
"Dorres T" <torresddx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7133c742.0401170857.4a12df7a@posting.google.com...
Why America Hates the democRATs
You're a total *****. You've put up about 15 self righteous posts full
of nothing but hate, mostly accusing others of being hateful.
Hypocrite. Who turns on your computer?
.
|
|
|
| User: "DemKooksOnParade" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
17 Jan 2004 01:07:35 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eklund" <fangchild398@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:buc0ah$f6ro0$1@ID-15498.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Dorres T" <torresddx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7133c742.0401170857.4a12df7a@posting.google.com...
Why America Hates the democRATs
You're a total *****.
So's your mother, Lars!
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lars Eklund" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
17 Jan 2004 01:09:22 PM |
|
|
"DemKooksOnParade" <DemsGoing@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:XJfOb.75327$5V2.86616@attbi_s53...
"Lars Eklund" <fangchild398@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:buc0ah$f6ro0$1@ID-15498.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Dorres T" <torresddx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7133c742.0401170857.4a12df7a@posting.google.com...
Why America Hates the democRATs
You're a total *****.
So's your mother, Lars!
Man, with mean words like that, you must be real trouble during recess.
.
|
|
|
| User: "DemKooksOnParade" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
17 Jan 2004 01:13:23 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eklund" <fangchild398@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:buc18r$fjgln$1@ID-15498.news.uni-berlin.de...
"DemKooksOnParade" <DemsGoing@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:XJfOb.75327$5V2.86616@attbi_s53...
"Lars Eklund" <fangchild398@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:buc0ah$f6ro0$1@ID-15498.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Dorres T" <torresddx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7133c742.0401170857.4a12df7a@posting.google.com...
Why America Hates the democRATs
You're a total *****.
So's your mother, Lars!
Man, with mean words like that, you must be real trouble during recess.
You're a total *****, Lars!
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "I Think..Therefore I Am Clayton" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
17 Jan 2004 05:41:08 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eklund" <fangchild398@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:buc0ah$f6ro0$1@ID-15498.news.uni-berlin.de...
"Dorres T" <torresddx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7133c742.0401170857.4a12df7a@posting.google.com...
Why America Hates the democRATs
You're a total *****. You've put up about 15 self righteous posts full
of nothing but hate, mostly accusing others of being hateful.
Hypocrite. Who turns on your computer?
Actually, considering he changes his identity every day to avoid killfiles,
he's posted well over 100 in the last couple of weeks. He's a seriously
mentally deranged scum bag, who obviously has nothing worthwhile to
contribute to society, so he spends all day, every day spewing his hateful
garbage against those that don't share his own fascist beliefs.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Mr. N" |
|
| Title: Re: Why America Hates the democRATs! |
17 Jan 2004 01:28:15 PM |
|
|
"Lars Eklund" <fangchild398@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:buc0ah$f6ro0$1@ID-15498.news.uni-berlin.de...
You're a total *****. You've put up about 15 self righteous posts full
of nothing but hate, mostly accusing others of being hateful.
Oh, how wrong you are.
He's posted far more than that, and under several different names each day.
He is of course unaware of the degree to which he's helping the Democrats
win the White House this year. So I say - keep 'em coming, "Liberals Hate
America".
--
-My Real Name
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
