golf-forums.net Promoting golf discussion.

Main Date: 31 Oct 2006 10:24:36 From: larry Subject: Kerry Screws the Dems WASHINGTON — The White House accused Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of troop-bashing, seizing on a comment the Democrat made to California students that those unable to navigate the country's education system"get stuck in Iraq." "Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but also to the families of those who've given their lives in this,"White House press secretary Tony Snow said."This is an absolute insult." Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran and Bush's rival in 2004, fired back, saying the president and his administration are the ones who owe U.S. troops an apology because they"misled America into war and have given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of defeating it." "This is the classic GOP playbook,"Kerry said in a harshly worded statement."I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in war, but love to attack those who did. I'm not going to be lectured by a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium." Snow was asked about the comment which Kerry made during a campaign rally Monday for California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil Angelides. The White House spokesman was clearly ready, consulting his notes to read a fuller account of Kerry's statement and unleashing a sharp attack. The Massachusetts senator, who is considering another presidential run in 2008, had opened his speech at Pasadena City College with several one-liners, joking at one point that Bush had lived in Texas but now"lives in a state of denial." Then he said:"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be st, you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." Snow said the quote"fits a pattern"of negative reks from Kerry about U.S. soldiers and suggested that whether Democratic candidates _ particularly those running on their military service backgrounds _ agree with their 2004 standard-bearer should be a campaign litmus test. Unsubstantiated allegations about Kerry's Vietnam War heroism from a group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth figured prominently in the 2004 Kerry-Bush race. Even Kerry has blamed his slow and uncertain response to the group's claims for helping doom his White House chances. Snow said a lot of Americans have joined the military since the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks. "As for the notion that you can say this sort of thing about the troops and say you support them, it's interesting,"the press secretary said. A potential rival to Kerry in 2008 _ Republican Sen. John McCain _ said in a statement that Kerry"owes an apology to the many thousands of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country's call because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their education." Like Kerry, McCain is a decorated Vietnam veteran. House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, also called on Kerry to apologize, labeling his comments"disrespectful and insulting to the men and women serving in our military." ___   Date: 06 Nov 2006 09:22:05 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems larry wrote: > On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:22:38 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net> > wrote: > > >larry wrote: > >> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:24:33 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net> > >> wrote: > >> > >> > >>>larry wrote: > >>> > >>>>On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:40:31 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net> > >>>>wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>>larry wrote: > >>>>> > >>>>> > >>>>>>But Bush has both a higher IQ and earned a higher GPA as an > >>>>>>undergraduate than either Kerry or Gore. Bush earned a Master's > >>>>>>degree in among the most rigorous programs. Both Gore and Kerry were > >>>>>>apparently unable to hack master level college work. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>And every day either Gore or Kerry says something that reveals he is > >>>>>>not very bright. The present flap is a good example. Kerry may cost > >>>>>>the Democrats their narrow victory in the 2006 midterm elections. > >>>>>> > >>>>>>Larry > >>>>> > >>>>>The IQ part has to be total BS. How about citing a source for that? > >>>>>C'mon ... fess up ... you totally made that up, right? > >>>>> > >>>>>I found several articles that state Bush has "no IQ data available". But > >>>>>Gore's is acknowledged as 133, and his SAT scores are substantially > >>>>>higher than Bush. > >>>>> > >>>>>Rob > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>These numbers are everywhere out there, you can find them. Bush's IQ > >>>>and military GCT scores are high medium. And also higher than Gore's > >>>>and Kerry's- > >>>> > >>>>Larry > >>>> > >>> > >>>Nice attempt at a sidestep. Since Bush's IQ is "everywhere", then you > >>>won't mind posting an actual link? > >>> > >>>There's lots of estimates based on SAT scores, which are lower than > >>>Gore's. Not that a very high IQ is that important as a qualification ... > >>>but just a nice example of your posting bogus "facts". C'mon, admit it > >>>... you made that up. > >>> > >>>Rob > >> > >> > >> http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm > >> > >> I know from my own military experience that the military ensures > >> sufficient IQ with testing before they allow someone to undertake > >> difficult training--such as jet pilot training. Likely the USAF knew > >> Bush could hack it before he was allowed to enter that VERY rigorous > >> training. Over half who try wash out, Bush handled it easily and > >> flew 500+ hours in F102. Before that he had achieved a Harvard MBA, > >> reputedly one of the most rigorous courses in any college. GW Bush > >> is ster than either Gore or Kerry. > >> > >> Larry > > > >Thanks for proving my point. To quote the article you linked ... "no IQ > >data are available for George W. Bush". So the part you wrote about > >"Bush has a higher IQ [than] either Kerry or Gore" was just made up, > >right? In fact, that article goes on to say that Gore probably has the > >higer IQ. > > That was written in 2000, since then we have learned from their > respective behavior that Gore is a total buffoon and there is no need > to recount the episodes that expose Kerry's mentality. > > GW Bush got dealt among the most difficult 8 year periods in US > History to be President. He had to start with a debilitated > Intelligence community, a dispirited military, and an economy in > recession. Then he got hit with the largest attack on the US since > Pearl Harbor-- and a continuing siege against the West (priily the > US) by Radical Islam-- in their "1000 year war" on non-believers. He > believed he was obliged to bring down Saddam in Iraq in order to stop > attacks from there on Israel and soon on the US. > > Despite all that, he brought the US Economy out of recession and today > we have low inflation, high employment, and better growth than anytime > in the last 30 years. GW Bush has been a great president in the most > difficult possible time. History will remember him as a great in > Lincoln's class. (who, BTW, was down to 10% popularity during the > Civil War.) > > Larry Ten percent during the Civil War? Acording to whom? Gallup? Roper? Zogby?     Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:23:28 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162833725.080848.166600@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > larry wrote: > > On Thu, 02 Nov 2006 00:22:38 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net> > > wrote: > > > > >larry wrote: > > >> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 20:24:33 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net> > > >> wrote: > > >> > > >> > > >>>larry wrote: > > >>> > > >>>>On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 18:40:31 GMT, Rob Davis <davis.rob@verizon.net> > > >>>>wrote: > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>>larry wrote: > > >>>>> > > >>>>> > > >>>>>>But Bush has both a higher IQ and earned a higher GPA as an > > >>>>>>undergraduate than either Kerry or Gore. Bush earned a Master's > > >>>>>>degree in among the most rigorous programs. Both Gore and Kerry > > >>>>>>were > > >>>>>>apparently unable to hack master level college work. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>And every day either Gore or Kerry says something that reveals he is > > >>>>>>not very bright. The present flap is a good example. Kerry may cost > > >>>>>>the Democrats their narrow victory in the 2006 midterm elections. > > >>>>>> > > >>>>>>Larry > > >>>>> > > >>>>>The IQ part has to be total BS. How about citing a source for that? > > >>>>>C'mon ... fess up ... you totally made that up, right? > > >>>>> > > >>>>>I found several articles that state Bush has "no IQ data available". > > >>>>>But > > >>>>>Gore's is acknowledged as 133, and his SAT scores are substantially > > >>>>>higher than Bush. > > >>>>> > > >>>>>Rob > > >>>> > > >>>> > > >>>>These numbers are everywhere out there, you can find them. Bush's IQ > > >>>>and military GCT scores are high medium. And also higher than Gore's > > >>>>and Kerry's- > > >>>> > > >>>>Larry > > >>>> > > >>> > > >>>Nice attempt at a sidestep. Since Bush's IQ is "everywhere", then you > > >>>won't mind posting an actual link? > > >>> > > >>>There's lots of estimates based on SAT scores, which are lower than > > >>>Gore's. Not that a very high IQ is that important as a qualification ... > > >>>but just a nice example of your posting bogus "facts". C'mon, admit it > > >>>... you made that up. > > >>> > > >>>Rob > > >> > > >> > > >> http://www.csbsju.edu/uspp/Election/bush011401.htm > > >> > > >> I know from my own military experience that the military ensures > > >> sufficient IQ with testing before they allow someone to undertake > > >> difficult training--such as jet pilot training. Likely the USAF knew > > >> Bush could hack it before he was allowed to enter that VERY rigorous > > >> training. Over half who try wash out, Bush handled it easily and > > >> flew 500+ hours in F102. Before that he had achieved a Harvard MBA, > > >> reputedly one of the most rigorous courses in any college. GW Bush > > >> is ster than either Gore or Kerry. > > >> > > >> Larry > > > > > >Thanks for proving my point. To quote the article you linked ... "no IQ > > >data are available for George W. Bush". So the part you wrote about > > >"Bush has a higher IQ [than] either Kerry or Gore" was just made up, > > >right? In fact, that article goes on to say that Gore probably has the > > >higer IQ. > > > > That was written in 2000, since then we have learned from their > > respective behavior that Gore is a total buffoon and there is no need > > to recount the episodes that expose Kerry's mentality. > > > > GW Bush got dealt among the most difficult 8 year periods in US > > History to be President. He had to start with a debilitated > > Intelligence community, a dispirited military, and an economy in > > recession. Then he got hit with the largest attack on the US since > > Pearl Harbor-- and a continuing siege against the West (priily the > > US) by Radical Islam-- in their "1000 year war" on non-believers. He > > believed he was obliged to bring down Saddam in Iraq in order to stop > > attacks from there on Israel and soon on the US. > > > > Despite all that, he brought the US Economy out of recession and today > > we have low inflation, high employment, and better growth than anytime > > in the last 30 years. GW Bush has been a great president in the most > > difficult possible time. History will remember him as a great in > > Lincoln's class. (who, BTW, was down to 10% popularity during the > > Civil War.) > > > > Larry > > > Ten percent during the Civil War? Acording to whom? Gallup? Roper? > Zogby? Yep, that polling was difficult what with the modern horse and all, you know? Wonder if they came during dinner? ;-)   Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:14:36 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "John B." wrote: > Robert Hamilton wrote: > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > > > In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > "John B." wrote: > > > > > > > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > > > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > > > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > > > > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > > > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > > > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > > > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > > > > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > > > > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > > > > > public life. > > > > > > > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on it. > > > > Coulter is > > > > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and others. > > > > Even here, > > > > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than anything Ann > > > > Coulter says. > > > > The problem with the left in the US is that they will not tolerate any > > > > dissent on their > > > > views. They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices opposing views; even > > > > though almost > > > > all their policies failed. Conservatives don't heckle Patty Sheehan off the > > > > stage, or > > > > disrupt convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were speakers; but we > > > > know what > > > > liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; someone else has to > > > > commit the > > > > acts she comments on. > > > > > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. Liberals will toerate no dissent, therefore people like Ann Coulter and > > Condolezza Rice *MUST* be prevented from speaking freely to the public. > > Are you going for the record for the most preposterous statement of the > year? If so, you've got a good shot with this one. "Liberals wll > tolerate no dissent." ***Delete obscene language***** CENSORSHIP!!!! That's it. Liberals will tolerate no dissent. That's a fact of US politics, IMHO.     Date: 05 Nov 2006 19:12:43 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <454E1A18.12226325@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote: > > Are you going for the record for the most preposterous statement of the > > year? If so, you've got a good shot with this one. "Liberals wll > > tolerate no dissent." ***Delete obscene language***** CENSORSHIP!!!! > > That's it. Liberals will tolerate no dissent. That's a fact of US politics, > IMHO. Sure sounds like you will tolerate no dissent on this.   Date: 05 Nov 2006 08:04:23 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Robert Hamilton wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > wrote: > > > > > "John B." wrote: > > > > > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > > > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > > > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > > > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > > > > public life. > > > > > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on it. > > > Coulter is > > > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and others. > > > Even here, > > > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than anything Ann > > > Coulter says. > > > The problem with the left in the US is that they will not tolerate any > > > dissent on their > > > views. They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices opposing views; even > > > though almost > > > all their policies failed. Conservatives don't heckle Patty Sheehan off the > > > stage, or > > > disrupt convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were speakers; but we > > > know what > > > liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; someone else has to > > > commit the > > > acts she comments on. > > > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > > > > > Exactly. Liberals will toerate no dissent, therefore people like Ann Coulter and > Condolezza Rice *MUST* be prevented from speaking freely to the public. Are you going for the record for the most preposterous statement of the year? If so, you've got a good shot with this one. "Liberals wll tolerate no dissent." Gimme a fucking break.   Date: 05 Nov 2006 07:58:56 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Bert Robbins wrote: > John B. wrote: > > Bert Robbins wrote: > >> John B. wrote: > >>> The_Professor wrote: > >>>> John B. wrote: > >>>>> The_Professor wrote: > >>>>>> John B. wrote: > >>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: > >>>>>>>> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>> news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > >>>>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>>>> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > >>>>>>>>>> little > >>>>>>>>>> like the pot calling the kettle black. > >>>>>>>>> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > >>>>>>>>> don't like? > >>>>>>>>> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > >>>>>>>>> deserves it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > >>>>>>>>>> public. > >>>>>>>>> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > >>>>>>>>>> speaking > >>>>>>>>>> altogether. > >>>>>>>>> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > >>>>>>>>>> A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared > >>>>>>>>>> text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you > >>>>>>>>>> don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end > >>>>>>>>>> up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > >>>>>>>>> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > >>>>>>>>> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > >>>>>>>>> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > >>>>>>>>> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > >>>>>>>>> prepared text. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You pick. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Tex > >>>>>>>> You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry > >>>>>>>> blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling > >>>>>>>> speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest > >>>>>>>> of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the > >>>>>>>> door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > >>>>>>>> cannot possibly be misunderstood. > >>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > >>>>>>> lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > >>>>>>> enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > >>>>>>> Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > >>>>>> Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry > >>>>>> apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this > >>>>>> issue, or is she consistent? > >>>>> She's consistently despicable. > >>>> I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > >>>> whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > >>>> can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > >>>> fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > >>>> deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > >>>> which is at least somewhat despicable. > >>> > >>> Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > >>> liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > >>> could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > >>> bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > >>> public life. > >>> > >> Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the > >> neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent > >> your anger at those obvious bigots too? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Then, you might want to get started, read tomorrow morning's NYT, LAT, > WP and some other left leaning rags. I read the Wash. Post and the NYT this morning. I didn't find anything in either paper that could be compared to Ann Coulter's style of vicious slander. Nothing, for example, that said or even remotely implied, that all conservatives are cowards, morally bankrupt, dishonest, etc. But I'll keep reading and let you know if I come across anything that supports your premise.     Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:21:38 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems John B. wrote: > I read the Wash. Post and the NYT this morning. I didn't find anything > in either paper that could be compared to Ann Coulter's style of > vicious slander. Nothing, for example, that said or even remotely > implied, that all conservatives are cowards, morally bankrupt, > dishonest, etc. But I'll keep reading and let you know if I come > across anything that supports your premise. Newspapers have editorial sections that do not need to be fair and unbiased. The reporting of news/events should however be fair and unbiased and deal in fact and not conjecture. Ann Coulter is not reporting news; she is sharing personal views. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson     Date: 05 Nov 2006 11:28:46 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162742336.854482.113330@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > Bert Robbins wrote: > > John B. wrote: > > > Bert Robbins wrote: > > >> John B. wrote: > > >>> The_Professor wrote: > > >>>> John B. wrote: > > >>>>> The_Professor wrote: > > >>>>>> John B. wrote: > > >>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: > > >>>>>>>> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message > > >>>>>>>> news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > >>>>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: > > >>>>>>>>>> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in > > >>>>>>>>>> sentences, > > >>>>>>>>>> for a > > >>>>>>>>>> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing > > >>>>>>>>>> is a > > >>>>>>>>>> little > > >>>>>>>>>> like the pot calling the kettle black. > > >>>>>>>>> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and > > >>>>>>>>> you > > >>>>>>>>> don't like? > > >>>>>>>>> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > > >>>>>>>>> deserves it. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes > > >>>>>>>>>> in > > >>>>>>>>>> public. > > >>>>>>>>> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see > > >>>>>>>>> below) > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid > > >>>>>>>>>> public > > >>>>>>>>>> speaking > > >>>>>>>>>> altogether. > > >>>>>>>>> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > > >>>>>>>>>> A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's > > >>>>>>>>>> prepared > > >>>>>>>>>> text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up > > >>>>>>>>>> if you > > >>>>>>>>>> don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually > > >>>>>>>>>> lazy? You end > > >>>>>>>>>> up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > > >>>>>>>>> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > > >>>>>>>>> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So > > >>>>>>>>> either, 1) > > >>>>>>>>> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a > > >>>>>>>>> bumbling > > >>>>>>>>> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > > >>>>>>>>> prepared text. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> You pick. > > >>>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>>> Tex > > >>>>>>>> You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that > > >>>>>>>> Kerry > > >>>>>>>> blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, > > >>>>>>>> bumbling > > >>>>>>>> speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, > > >>>>>>>> bumblingest > > >>>>>>>> of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he > > >>>>>>>> left the > > >>>>>>>> door wide open for people like you to call into question his true > > >>>>>>>> meaning. > > >>>>>>>> > > >>>>>>>> I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so > > >>>>>>>> they > > >>>>>>>> cannot possibly be misunderstood. > > >>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > >>>>>>> lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > >>>>>>> enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > >>>>>>> Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > >>>>>>> > > >>>>>>> Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > >>>>>> Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry > > >>>>>> apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this > > >>>>>> issue, or is she consistent? > > >>>>> She's consistently despicable. > > >>>> I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > >>>> whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > >>>> can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > > >>>> fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > >>>> deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > >>>> which is at least somewhat despicable. > > >>> > > >>> Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > >>> liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > > >>> could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > > >>> bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > > >>> public life. > > >>> > > >> Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the > > >> neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent > > >> your anger at those obvious bigots too? > > > > > > > > > Yes. > > > > > > > Then, you might want to get started, read tomorrow morning's NYT, LAT, > > WP and some other left leaning rags. > > I read the Wash. Post and the NYT this morning. I didn't find anything > in either paper that could be compared to Ann Coulter's style of > vicious slander. Nothing, for example, that said or even remotely > implied, that all conservatives are cowards, morally bankrupt, > dishonest, etc. But I'll keep reading and let you know if I come across > anything that supports your premise. Better still, let Bert read them and let us know what treasonous propaganda. William Clark PS: Things that are factually true don't qualify.     Date: 05 Nov 2006 11:09:03 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems John B. wrote: > Bert Robbins wrote: >> John B. wrote: >>> Bert Robbins wrote: >>>> John B. wrote: >>>>> The_Professor wrote: >>>>>> John B. wrote: >>>>>>> The_Professor wrote: >>>>>>>> John B. wrote: >>>>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: >>>>>>>>>> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>> news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, >>>>>>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>>>>>> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a >>>>>>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>>>>>> like the pot calling the kettle black. >>>>>>>>>>> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you >>>>>>>>>>> don't like? >>>>>>>>>>> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he >>>>>>>>>>> deserves it. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in >>>>>>>>>>>> public. >>>>>>>>>>> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public >>>>>>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>>>>>> altogether. >>>>>>>>>>> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: >>>>>>>>>>>> A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared >>>>>>>>>>>> text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you >>>>>>>>>>>> don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end >>>>>>>>>>>> up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." >>>>>>>>>>> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell >>>>>>>>>>> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) >>>>>>>>>>> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling >>>>>>>>>>> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a >>>>>>>>>>> prepared text. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> You pick. >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Tex >>>>>>>>>> You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry >>>>>>>>>> blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling >>>>>>>>>> speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest >>>>>>>>>> of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the >>>>>>>>>> door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they >>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly be misunderstood. >>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The >>>>>>>>> lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, >>>>>>>>> enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. >>>>>>>>> Some will have to die in the support of our cause." >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 >>>>>>>> Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry >>>>>>>> apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this >>>>>>>> issue, or is she consistent? >>>>>>> She's consistently despicable. >>>>>> I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator >>>>>> whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we >>>>>> can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, >>>>>> fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses >>>>>> deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, >>>>>> which is at least somewhat despicable. >>>>> Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL >>>>> liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one >>>>> could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her >>>>> bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from >>>>> public life. >>>>> >>>> Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the >>>> neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent >>>> your anger at those obvious bigots too? >>> >>> Yes. >>> >> Then, you might want to get started, read tomorrow morning's NYT, LAT, >> WP and some other left leaning rags. > > I read the Wash. Post and the NYT this morning. I didn't find anything > in either paper that could be compared to Ann Coulter's style of > vicious slander. Nothing, for example, that said or even remotely > implied, that all conservatives are cowards, morally bankrupt, > dishonest, etc. But I'll keep reading and let you know if I come across > anything that supports your premise. > You are looking for extremes when you should be looking for subtle differences.       Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:15:32 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Bert Robbins wrote: > John B. wrote: > > Bert Robbins wrote: > >> John B. wrote: > >>> Bert Robbins wrote: > >>>> John B. wrote: > >>>>> The_Professor wrote: > >>>>>> John B. wrote: > >>>>>>> The_Professor wrote: > >>>>>>>> John B. wrote: > >>>>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>>>> news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: > >>>>>>>>>>>> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > >>>>>>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>>>>>> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > >>>>>>>>>>>> little > >>>>>>>>>>>> like the pot calling the kettle black. > >>>>>>>>>>> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > >>>>>>>>>>> don't like? > >>>>>>>>>>> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > >>>>>>>>>>> deserves it. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > >>>>>>>>>>>> public. > >>>>>>>>>>> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > >>>>>>>>>>>> speaking > >>>>>>>>>>>> altogether. > >>>>>>>>>>> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > >>>>>>>>>>>> A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared > >>>>>>>>>>>> text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you > >>>>>>>>>>>> don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end > >>>>>>>>>>>> up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > >>>>>>>>>>> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > >>>>>>>>>>> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > >>>>>>>>>>> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > >>>>>>>>>>> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > >>>>>>>>>>> prepared text. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> You pick. > >>>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>>> Tex > >>>>>>>>>> You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry > >>>>>>>>>> blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling > >>>>>>>>>> speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest > >>>>>>>>>> of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the > >>>>>>>>>> door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. > >>>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > >>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly be misunderstood. > >>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > >>>>>>>>> lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > >>>>>>>>> enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > >>>>>>>>> Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > >>>>>>>> Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry > >>>>>>>> apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this > >>>>>>>> issue, or is she consistent? > >>>>>>> She's consistently despicable. > >>>>>> I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > >>>>>> whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > >>>>>> can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > >>>>>> fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > >>>>>> deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > >>>>>> which is at least somewhat despicable. > >>>>> Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > >>>>> liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > >>>>> could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > >>>>> bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > >>>>> public life. > >>>>> > >>>> Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the > >>>> neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent > >>>> your anger at those obvious bigots too? > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> > >> Then, you might want to get started, read tomorrow morning's NYT, LAT, > >> WP and some other left leaning rags. > > > > I read the Wash. Post and the NYT this morning. I didn't find anything > > in either paper that could be compared to Ann Coulter's style of > > vicious slander. Nothing, for example, that said or even remotely > > implied, that all conservatives are cowards, morally bankrupt, > > dishonest, etc. But I'll keep reading and let you know if I come across > > anything that supports your premise. > > > > You are looking for extremes when you should be looking for subtle > differences. Coulter is an individual commentator. The NYT is a newspaper. How about Al Franken?         Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:33:35 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Robert Hamilton wrote: > Coulter is an individual commentator. The NYT is a newspaper. How > about Al Franken? How about Frankenstein? The villagers had no love for him. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson         Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:23:32 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Robert Hamilton wrote: > > Bert Robbins wrote: > >> John B. wrote: >>> Bert Robbins wrote: >>>> John B. wrote: >>>>> Bert Robbins wrote: >>>>>> John B. wrote: >>>>>>> The_Professor wrote: >>>>>>>> John B. wrote: >>>>>>>>> The_Professor wrote: >>>>>>>>>> John B. wrote: >>>>>>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>>>>>> news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, >>>>>>>>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a >>>>>>>>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>>>>>>>> like the pot calling the kettle black. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you >>>>>>>>>>>>> don't like? >>>>>>>>>>>>> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he >>>>>>>>>>>>> deserves it. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in >>>>>>>>>>>>>> public. >>>>>>>>>>>>> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public >>>>>>>>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>>>>>>>> altogether. >>>>>>>>>>>>> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: >>>>>>>>>>>>>> A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared >>>>>>>>>>>>>> text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you >>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end >>>>>>>>>>>>>> up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." >>>>>>>>>>>>> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell >>>>>>>>>>>>> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) >>>>>>>>>>>>> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling >>>>>>>>>>>>> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a >>>>>>>>>>>>> prepared text. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You pick. >>>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Tex >>>>>>>>>>>> You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry >>>>>>>>>>>> blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling >>>>>>>>>>>> speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest >>>>>>>>>>>> of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the >>>>>>>>>>>> door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. >>>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>>> I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they >>>>>>>>>>>> cannot possibly be misunderstood. >>>>>>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The >>>>>>>>>>> lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, >>>>>>>>>>> enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. >>>>>>>>>>> Some will have to die in the support of our cause." >>>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 >>>>>>>>>> Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry >>>>>>>>>> apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this >>>>>>>>>> issue, or is she consistent? >>>>>>>>> She's consistently despicable. >>>>>>>> I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator >>>>>>>> whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we >>>>>>>> can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, >>>>>>>> fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses >>>>>>>> deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, >>>>>>>> which is at least somewhat despicable. >>>>>>> Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL >>>>>>> liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one >>>>>>> could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her >>>>>>> bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from >>>>>>> public life. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the >>>>>> neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent >>>>>> your anger at those obvious bigots too? >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>> Then, you might want to get started, read tomorrow morning's NYT, LAT, >>>> WP and some other left leaning rags. >>> I read the Wash. Post and the NYT this morning. I didn't find anything >>> in either paper that could be compared to Ann Coulter's style of >>> vicious slander. Nothing, for example, that said or even remotely >>> implied, that all conservatives are cowards, morally bankrupt, >>> dishonest, etc. But I'll keep reading and let you know if I come across >>> anything that supports your premise. >>> >> You are looking for extremes when you should be looking for subtle >> differences. > > Coulter is an individual commentator. The NYT is a newspaper. How about Al Franken? Al Franken is a twit and an idiot.           Date: 06 Nov 2006 03:17:46 From: JJK Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Bert Robbins wrote > >> You are looking for extremes when you should be looking for subtle > >> differences. Robert Hamilton wrote: > > Coulter is an individual commentator. The NYT is a newspaper. How about Al Franken? Bert Robbins wrote: > Al Franken is a twit and an idiot. Franken may be a twit to you, but he is not an idiot. You've been looking too long through right wing tinted glasses.   Date: 04 Nov 2006 13:53:06 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Bert Robbins wrote: > John B. wrote: > > The_Professor wrote: > >> John B. wrote: > >>> The_Professor wrote: > >>>> John B. wrote: > >>>>> "R&B" wrote: > >>>>>> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>> news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: > >>>>>>>> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > >>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > >>>>>>>> little > >>>>>>>> like the pot calling the kettle black. > >>>>>>> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > >>>>>>> don't like? > >>>>>>> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > >>>>>>> deserves it. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > >>>>>>>> public. > >>>>>>> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > >>>>>>>> speaking > >>>>>>>> altogether. > >>>>>>> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > >>>>>>>> A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared > >>>>>>>> text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you > >>>>>>>> don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end > >>>>>>>> up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > >>>>>>> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > >>>>>>> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > >>>>>>> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > >>>>>>> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > >>>>>>> prepared text. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> You pick. > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Tex > >>>>>> > >>>>>> You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry > >>>>>> blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling > >>>>>> speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest > >>>>>> of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the > >>>>>> door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. > >>>>>> > >>>>>> I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > >>>>>> cannot possibly be misunderstood. > >>>>> I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > >>>>> > >>>>> "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > >>>>> lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > >>>>> enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > >>>>> Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > >>>>> > >>>>> Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > >>>> Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry > >>>> apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this > >>>> issue, or is she consistent? > >>> She's consistently despicable. > >> I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > >> whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > >> can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > >> fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > >> deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > >> which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > > public life. > > > > Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the > neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent > your anger at those obvious bigots too? Yes.     Date: 04 Nov 2006 18:40:47 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems John B. wrote: > Bert Robbins wrote: >> John B. wrote: >>> The_Professor wrote: >>>> John B. wrote: >>>>> The_Professor wrote: >>>>>> John B. wrote: >>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: >>>>>>>> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>>>> news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: >>>>>>>>>> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, >>>>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>>>> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a >>>>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>>>> like the pot calling the kettle black. >>>>>>>>> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you >>>>>>>>> don't like? >>>>>>>>> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he >>>>>>>>> deserves it. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in >>>>>>>>>> public. >>>>>>>>> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public >>>>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>>>> altogether. >>>>>>>>> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: >>>>>>>>>> A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared >>>>>>>>>> text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you >>>>>>>>>> don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end >>>>>>>>>> up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." >>>>>>>>> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell >>>>>>>>> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) >>>>>>>>> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling >>>>>>>>> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a >>>>>>>>> prepared text. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> You pick. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Tex >>>>>>>> You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry >>>>>>>> blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling >>>>>>>> speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest >>>>>>>> of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the >>>>>>>> door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they >>>>>>>> cannot possibly be misunderstood. >>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The >>>>>>> lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, >>>>>>> enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. >>>>>>> Some will have to die in the support of our cause." >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 >>>>>> Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry >>>>>> apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this >>>>>> issue, or is she consistent? >>>>> She's consistently despicable. >>>> I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator >>>> whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we >>>> can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, >>>> fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses >>>> deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, >>>> which is at least somewhat despicable. >>> >>> Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL >>> liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one >>> could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her >>> bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from >>> public life. >>> >> Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the >> neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent >> your anger at those obvious bigots too? > > > Yes. > Then, you might want to get started, read tomorrow morning's NYT, LAT, WP and some other left leaning rags.       Date: 04 Nov 2006 16:11:15 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <lJudnVH73rOcuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > John B. wrote: > > Bert Robbins wrote: > >> John B. wrote: > >>> The_Professor wrote: > >>>> John B. wrote: > >>>>> The_Professor wrote: > >>>>>> John B. wrote: > >>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: > >>>>>>>> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message > >>>>>>>> news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > >>>>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: > >>>>>>>>>> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in > >>>>>>>>>> sentences, > >>>>>>>>>> for a > >>>>>>>>>> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is > >>>>>>>>>> a > >>>>>>>>>> little > >>>>>>>>>> like the pot calling the kettle black. > >>>>>>>>> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and > >>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>> don't like? > >>>>>>>>> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > >>>>>>>>> deserves it. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > >>>>>>>>>> public. > >>>>>>>>> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > >>>>>>>>>> speaking > >>>>>>>>>> altogether. > >>>>>>>>> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > >>>>>>>>>> A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's > >>>>>>>>>> prepared > >>>>>>>>>> text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if > >>>>>>>>>> you > >>>>>>>>>> don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? > >>>>>>>>>> You end > >>>>>>>>>> up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > >>>>>>>>> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > >>>>>>>>> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, > >>>>>>>>> 1) > >>>>>>>>> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a > >>>>>>>>> bumbling > >>>>>>>>> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > >>>>>>>>> prepared text. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> You pick. > >>>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>>> Tex > >>>>>>>> You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that > >>>>>>>> Kerry > >>>>>>>> blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, > >>>>>>>> bumbling > >>>>>>>> speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, > >>>>>>>> bumblingest > >>>>>>>> of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he > >>>>>>>> left the > >>>>>>>> door wide open for people like you to call into question his true > >>>>>>>> meaning. > >>>>>>>> > >>>>>>>> I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so > >>>>>>>> they > >>>>>>>> cannot possibly be misunderstood. > >>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > >>>>>>> lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > >>>>>>> enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > >>>>>>> Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > >>>>>>> > >>>>>>> Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > >>>>>> Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry > >>>>>> apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this > >>>>>> issue, or is she consistent? > >>>>> She's consistently despicable. > >>>> I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > >>>> whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > >>>> can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > >>>> fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > >>>> deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > >>>> which is at least somewhat despicable. > >>> > >>> Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > >>> liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > >>> could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > >>> bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > >>> public life. > >>> > >> Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the > >> neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent > >> your anger at those obvious bigots too? > > > > > > Yes. > > > > Then, you might want to get started, read tomorrow morning's NYT, LAT, > WP and some other left leaning rags. The idea that these large corporate media outlets are "left leaning" is hilarious.         Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:57:57 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "The World Wide Wade" <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote in message news:waderameyxiii-992C48.16111504112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com... > In article <lJudnVH73rOcuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >> John B. wrote: >> > Bert Robbins wrote: >> >> John B. wrote: >> >>> The_Professor wrote: >> >>>> John B. wrote: >> >>>>> The_Professor wrote: >> >>>>>> John B. wrote: >> >>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: >> >>>>>>>> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message >> >>>>>>>> news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >> >>>>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: >> >>>>>>>>>> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in >> >>>>>>>>>> sentences, >> >>>>>>>>>> for a >> >>>>>>>>>> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing >> >>>>>>>>>> is >> >>>>>>>>>> a >> >>>>>>>>>> little >> >>>>>>>>>> like the pot calling the kettle black. >> >>>>>>>>> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak >> >>>>>>>>> and >> >>>>>>>>> you >> >>>>>>>>> don't like? >> >>>>>>>>> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he >> >>>>>>>>> deserves it. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell >> >>>>>>>>>> jokes in >> >>>>>>>>>> public. >> >>>>>>>>> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see >> >>>>>>>>> below) >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>>> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid >> >>>>>>>>>> public >> >>>>>>>>>> speaking >> >>>>>>>>>> altogether. >> >>>>>>>>> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: >> >>>>>>>>>> A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the >> >>>>>>>>>> senator's >> >>>>>>>>>> prepared >> >>>>>>>>>> text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up >> >>>>>>>>>> if >> >>>>>>>>>> you >> >>>>>>>>>> don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually >> >>>>>>>>>> lazy? >> >>>>>>>>>> You end >> >>>>>>>>>> up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President >> >>>>>>>>>> Bush." >> >>>>>>>>> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib >> >>>>>>>>> hell >> >>>>>>>>> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So >> >>>>>>>>> either, >> >>>>>>>>> 1) >> >>>>>>>>> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a >> >>>>>>>>> bumbling >> >>>>>>>>> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a >> >>>>>>>>> prepared text. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> You pick. >> >>>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>>> Tex >> >>>>>>>> You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit >> >>>>>>>> that >> >>>>>>>> Kerry >> >>>>>>>> blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, >> >>>>>>>> bumbling >> >>>>>>>> speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, >> >>>>>>>> bumblingest >> >>>>>>>> of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, >> >>>>>>>> he >> >>>>>>>> left the >> >>>>>>>> door wide open for people like you to call into question his >> >>>>>>>> true >> >>>>>>>> meaning. >> >>>>>>>> >> >>>>>>>> I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, >> >>>>>>>> so >> >>>>>>>> they >> >>>>>>>> cannot possibly be misunderstood. >> >>>>>>> I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The >> >>>>>>> lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, >> >>>>>>> enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. >> >>>>>>> Some will have to die in the support of our cause." >> >>>>>>> >> >>>>>>> Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 >> >>>>>> Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry >> >>>>>> apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this >> >>>>>> issue, or is she consistent? >> >>>>> She's consistently despicable. >> >>>> I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator >> >>>> whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we >> >>>> can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was >> >>>> GRRREAT, >> >>>> fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their >> >>>> spouses >> >>>> deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, >> >>>> which is at least somewhat despicable. >> >>> >> >>> Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL >> >>> liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one >> >>> could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her >> >>> bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from >> >>> public life. >> >>> >> >> Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the >> >> neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent >> >> your anger at those obvious bigots too? >> > >> > >> > Yes. >> > >> >> Then, you might want to get started, read tomorrow morning's NYT, LAT, >> WP and some other left leaning rags. > > The idea that these large corporate media outlets are "left > leaning" is hilarious. But still true.         Date: 04 Nov 2006 20:36:36 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On Sat, 04 Nov 2006 16:11:15 -0800, The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote: >The idea that these large corporate media outlets are "left >leaning" is hilarious. It all depends on your point of view. If you read the Guardian and the Global Policy Forum and watch Link TV, then the mainstream media is well to your right. However, if National Review and the Weekly Standard are your cup of tea, then the mainstream media is to your left. The three major TV networks in the US are left of center. Actually, I have to revise that, because Fox has moved into third place ahead of NBC. So three of the four top TV networks are left of center. Most of the major newspapers in the US are left of center. The one media source that the right has staked out is talk radio. Hollywood is well left of center. American universities are, for the most part, well left of center.         Date: 04 Nov 2006 19:59:21 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article <lJudnVH73rOcuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >> John B. wrote: >>> Bert Robbins wrote: >>>> John B. wrote: >>>>> Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL >>>>> liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one >>>>> could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her >>>>> bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from >>>>> public life. >>>>> >>>> Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the >>>> neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent >>>> your anger at those obvious bigots too? >>> >>> Yes. >>> >> Then, you might want to get started, read tomorrow morning's NYT, LAT, >> WP and some other left leaning rags. > > The idea that these large corporate media outlets are "left > leaning" is hilarious. Do you ever read? Word choice and tone are keys to identifying a biased article. But, if you want to believe that there is no bias right or left in newspapers, periodicals, web sites, radio, or TV you need to climb out of you hole and join the rest of us.           Date: 04 Nov 2006 19:32:05 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <8uSdncURxrf0qtDYnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > In article <lJudnVH73rOcuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > >> John B. wrote: > >>> Bert Robbins wrote: > >>>> John B. wrote: > >>>>> Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > >>>>> liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > >>>>> could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > >>>>> bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > >>>>> public life. > >>>>> > >>>> Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the > >>>> neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent > >>>> your anger at those obvious bigots too? > >>> > >>> Yes. > >>> > >> Then, you might want to get started, read tomorrow morning's NYT, LAT, > >> WP and some other left leaning rags. > > > > The idea that these large corporate media outlets are "left > > leaning" is hilarious. > > Do you ever read? Word choice and tone are keys to identifying a biased > article. > > But, if you want to believe that there is no bias right or left in > newspapers, periodicals, web sites, radio, or TV you need to climb out > of you hole and join the rest of us. You're right, there is a bias. And it shifts from right to left all the time. The mainstream media has for quite some time given Bush a bye. Only recently did it start to shift a bit to the left.             Date: 04 Nov 2006 22:27:00 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <8uSdncURxrf0qtDYnZ2dnUVZ_h6dnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >> The World Wide Wade wrote: >>> In article <lJudnVH73rOcuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: >>> >>>> John B. wrote: >>>>> Bert Robbins wrote: >>>>>> John B. wrote: >>>>>>> Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL >>>>>>> liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one >>>>>>> could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her >>>>>>> bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from >>>>>>> public life. >>>>>>> >>>>>> Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the >>>>>> neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent >>>>>> your anger at those obvious bigots too? >>>>> Yes. >>>>> >>>> Then, you might want to get started, read tomorrow morning's NYT, LAT, >>>> WP and some other left leaning rags. >>> The idea that these large corporate media outlets are "left >>> leaning" is hilarious. >> Do you ever read? Word choice and tone are keys to identifying a biased >> article. >> >> But, if you want to believe that there is no bias right or left in >> newspapers, periodicals, web sites, radio, or TV you need to climb out >> of you hole and join the rest of us. > > You're right, there is a bias. And it shifts from right to left all the > time. The mainstream media has for quite some time given Bush a bye. > Only recently did it start to shift a bit to the left. You have got to be kidding, or blind.   Date: 04 Nov 2006 12:26:27 From: Tex Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems John B. wrote: > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > In article > > <1162564379.943791.4290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > > > > cannot possibly be misunderstood. > > > > > > I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > > > > > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > > > > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > > > I did a Google search and found very little - just a few blogs > > that keep reposting the "Coulter quote", much like you are doing. > > A statement like that would have caused a sensation and there > > would be thousands of hits. I just searched at Intervention > > Magazine and don't get hits on the text you posted. This looks > > like just another internet hoax - a pretty transparent one at > > that. > > > Well, gee, maybe Intervention took it down. Did you ever think of that? Well, gee, did you ever think that maybe they took it down because it was false? Gee, what a concept. Tex     Date: 04 Nov 2006 17:42:39 From: larry Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On 4 Nov 2006 12:26:27 -0800, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com > wrote: > >John B. wrote: >> The World Wide Wade wrote: >> > In article >> > <1162564379.943791.4290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, >> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: >> > >> > > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they >> > > > cannot possibly be misunderstood. >> > > >> > > I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: >> > > >> > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The >> > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, >> > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. >> > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." >> > > >> > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 >> > >> > I did a Google search and found very little - just a few blogs >> > that keep reposting the "Coulter quote", much like you are doing. >> > A statement like that would have caused a sensation and there >> > would be thousands of hits. I just searched at Intervention >> > Magazine and don't get hits on the text you posted. This looks >> > like just another internet hoax - a pretty transparent one at >> > that. >> >> >> Well, gee, maybe Intervention took it down. Did you ever think of that? > >Well, gee, did you ever think that maybe they took it down because it >was false? > >Gee, what a concept. > >Tex Hey Tex, I looked at that long list of posts since I quit Friday afternoon and just gave up and scrolled down to the bottom, saw your name and clicked on it. If I read all of that crap and responded, I would have been unable to play today and shoot 80 again, and then come home and go to Home Depot with my wife and buy a bunch of plants, then have some wine while watching the sunset over our fountain down on the West lawn. I forgot what the RSG nutcases were debating-- what was the big bone of contention again? I vaguely remember starting 3 or 4 threads that of course have been dominating RSG for several days. Waiting for my hot tub to warm up. Shortly I will be in that 103 degree water and watching the liberal media do their evening clown acts. Later larry (KING of RSG)       Date: 08 Nov 2006 05:00:06 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <psfqk2978a2ahjmf1qabd90rb460cf5l3l@4ax.com >, larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > On 4 Nov 2006 12:26:27 -0800, "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > >John B. wrote: > >> The World Wide Wade wrote: > >> > In article > >> > <1162564379.943791.4290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > >> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > >> > > >> > > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so > >> > > > they > >> > > > cannot possibly be misunderstood. > >> > > > >> > > I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > >> > > > >> > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > >> > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > >> > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > >> > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > >> > > > >> > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > >> > > >> > I did a Google search and found very little - just a few blogs > >> > that keep reposting the "Coulter quote", much like you are doing. > >> > A statement like that would have caused a sensation and there > >> > would be thousands of hits. I just searched at Intervention > >> > Magazine and don't get hits on the text you posted. This looks > >> > like just another internet hoax - a pretty transparent one at > >> > that. > >> > >> > >> Well, gee, maybe Intervention took it down. Did you ever think of that? > > > >Well, gee, did you ever think that maybe they took it down because it > >was false? > > > >Gee, what a concept. > > > >Tex > > Hey Tex, > > I looked at that long list of posts since I quit Friday afternoon and > just gave up and scrolled down to the bottom, saw your name and > clicked on it. If I read all of that crap and responded, I would have > been unable to play today and shoot 80 again, and then come home and > go to Home Depot with my wife and buy a bunch of plants, then have > some wine while watching the sunset over our fountain down on the West > lawn. > > I forgot what the RSG nutcases were debating-- what was the big bone > of contention again? I vaguely remember starting 3 or 4 threads that > of course have been dominating RSG for several days. > > Waiting for my hot tub to warm up. Shortly I will be in that 103 > degree water and watching the liberal media do their evening clown > acts. > > Later > > larry (KING of RSG) Uh, oh . . looks like the plumbing has gone out in the trailer park again. William Clark   Date: 04 Nov 2006 19:13:10 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "John B." wrote: > The_Professor wrote: > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > public life. First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on it. Coulter is clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and others. Even here, we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than anything Ann Coulter says. The problem with the left in the US is that they will not tolerate any dissent on their views. They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices opposing views; even though almost all their policies failed. Conservatives don't heckle Patty Sheehan off the stage, or disrupt convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were speakers; but we know what liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; someone else has to commit the acts she comments on.     Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:10:09 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Head Shot wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > I think you are talking about fundamental evangelical christianity, > > which is a long way from rational beliefs that can reconcile the > > existence of some kind of spiritual entity with scientific processes > > going on around us. > > > Well, here is the rub on that one, William. If you ask any Christian or > practicing Jew if the Old Testament is divinely inspired or perhaps even > written by the hand of God through Moses as a vehicle; they will tell you > yes it is. WHAT? ANY Christian will say that? You are out of your mind. Christians hold all sorts of differing views about the Bible. Catholics, who represent the majority of world-wide Christians, do not hold the beliefs that you ascribe to all 1 billion-plus Christians. If something is divine and supernatural; it is not bound by the > single direction of time (an omnipotent being is not constrained by the laws > of the universe). This being would exist at all times simultaneously. > You know, omniscience and all that crap? At any rate; if the Creator was > omniscient and wrote the book then there would be no need for His religion > to be updated all the time to conform to science. So; by default the > moment science found out the Old Testament was full of shit and the > Christian Church updated their beliefs to conform; they actually admitted > the document could not be divine. Organized religion is a great place to > scope out the babes on a Sunday morning. Nothing more or less. > > > -- > ___________________________________________________________ > A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, > I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it > gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas > Jefferson     Date: 04 Nov 2006 18:04:48 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote: > "John B." wrote: > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > > public life. > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on it. > Coulter is > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and others. > Even here, > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than anything Ann > Coulter says. > The problem with the left in the US is that they will not tolerate any > dissent on their > views. They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices opposing views; even > though almost > all their policies failed. Conservatives don't heckle Patty Sheehan off the > stage, or > disrupt convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were speakers; but we > know what > liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; someone else has to > commit the > acts she comments on. Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? William Clark       Date: 05 Nov 2006 02:21:04 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > > > "John B." wrote: > > > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > > > public life. > > > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on it. > > Coulter is > > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and others. > > Even here, > > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than anything Ann > > Coulter says. > > The problem with the left in the US is that they will not tolerate any > > dissent on their > > views. They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices opposing views; even > > though almost > > all their policies failed. Conservatives don't heckle Patty Sheehan off the > > stage, or > > disrupt convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were speakers; but we > > know what > > liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; someone else has to > > commit the > > acts she comments on. > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > Exactly. Liberals will toerate no dissent, therefore people like Ann Coulter and Condolezza Rice *MUST* be prevented from speaking freely to the public.         Date: 04 Nov 2006 22:46:51 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <454D48AD.4D300DC6@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > wrote: > > > > > "John B." wrote: > > > > > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was > > > > > GRRREAT, > > > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > > > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > > > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > > > > public life. > > > > > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on it. > > > Coulter is > > > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and > > > others. > > > Even here, > > > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than anything > > > Ann > > > Coulter says. > > > The problem with the left in the US is that they will not tolerate any > > > dissent on their > > > views. They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices opposing views; even > > > though almost > > > all their policies failed. Conservatives don't heckle Patty Sheehan off > > > the > > > stage, or > > > disrupt convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were speakers; but we > > > know what > > > liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; someone else has > > > to > > > commit the > > > acts she comments on. > > > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > > > > > Exactly. Liberals will toerate no dissent, therefore people like Ann Coulter > and > Condolezza Rice *MUST* be prevented from speaking freely to the public. Now you really ARE joking. William Clark           Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:07:57 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > In article <454D48AD.4D300DC6@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > > > In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > "John B." wrote: > > > > > > > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > > > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > > > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was > > > > > > GRRREAT, > > > > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > > > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > > > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > > > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > > > > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > > > > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > > > > > public life. > > > > > > > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on it. > > > > Coulter is > > > > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and > > > > others. > > > > Even here, > > > > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than anything > > > > Ann > > > > Coulter says. > > > > The problem with the left in the US is that they will not tolerate any > > > > dissent on their > > > > views. They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices opposing views; even > > > > though almost > > > > all their policies failed. Conservatives don't heckle Patty Sheehan off > > > > the > > > > stage, or > > > > disrupt convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were speakers; but we > > > > know what > > > > liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; someone else has > > > > to > > > > commit the > > > > acts she comments on. > > > > > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. Liberals will toerate no dissent, therefore people like Ann Coulter > > and > > Condolezza Rice *MUST* be prevented from speaking freely to the public. > > Now you really ARE joking. Nope. Just making a statement on what I have obserfved. Coulter gets shouted down by liberal fascist nutcases in a New England college campus (Vermont?) and a similar minded group of liberal fascist nutcaes disrupt Rice's speech at the graduation at Boston College. This happens again and again. Extremist nutcases like Chomsky can speak, but we can't have the Minutemen saying anything without the liberal brownshirts out there running them off the stage. The National Socialist Workers Party lives in these people! If you don't like what someone has to say, don't listen. Attacking them like that is not "free speech". Of course you probably see the attacks as "free speech"! How about freedom from speach? Why do people who want to graduate from Boston College *HAVE* to put up with the liberal fascists at graduation? Those brownshirts can hold rallys in other locations, and not be arrested for voicing thier views (which is what free speech is all about). Forcing your views onto others is not free speech.             Date: 05 Nov 2006 11:13:40 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <454E1887.6E060923@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > In article <454D48AD.4D300DC6@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > wrote: > > > > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > > > > > In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > "John B." wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social > > > > > > > commwntator > > > > > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was > > > > > > > GRRREAT, > > > > > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their > > > > > > > spouses > > > > > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those > > > > > > > deaths, > > > > > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > > > > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when > > > > > > one > > > > > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs > > > > > > her > > > > > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized > > > > > > from > > > > > > public life. > > > > > > > > > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on > > > > > it. > > > > > Coulter is > > > > > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and > > > > > others. > > > > > Even here, > > > > > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than > > > > > anything > > > > > Ann > > > > > Coulter says. > > > > > The problem with the left in the US is that they will not tolerate > > > > > any > > > > > dissent on their > > > > > views. They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices opposing views; > > > > > even > > > > > though almost > > > > > all their policies failed. Conservatives don't heckle Patty Sheehan > > > > > off > > > > > the > > > > > stage, or > > > > > disrupt convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were speakers; > > > > > but we > > > > > know what > > > > > liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; someone else > > > > > has > > > > > to > > > > > commit the > > > > > acts she comments on. > > > > > > > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. Liberals will toerate no dissent, therefore people like Ann > > > Coulter > > > and > > > Condolezza Rice *MUST* be prevented from speaking freely to the public. > > > > Now you really ARE joking. > > Nope. Just making a statement on what I have obserfved. Coulter gets shouted > down > by liberal fascist nutcases in a New England college campus (Vermont?) and a > similar minded group of liberal fascist nutcaes disrupt Rice's speech at the > graduation at Boston College. This happens again and again. Extremist > nutcases like > Chomsky can speak, but we can't have the Minutemen saying anything without > the > liberal brownshirts out there running them off the stage. The National > Socialist > Workers Party lives in these people! > > If you don't like what someone has to say, don't listen. Attacking them like > that > is not "free speech". Of course you probably see the attacks as "free > speech"! How > about freedom from speach? Why do people who want to graduate from Boston > College > *HAVE* to put up with the liberal fascists at graduation? Those brownshirts > can > hold rallys in other locations, and not be arrested for voicing thier views > (which > is what free speech is all about). Forcing your views onto others is not free > speech. She specializes in making speeches and writings that present her ideas in the most outlandish ways. It is no wonder that she incites the response she gets. She literally asks for it, and I suspect she is well aware of it and uses it for the publicity those responses get her.               Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:32:55 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Lloyd Parsons wrote: > She specializes in making speeches and writings that present her ideas > in the most outlandish ways. It is no wonder that she incites the > response she gets. She literally asks for it, and I suspect she is > well aware of it and uses it for the publicity those responses get > her. She has not been hired for (or paid for) giving an unbiased reporting of actual events. She is being paid to give her opinion of politics in USA. Folks know up front that her views are extremely conservative; and as such can make the decision up front as to whether or not they want to even hear those views. The few times I have seen her speak on television (Larry King, etc) she was reasonably articulate, had given thought to her position, and did her best job to support her assertions. She was also easy on the eyes. :-) I may or may not agree with her positions on politics; but I do not think she is doing anything illegal or immoral when she shares her views. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                 Date: 05 Nov 2006 11:45:02 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <5fp3h.4512$TX.2161@bignews1.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > She specializes in making speeches and writings that present her ideas > > in the most outlandish ways. It is no wonder that she incites the > > response she gets. She literally asks for it, and I suspect she is > > well aware of it and uses it for the publicity those responses get > > her. > > > She has not been hired for (or paid for) giving an unbiased reporting of > actual events. She is being paid to give her opinion of politics in USA. > Folks know up front that her views are extremely conservative; and as such > can make the decision up front as to whether or not they want to even hear > those views. The few times I have seen her speak on television (Larry > King, etc) she was reasonably articulate, had given thought to her > position, and did her best job to support her assertions. She was also > easy on the eyes. :-) I may or may not agree with her positions on > politics; but I do not think she is doing anything illegal or immoral when > she shares her views. You're right, she isn't doing anything illegal or immoral. But she chooses to present her points in their most inflamed way. It is her way of garnering the attention she gets. I would argue that she is more neocon than conservative, but that doesn't matter. It isn't her ideas it is her presentation of them. That presentation is to elicit a response. That those responses are as out there as her presentation should be expected.                   Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:08:09 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Lloyd Parsons wrote: > You're right, she isn't doing anything illegal or immoral. But she > chooses to present her points in their most inflamed way. It is her > way of garnering the attention she gets. That's her style. Folks know that going in. > I would argue that she is more neocon than conservative, but that > doesn't matter. neocon is an idiotic expression. You might want to refrain from using it unless you just want to inflame people who vote Republican. I could care less; but you are not going to get a lot of Republicans to listen to your views if you spew those comments at them. > It isn't her ideas it is her presentation of them. > That presentation is to elicit a response. That those responses are > as out there as her presentation should be expected. The few times I saw her on TV; I found her presentation to be subdued. Of course; once she said she was a Deadhead I gave her a free pass. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                     Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:13:28 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <nEq3h.6998$GU5.5166@bignews8.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > You're right, she isn't doing anything illegal or immoral. But she > > chooses to present her points in their most inflamed way. It is her > > way of garnering the attention she gets. > > That's her style. Folks know that going in. > Yep, that is right. It is her style to inflame and she's good at it. > > > I would argue that she is more neocon than conservative, but that > > doesn't matter. > > neocon is an idiotic expression. You might want to refrain from using it > unless you just want to inflame people who vote Republican. I could care > less; but you are not going to get a lot of Republicans to listen to your > views if you spew those comments at them. > Lots of Republicans are not happy with what is passing for 'conservatives' these days. You can call them neocons or you can say they are big gov't, big spenders. But it is the same thing. > > > It isn't her ideas it is her presentation of them. > > That presentation is to elicit a response. That those responses are > > as out there as her presentation should be expected. > > The few times I saw her on TV; I found her presentation to be subdued. Of > course; once she said she was a Deadhead I gave her a free pass. Well, there is that. Any Deadhead can't be all wrong! ;-) Watch her on Hannity sometime. She's anything but subdued.                       Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:21:53 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 13:13:28 -0500, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote: >> That's her style. Folks know that going in. >> >Yep, that is right. It is her style to inflame and she's good at it. It sells books.                       Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:37:05 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Lloyd Parsons wrote: > Yep, that is right. It is her style to inflame and she's good at it. She is cute and she is a Deadhead. I give her a free pass. I won't blow $50 on her book; but I am not calling for her to be hung either. > Lots of Republicans are not happy with what is passing for > 'conservatives' these days. You can call them neocons or you can say > they are big gov't, big spenders. But it is the same thing. Most Democrats favor a large government (to support many federally funded social programs) and favor big spending (the social programs and the staff to support them). So are Democrats 'neocon's too? > Well, there is that. Any Deadhead can't be all wrong! ;-) BINGO!!!!! > Watch her on Hannity sometime. She's anything but subdued. Oh God - do I have to watch Sean Hannity? Isn't it enough that Neal Boortz is on the AM radio for my drive into Atlanta? -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                         Date: 05 Nov 2006 16:00:49 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <v3r3h.7013$GU5.1172@bignews8.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > Yep, that is right. It is her style to inflame and she's good at it. > > She is cute and she is a Deadhead. I give her a free pass. I won't blow > $50 on her book; but I am not calling for her to be hung either. > I don't know if I'd count her as cute, but I'd do her. You must realize I'm a bit older and single, so I don't turn down what little comes along these days... ;-) > > > Lots of Republicans are not happy with what is passing for > > 'conservatives' these days. You can call them neocons or you can say > > they are big gov't, big spenders. But it is the same thing. > > Most Democrats favor a large government (to support many federally funded > social programs) and favor big spending (the social programs and the staff > to support them). So are Democrats 'neocon's too? > No, but one difference with the dems and the reps here is the dems usually want to tax to pay for the stuff they spend on. That sure hasn't been the case recently. Instead we've borrowed heavily so our children and grandchildren get to pay that 'deferred tax' that is coming. > > > > Well, there is that. Any Deadhead can't be all wrong! ;-) > > BINGO!!!!! > > > > Watch her on Hannity sometime. She's anything but subdued. > > Oh God - do I have to watch Sean Hannity? Isn't it enough that Neal Boortz > is on the AM radio for my drive into Atlanta? Hey, I like Boortz! I don't agree with him on everything, but he's damn funny. Hannity is tough to take. I mean with him muffling all his words 'cause his nose is so far up the RNC's butt and all...                           Date: 05 Nov 2006 19:30:19 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Lloyd Parsons wrote: > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: >> She is cute and she is a Deadhead. I give her a free pass. I won't >> blow $50 on her book; but I am not calling for her to be hung >> either. >> > I don't know if I'd count her as cute, but I'd do her. You must > realize I'm a bit older and single, so I don't turn down what little > comes along these days... ;-) Our wives don't read this, right? LOL I think she is cute. It's age related to be sure. When I was 20 I wouldn't do her; at 30 I would do her but only after a few beers; and at 40 I would propose just after I shot my load if she didn't ask for a pre-nup. hahahahahah > No, but one difference with the dems and the reps here is the dems > usually want to tax to pay for the stuff they spend on. That sure > hasn't been the case recently. > > Instead we've borrowed heavily so our children and grandchildren get > to pay that 'deferred tax' that is coming. Growing government is bad; no matter how they do it. Republicans and Democrats are the same animal. The last thing left to do is join them and call them the Republictrats and have a one-party presidential election. Then the deal is finally complete and we all have to put the k of the beast on our foreheads and start staring at the sky waiting for the rapture. > Hey, I like Boortz! I don't agree with him on everything, but he's > damn funny. Hannity is tough to take. I mean with him muffling all > his words 'cause his nose is so far up the RNC's butt and all... Boortz is like Hershey chocolate. After a month of it, you don't care if you never see it again. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                             Date: 05 Nov 2006 18:54:07 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <smv3h.4730$U76.1082@bignews5.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > >> She is cute and she is a Deadhead. I give her a free pass. I won't > >> blow $50 on her book; but I am not calling for her to be hung > >> either. > >> > > I don't know if I'd count her as cute, but I'd do her. You must > > realize I'm a bit older and single, so I don't turn down what little > > comes along these days... ;-) > > Our wives don't read this, right? LOL I think she is cute. It's age > related to be sure. When I was 20 I wouldn't do her; at 30 I would do her > but only after a few beers; and at 40 I would propose just after I shot my > load if she didn't ask for a pre-nup. hahahahahah > > > > No, but one difference with the dems and the reps here is the dems > > usually want to tax to pay for the stuff they spend on. That sure > > hasn't been the case recently. > > > > Instead we've borrowed heavily so our children and grandchildren get > > to pay that 'deferred tax' that is coming. > > > Growing government is bad; no matter how they do it. Republicans and > Democrats are the same animal. The last thing left to do is join them and > call them the Republictrats and have a one-party presidential election. > Then the deal is finally complete and we all have to put the k of the > beast on our foreheads and start staring at the sky waiting for the rapture. > > > > > > Hey, I like Boortz! I don't agree with him on everything, but he's > > damn funny. Hannity is tough to take. I mean with him muffling all > > his words 'cause his nose is so far up the RNC's butt and all... > > Boortz is like Hershey chocolate. After a month of it, you don't care if > you never see it again. I think it was Scarborough yesterday that said if we really wanted a change in gov't, we'd give every incumbent their walking papers. I'm all for that, and keep doing it until they get the message that they work for us and not the corporates or themselves. That's the pact they seem to have forgotten in pursuing their 'political careers' BTW, IMO, political career should be an oxymoron, but its not. Much to the disappointment to many of us.               Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:27:56 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Lloyd Parsons wrote: > In article <454E1887.6E060923@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > > > In article <454D48AD.4D300DC6@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > > wrote: > > > > > > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > > > > > > > In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > "John B." wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social > > > > > > > > commwntator > > > > > > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was > > > > > > > > GRRREAT, > > > > > > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their > > > > > > > > spouses > > > > > > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those > > > > > > > > deaths, > > > > > > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > > > > > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs > > > > > > > her > > > > > > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > public life. > > > > > > > > > > > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on > > > > > > it. > > > > > > Coulter is > > > > > > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and > > > > > > others. > > > > > > Even here, > > > > > > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than > > > > > > anything > > > > > > Ann > > > > > > Coulter says. > > > > > > The problem with the left in the US is that they will not tolerate > > > > > > any > > > > > > dissent on their > > > > > > views. They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices opposing views; > > > > > > even > > > > > > though almost > > > > > > all their policies failed. Conservatives don't heckle Patty Sheehan > > > > > > off > > > > > > the > > > > > > stage, or > > > > > > disrupt convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were speakers; > > > > > > but we > > > > > > know what > > > > > > liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; someone else > > > > > > has > > > > > > to > > > > > > commit the > > > > > > acts she comments on. > > > > > > > > > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. Liberals will toerate no dissent, therefore people like Ann > > > > Coulter > > > > and > > > > Condolezza Rice *MUST* be prevented from speaking freely to the public. > > > > > > Now you really ARE joking. > > > > Nope. Just making a statement on what I have obserfved. Coulter gets shouted > > down > > by liberal fascist nutcases in a New England college campus (Vermont?) and a > > similar minded group of liberal fascist nutcaes disrupt Rice's speech at the > > graduation at Boston College. This happens again and again. Extremist > > nutcases like > > Chomsky can speak, but we can't have the Minutemen saying anything without > > the > > liberal brownshirts out there running them off the stage. The National > > Socialist > > Workers Party lives in these people! > > > > If you don't like what someone has to say, don't listen. Attacking them like > > that > > is not "free speech". Of course you probably see the attacks as "free > > speech"! How > > about freedom from speach? Why do people who want to graduate from Boston > > College > > *HAVE* to put up with the liberal fascists at graduation? Those brownshirts > > can > > hold rallys in other locations, and not be arrested for voicing thier views > > (which > > is what free speech is all about). Forcing your views onto others is not free > > speech. > > She specializes in making speeches and writings that present her ideas > in the most outlandish ways. It is no wonder that she incites the > response she gets. She literally asks for it, and I suspect she is well > aware of it and uses it for the publicity those responses get her. I see. She "asks for it". Now there's a rationale that reflects a high moral and ethical standard!                 Date: 05 Nov 2006 11:41:37 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <454E1D37.BFA21544@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote: > Lloyd Parsons wrote: > > > In article <454E1887.6E060923@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > wrote: > > > > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > > > > > In article <454D48AD.4D300DC6@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net>, Robert Hamilton > > > > > > <DBID@att.net> > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > "John B." wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social > > > > > > > > > commwntator > > > > > > > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame > > > > > > > > > that > > > > > > > > > we > > > > > > > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was > > > > > > > > > GRRREAT, > > > > > > > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their > > > > > > > > > spouses > > > > > > > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those > > > > > > > > > deaths, > > > > > > > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- > > > > > > > > ALL > > > > > > > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, > > > > > > > > when > > > > > > > > one > > > > > > > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who > > > > > > > > directs > > > > > > > > her > > > > > > > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being > > > > > > > > ostracized > > > > > > > > from > > > > > > > > public life. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment > > > > > > > on > > > > > > > it. > > > > > > > Coulter is > > > > > > > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn > > > > > > > and > > > > > > > others. > > > > > > > Even here, > > > > > > > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than > > > > > > > anything > > > > > > > Ann > > > > > > > Coulter says. > > > > > > > The problem with the left in the US is that they will not > > > > > > > tolerate > > > > > > > any > > > > > > > dissent on their > > > > > > > views. They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices opposing > > > > > > > views; > > > > > > > even > > > > > > > though almost > > > > > > > all their policies failed. Conservatives don't heckle Patty > > > > > > > Sheehan > > > > > > > off > > > > > > > the > > > > > > > stage, or > > > > > > > disrupt convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were > > > > > > > speakers; > > > > > > > but we > > > > > > > know what > > > > > > > liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; someone > > > > > > > else > > > > > > > has > > > > > > > to > > > > > > > commit the > > > > > > > acts she comments on. > > > > > > > > > > > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Exactly. Liberals will toerate no dissent, therefore people like Ann > > > > > Coulter > > > > > and > > > > > Condolezza Rice *MUST* be prevented from speaking freely to the > > > > > public. > > > > > > > > Now you really ARE joking. > > > > > > Nope. Just making a statement on what I have obserfved. Coulter gets > > > shouted > > > down > > > by liberal fascist nutcases in a New England college campus (Vermont?) > > > and a > > > similar minded group of liberal fascist nutcaes disrupt Rice's speech at > > > the > > > graduation at Boston College. This happens again and again. Extremist > > > nutcases like > > > Chomsky can speak, but we can't have the Minutemen saying anything > > > without > > > the > > > liberal brownshirts out there running them off the stage. The National > > > Socialist > > > Workers Party lives in these people! > > > > > > If you don't like what someone has to say, don't listen. Attacking them > > > like > > > that > > > is not "free speech". Of course you probably see the attacks as "free > > > speech"! How > > > about freedom from speach? Why do people who want to graduate from Boston > > > College > > > *HAVE* to put up with the liberal fascists at graduation? Those > > > brownshirts > > > can > > > hold rallys in other locations, and not be arrested for voicing thier > > > views > > > (which > > > is what free speech is all about). Forcing your views onto others is not > > > free > > > speech. > > > > She specializes in making speeches and writings that present her ideas > > in the most outlandish ways. It is no wonder that she incites the > > response she gets. She literally asks for it, and I suspect she is well > > aware of it and uses it for the publicity those responses get her. > > I see. She "asks for it". Now there's a rationale that reflects a high moral > and > ethical standard! She gets the response she elicits. Whether you like that or not doesn't change it. She could make her points effectively with less inflammatory rhetoric, she chooses not to. Then she and her talk-show buddies can all cry about how picked on she is. It's phony, but it is effective. Personally I think most of her opinions are a bit out there and suspect if she was less inflammatory in her presentation of them, she would be a nothing in the business.       Date: 04 Nov 2006 18:42:03 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes?         Date: 06 Nov 2006 12:39:41 From: Ken Meltzer Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems John B. wrote: > Please explain what polling information Karl Rove has that is not > available to the public, and that significantly differs from > information that is available to the public. Is the CIA doing polling > now? When the voting machines are rigged, you don't need polling information. (;-) Best, Ken         Date: 06 Nov 2006 12:36:07 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems larryrsf wrote: > On Nov 6, 8:13 am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote: > > In article <1162831977.356023.26...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > "larryrsf" <l...@deldata.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 6, 8:10 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:09:24 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a > > > > >> science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or > > > > >> non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the > > > > >> discussion at all. > > > > > > >Maybe, but you will miss a major issue if you don't.I'm not missing a > > > > >major issue. I'm just saying that a science > > > > classroom is not the place to discuss it. There are plenty of other > > > > forums in a university to discuss religion and philosophy. Before > > > > then, I'd leave it up to parents to provide whatever religious > > > > instruction to their children that they see fit. > > > > > Lets get back to "Kerry Screws the Dems. " > > > > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been > > > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging > > > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate > > > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses. > > > > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions > > > have already voted. Many others will vote tomorrow, but are > > > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and > > > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home' > > > in waves. > > > > > I would love to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by the > > > liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius didn't > > > get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he knows. > > > > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully > > > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It > > > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly ever > > > wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash rash > > > expectations. > > > > > LarryYou've got links to your wild conjecture, I'm sure. > > > > Post them right here ---> > > > > Tightening has occured and I expected it. Right now, the big question > > is how many will vote. Off-year elections typically have low turnout, I > > expect this one will to. > > > > For the repugs, the question is the Christian right. Will they come out > > to vote? Most indications are that it is likely, but not assured, that > > they will sit this one out. That doesn't bode well for the repugs. > > > > For my area, the repugs don't ever do well with a minor exception for > > the district to the west of me. Shimkus, who promised to not run again > > during the 'contract for America' time, is now in the 'contract on > > America' group and has run again. > > > > For me, a new vote because I really cannot tolerate the usuals in the > > governors race, I'll vote the Green candidate Whitney. I don't even > > like the Green party.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - > > Suffice it to say that Karl Rove has access to information that is not > public Please explain what polling information Karl Rove has that is not available to the public, and that significantly differs from information that is available to the public. Is the CIA doing polling now? -- and he has been smiling and telling the President that we will > retain both House and Senate majorities. Good enough for me. When > someone has been 100% right for 4 major elections in a row, he has > credibility with me. Now the poll internals are starting to reveal > what he knows-- > > Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and NBC (and the others) tomorrow > evening--as that Sh---eating smile is wiped off Chris Mathews and Tim > Russerts' partisan faces. They are going to be forced to preside over > the demise of the democratic party-- which after this humiliating > defeat will retreat to the wilderness for 20+ years! If they can't > win this year, with all the advantages-they can never win. They can > take Clinton and Kerry and Gore with them. > > We are starting to hear "very nervous" statements from the James > Carvilles-- they must be writhing with this news. They were crowing > and dancing in the endzone only a week ago. > > larry           Date: 06 Nov 2006 16:20:49 From: larry Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On 6 Nov 2006 12:36:07 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: >Please explain what polling information Karl Rove has that is not >available to the public, and that significantly differs from >information that is available to the public. Is the CIA doing polling >now? Maybe he will tell us tomorrow after the Republicans kick butt again--and Karl is sworn in as the best political Guru of all time. However, Karl may be retiring with Bush-- and thus doing no more campaigns. Undoubtedly if he pulls this off in 2006 he will be able to command millions for any campaign, anytime, anywhere. The guy is good! Larry         Date: 06 Nov 2006 10:51:48 From: larryrsf Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On Nov 6, 8:13 am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com > wrote: > In article <1162831977.356023.26...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > "larryrsf" <l...@deldata.com> wrote: > > On Nov 6, 8:10 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: > > > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:09:24 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> > > > wrote: > > > > >> The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a > > > >> science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or > > > >> non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the > > > >> discussion at all. > > > > >Maybe, but you will miss a major issue if you don't.I'm not missing a > > > >major issue. I'm just saying that a science > > > classroom is not the place to discuss it. There are plenty of other > > > forums in a university to discuss religion and philosophy. Before > > > then, I'd leave it up to parents to provide whatever religious > > > instruction to their children that they see fit. > > > Lets get back to "Kerry Screws the Dems. " > > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been > > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging > > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate > > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses. > > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions > > have already voted. Many others will vote tomorrow, but are > > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and > > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home' > > in waves. > > > I would love to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by the > > liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius didn't > > get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he knows. > > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully > > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It > > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly ever > > wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash rash > > expectations. > > > LarryYou've got links to your wild conjecture, I'm sure. > > Post them right here ---> > > Tightening has occured and I expected it. Right now, the big question > is how many will vote. Off-year elections typically have low turnout, I > expect this one will to. > > For the repugs, the question is the Christian right. Will they come out > to vote? Most indications are that it is likely, but not assured, that > they will sit this one out. That doesn't bode well for the repugs. > > For my area, the repugs don't ever do well with a minor exception for > the district to the west of me. Shimkus, who promised to not run again > during the 'contract for America' time, is now in the 'contract on > America' group and has run again. > > For me, a new vote because I really cannot tolerate the usuals in the > governors race, I'll vote the Green candidate Whitney. I don't even > like the Green party.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - Suffice it to say that Karl Rove has access to information that is not public-- and he has been smiling and telling the President that we will retain both House and Senate majorities. Good enough for me. When someone has been 100% right for 4 major elections in a row, he has credibility with me. Now the poll internals are starting to reveal what he knows-- Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and NBC (and the others) tomorrow evening--as that Sh---eating smile is wiped off Chris Mathews and Tim Russerts' partisan faces. They are going to be forced to preside over the demise of the democratic party-- which after this humiliating defeat will retreat to the wilderness for 20+ years! If they can't win this year, with all the advantages-they can never win. They can take Clinton and Kerry and Gore with them. We are starting to hear "very nervous" statements from the James Carvilles-- they must be writhing with this news. They were crowing and dancing in the endzone only a week ago. larry           Date: 08 Nov 2006 05:08:29 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162839108.817074.54220@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > On Nov 6, 8:13 am, Lloyd Parsons <lloydpars...@mac.com> wrote: > > In article <1162831977.356023.26...@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > "larryrsf" <l...@deldata.com> wrote: > > > On Nov 6, 8:10 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: > > > > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:09:24 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> > > > > wrote: > > > > > > >> The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a > > > > >> science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or > > > > >> non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the > > > > >> discussion at all. > > > > > > >Maybe, but you will miss a major issue if you don't.I'm not missing a > > > > >major issue. I'm just saying that a science > > > > classroom is not the place to discuss it. There are plenty of other > > > > forums in a university to discuss religion and philosophy. Before > > > > then, I'd leave it up to parents to provide whatever religious > > > > instruction to their children that they see fit. > > > > > Lets get back to "Kerry Screws the Dems. " > > > > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been > > > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging > > > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate > > > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses. > > > > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions > > > have already voted. Many others will vote tomorrow, but are > > > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and > > > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home' > > > in waves. > > > > > I would love to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by the > > > liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius didn't > > > get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he knows. > > > > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully > > > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It > > > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly ever > > > wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash rash > > > expectations. > > > > > LarryYou've got links to your wild conjecture, I'm sure. > > > > Post them right here ---> > > > > Tightening has occured and I expected it. Right now, the big question > > is how many will vote. Off-year elections typically have low turnout, I > > expect this one will to. > > > > For the repugs, the question is the Christian right. Will they come out > > to vote? Most indications are that it is likely, but not assured, that > > they will sit this one out. That doesn't bode well for the repugs. > > > > For my area, the repugs don't ever do well with a minor exception for > > the district to the west of me. Shimkus, who promised to not run again > > during the 'contract for America' time, is now in the 'contract on > > America' group and has run again. > > > > For me, a new vote because I really cannot tolerate the usuals in the > > governors race, I'll vote the Green candidate Whitney. I don't even > > like the Green party.- Hide quoted text -- Show quoted text - > > Suffice it to say that Karl Rove has access to information that is not > public-- and he has been smiling and telling the President that we will > retain both House and Senate majorities. Good enough for me. When > someone has been 100% right for 4 major elections in a row, he has > credibility with me. Now the poll internals are starting to reveal > what he knows-- Which apparently isn't very much. No rabbits for Karl in this particular hat - even the christian right can't save him. > > Gonna be fun watching MSNBC and NBC (and the others) tomorrow > evening--as that Sh---eating smile is wiped off Chris Mathews and Tim > Russerts' partisan faces. They are going to be forced to preside over > the demise of the democratic party-- which after this humiliating > defeat will retreat to the wilderness for 20+ years! If they can't > win this year, with all the advantages-they can never win. They can > take Clinton and Kerry and Gore with them. Funny, when I saw Russert and Matthews this evening , they had grins a mile wide. And Russert had that funny little whiteboard thing that had lots of Democratic gains all over it. > > We are starting to hear "very nervous" statements from the James > Carvilles-- they must be writhing with this news. They were crowing > and dancing in the endzone only a week ago. > > larry Yes, but that was merely a rehearsal for what they are doing tonight. William Clark           Date: 06 Nov 2006 20:10:51 From: Alan Murphy Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote in message news:1162839108.817074.54220@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... > > Suffice it to say that Karl Rove has access to information that is not > public-- and he has been smiling and telling the President that we will > retain both House and Senate majorities. Good enough for me. When > someone has been 100% right for 4 major elections in a row, he has > credibility with me. Now the poll internals are starting to reveal > what he knows-- > > larry > As Joe Stalin used to say: It's not who votes that counts but who counts the votes. Alan             Date: 06 Nov 2006 15:19:16 From: sfb Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Interesting quote totally off point since nobody in the federal government counts any votes. Save us any bullshit about Republicans miscounting votes as there many counties in the US in firm control of the Democrats including the three south Florida counties with the hanging chad problems in 2000. "Alan Murphy" <afmccl@btinternet.com > wrote in message news:_6idnRgjsN0gC9LYnZ2dneKdnZydnZ2d@bt.com... > "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com> wrote in message > news:1162839108.817074.54220@h54g2000cwb.googlegroups.com... >> >> Suffice it to say that Karl Rove has access to information that is not >> public-- and he has been smiling and telling the President that we will >> retain both House and Senate majorities. Good enough for me. When >> someone has been 100% right for 4 major elections in a row, he has >> credibility with me. Now the poll internals are starting to reveal >> what he knows-- >> >> larry >> > As Joe Stalin used to say: It's not who votes that > counts but who counts the votes. > > Alan >               Date: 06 Nov 2006 21:01:21 From: Alan Murphy Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "sfb" <sfb@spam.net > wrote in message news:7-idnUfcVKRZBdLYnZ2dnUVZ_oudnZ2d@comcast.com... > Interesting quote totally off point since nobody in the federal > government counts any votes. > > Save us any bullshit about Republicans miscounting votes as there many > counties in the US in firm control of the Democrats including the three > south Florida counties with the hanging chad problems in 2000. > Both top-posted and incoherent. Must be a repug. Alan         Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:52:57 From: larryrsf Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On Nov 6, 8:10 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com > wrote: > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:09:24 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> > wrote: > > >> The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a > >> science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or > >> non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the > >> discussion at all. > > >Maybe, but you will miss a major issue if you don't.I'm not missing a major issue. I'm just saying that a science > classroom is not the place to discuss it. There are plenty of other > forums in a university to discuss religion and philosophy. Before > then, I'd leave it up to parents to provide whatever religious > instruction to their children that they see fit. Lets get back to "Kerry Screws the Dems. " It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses. And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions have already voted. Many others will vote tomorrow, but are Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home' in waves. I would love to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by the liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius didn't get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he knows. Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly ever wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash rash expectations. Larry           Date: 08 Nov 2006 05:05:55 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162831977.356023.26920@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > On Nov 6, 8:10 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:09:24 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> > > wrote: > > > > >> The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a > > >> science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or > > >> non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the > > >> discussion at all. > > > > >Maybe, but you will miss a major issue if you don't.I'm not missing a > > >major issue. I'm just saying that a science > > classroom is not the place to discuss it. There are plenty of other > > forums in a university to discuss religion and philosophy. Before > > then, I'd leave it up to parents to provide whatever religious > > instruction to their children that they see fit. > > > Lets get back to "Kerry Screws the Dems. " > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses. WRONG!!!!! Wrong, on all counts. > > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions > have already voted. Many others will vote tomorrow, but are > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home' > in waves. WRONG!!!! They are coming home, alright, but not to the GoP. > > I would love to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by the > liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius didn't > get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he knows. > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly ever > wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash rash > expectations. > > Larry You would love to - but you didn't. Wrong again, Larry - Rove's magic tricks have all been used up, and the audience knows them every one. His goose is as cooked as Dubya's. Let's see who's 'swaggering' now. WIlliam Clark           Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:13:11 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162831977.356023.26920@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, "larryrsf" <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > On Nov 6, 8:10 am, Jack Hollis <xslee...@aol.com> wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:09:24 GMT, Robert Hamilton <D...@att.net> > > wrote: > > > > >> The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a > > >> science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or > > >> non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the > > >> discussion at all. > > > > >Maybe, but you will miss a major issue if you don't.I'm not missing a > > >major issue. I'm just saying that a science > > classroom is not the place to discuss it. There are plenty of other > > forums in a university to discuss religion and philosophy. Before > > then, I'd leave it up to parents to provide whatever religious > > instruction to their children that they see fit. > > > Lets get back to "Kerry Screws the Dems. " > > It is starting to look like the polls leading up to today have been > wildly wrong!!! As I type this Republicans are STRONGLY surging > toward equality or a small lead in every poll. We may lose NO Senate > seats and few House seats, retaining a strong majority in both houses. > > > And remember that absentee ballots are mostly republican-- millions > have already voted. Many others will vote tomorrow, but are > Independents who decided to vote Republican after watching Kerry and > Saddam's trial and Nancy Pelosi on TV. They seem to be 'coming home' > in waves. > > I would love to see a complete reversal of everything predicted by the > liberal media-- and Karl Rove proved right again. The Genius didn't > get that name because he wonders what is going to happen--he knows. > > Several overconfident and swaggering Democrat operatives are ruefully > admitting today that this late trend is making them "very nervous." It > should. "Dancing in the end zone" before the touchdown is hardly ever > wise--especially when it is well-known that people love to dash rash > expectations. > > Larry You've got links to your wild conjecture, I'm sure. Post them right here --- > Tightening has occured and I expected it. Right now, the big question is how many will vote. Off-year elections typically have low turnout, I expect this one will to. For the repugs, the question is the Christian right. Will they come out to vote? Most indications are that it is likely, but not assured, that they will sit this one out. That doesn't bode well for the repugs. For my area, the repugs don't ever do well with a minor exception for the district to the west of me. Shimkus, who promised to not run again during the 'contract for America' time, is now in the 'contract on America' group and has run again. For me, a new vote because I really cannot tolerate the usuals in the governors race, I'll vote the Green candidate Whitney. I don't even like the Green party.         Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:44:48 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Jack Hollis wrote: > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:09:24 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > > >> The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a > >> science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or > >> non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the > >> discussion at all. > > > >Maybe, but you will miss a major issue if you don't. > > > I'm not missing a major issue. I'm just saying that a science > classroom is not the place to discuss it. There are plenty of other > forums in a university to discuss religion and philosophy. Before > then, I'd leave it up to parents to provide whatever religious > instruction to their children that they see fit. Interesting, you cut out one sentance of my post to remove the explanation, and then disagree with the one sentance devoid of the explanation! I still stand by the point that you have to explain what is and is not science when you teach science (the major issue to which I refer), and to avoid that issue really reduces the effectiveness of what you teach when you teach science.           Date: 06 Nov 2006 14:18:36 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On 6 Nov 2006 08:44:48 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote: >I still stand by the point that you have to explain what >is and is not science when you teach science (the major issue to which >I refer), and to avoid that issue really reduces the effectiveness of >what you teach when you teach science. I don't disagree but my point is evolution is science and creationism and intelligent design are not. Science has been very effective in proving that Darwin was correct over the years. If you want to go there, science has also been effective in proving that a literal interpretation of the bible is wrong.           Date: 06 Nov 2006 13:39:59 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162831488.692540.115660@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote: > Jack Hollis wrote: > > On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:09:24 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > wrote: > > > > >> The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a > > >> science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or > > >> non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the > > >> discussion at all. > > > > > >Maybe, but you will miss a major issue if you don't. > > > > > > I'm not missing a major issue. I'm just saying that a science > > classroom is not the place to discuss it. There are plenty of other > > forums in a university to discuss religion and philosophy. Before > > then, I'd leave it up to parents to provide whatever religious > > instruction to their children that they see fit. > > > Interesting, you cut out one sentance of my post to remove the > explanation, and then disagree with the one sentance devoid of the > explanation! I still stand by the point that you have to explain what > is and is not science when you teach science (the major issue to which > I refer), and to avoid that issue really reduces the effectiveness of > what you teach when you teach science. OK, how about this then? "Class, you might have heard about creationsim, or intelligent design, as they try to call it. This is not science, it does not belong in this science classroom or curriculum, so that is the last you will hear about it here, and it is the last time I expect to have to mention it. If you need more, ask your parents or your pastor." That should take care of it more than adequately. William Clark         Date: 04 Nov 2006 22:48:15 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of which you would clearly send to Antarctica. William Clark           Date: 06 Nov 2006 12:47:35 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message news:clark.31-4BD3EC.22481504112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >> > >> > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? >> >> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > > To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel > in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of > which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > Tell that to your local conservative student group.             Date: 07 Nov 2006 06:49:28 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <4r9ea9Fqb6vgU1@mid.individual.net >, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > news:clark.31-4BD3EC.22481504112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >> > > >> > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > >> > >> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > > > > To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel > > in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of > > which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > > > Tell that to your local conservative student group. The College Republicans do just fine on this campus. In spite of the fact that they launched a deliberate attempt to shout Clinton down when he was here campaigning, breaking down crowd control barriers to do so, they are allowed to express their views as openly as any other group. William Clark PS: Clinton put them firmly in their place, and they were meek as lambs after that               Date: 07 Nov 2006 07:20:56 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <4r9ea9Fqb6vgU1@mid.individual.net>, > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: > >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message >> news:clark.31-4BD3EC.22481504112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >>> In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: >>> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>> Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? >>>> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? >>> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel >>> in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of >>> which you would clearly send to Antarctica. >>> >> Tell that to your local conservative student group. > > The College Republicans do just fine on this campus. In spite of the > fact that they launched a deliberate attempt to shout Clinton down when > he was here campaigning, breaking down crowd control barriers to do so, > they are allowed to express their views as openly as any other group. Republicans aren't stupid, they are good at taking the Democrats actions and making them their own.                 Date: 07 Nov 2006 16:57:25 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <KYydnWMqgZm6583YnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <4r9ea9Fqb6vgU1@mid.individual.net>, > > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > >> news:clark.31-4BD3EC.22481504112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >>> In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>> Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > >>>> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > >>> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel > >>> in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of > >>> which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > >>> > >> Tell that to your local conservative student group. > > > > The College Republicans do just fine on this campus. In spite of the > > fact that they launched a deliberate attempt to shout Clinton down when > > he was here campaigning, breaking down crowd control barriers to do so, > > they are allowed to express their views as openly as any other group. > > Republicans aren't stupid, Not all of them. However, most stupid people are Republican. > they are good at taking the Democrats actions > and making them their own.                   Date: 07 Nov 2006 17:33:00 From: larry Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On Tue, 07 Nov 2006 16:57:25 -0800, The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote: >In article <KYydnWMqgZm6583YnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >> > In article <4r9ea9Fqb6vgU1@mid.individual.net>, >> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: >> > >> >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message >> >> news:clark.31-4BD3EC.22481504112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... >> >>> In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, >> >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >> >>>>> Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? >> >>>> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? >> >>> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel >> >>> in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of >> >>> which you would clearly send to Antarctica. >> >>> >> >> Tell that to your local conservative student group. >> > >> > The College Republicans do just fine on this campus. In spite of the >> > fact that they launched a deliberate attempt to shout Clinton down when >> > he was here campaigning, breaking down crowd control barriers to do so, >> > they are allowed to express their views as openly as any other group. >> >> Republicans aren't stupid, > >Not all of them. However, most stupid people are Republican. Oh sure, that's why a republican owns the company you work for-- One wealthy republican employs dozens of lazy democrats who couldn't quite bring themselves to study and complete their educations or set some money aside and invest, now growing older just working each week for that Friday payday--and joining the union to get the boss to pay them more. Sure Democrats are st--- NOT. When people get some money, they vote to keep it-- with the Republicans. Larry > >> they are good at taking the Democrats actions >> and making them their own.                 Date: 07 Nov 2006 08:43:20 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <KYydnWMqgZm6583YnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <4r9ea9Fqb6vgU1@mid.individual.net>, > > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: > > > >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > >> news:clark.31-4BD3EC.22481504112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > >>> In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>> Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > >>>> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > >>> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel > >>> in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of > >>> which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > >>> > >> Tell that to your local conservative student group. > > > > The College Republicans do just fine on this campus. In spite of the > > fact that they launched a deliberate attempt to shout Clinton down when > > he was here campaigning, breaking down crowd control barriers to do so, > > they are allowed to express their views as openly as any other group. > > Republicans aren't stupid, they are good at taking the Democrats actions > and making them their own. Not the case - Bush and company won't set foot on a campus, all his 'rallies' are invitation only to GoP faithful. Any likely dissenters were either prevented from entering, or removed by security. Another example of democracy at work. William Clark                   Date: 08 Nov 2006 02:42:05 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > In article <KYydnWMqgZm6583YnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > > In article <4r9ea9Fqb6vgU1@mid.individual.net>, > > > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > > >> news:clark.31-4BD3EC.22481504112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > >>> In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > >>> > > >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > > >>>>> Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > >>>> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > > >>> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel > > >>> in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of > > >>> which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > > >>> > > >> Tell that to your local conservative student group. > > > > > > The College Republicans do just fine on this campus. In spite of the > > > fact that they launched a deliberate attempt to shout Clinton down when > > > he was here campaigning, breaking down crowd control barriers to do so, > > > they are allowed to express their views as openly as any other group. > > > > Republicans aren't stupid, they are good at taking the Democrats actions > > and making them their own. > > Not the case - Bush and company won't set foot on a campus, all his > 'rallies' are invitation only to GoP faithful. Any likely dissenters > were either prevented from entering, or removed by security. > > Another example of democracy at work. > > Now that's a hoot. Republicans at OSU are wrong for trying to shout down Clinton because that inteferes with his freedom of speech *AND* Bush not letting people into his rallies to shout him down limits Democrat (apparently) free speech! I agree that people who shout down sleakers at rallies are interfering with free speech. If you have something you want to say, hold your own rally! And that goes for all hecklers.                     Date: 07 Nov 2006 22:00:21 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <45514217.E5E7E55A@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > In article <KYydnWMqgZm6583YnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > > > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > > > In article <4r9ea9Fqb6vgU1@mid.individual.net>, > > > > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > > > >> news:clark.31-4BD3EC.22481504112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > >>> In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > > >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > >>> > > > >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > > > >>>>> Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > > >>>> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > > > >>> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to > > > >>> revel > > > >>> in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most > > > >>> of > > > >>> which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > > > >>> > > > >> Tell that to your local conservative student group. > > > > > > > > The College Republicans do just fine on this campus. In spite of the > > > > fact that they launched a deliberate attempt to shout Clinton down when > > > > he was here campaigning, breaking down crowd control barriers to do so, > > > > they are allowed to express their views as openly as any other group. > > > > > > Republicans aren't stupid, they are good at taking the Democrats actions > > > and making them their own. > > > > Not the case - Bush and company won't set foot on a campus, all his > > 'rallies' are invitation only to GoP faithful. Any likely dissenters > > were either prevented from entering, or removed by security. > > > > Another example of democracy at work. > > > > > > Now that's a hoot. Republicans at OSU are wrong for trying to shout down > Clinton > because that inteferes with his freedom of speech *AND* Bush not letting > people > into his rallies to shout him down limits Democrat (apparently) free speech! > I > agree that people who shout down sleakers at rallies are interfering with > free > speech. If you have something you want to say, hold your own rally! And that > goes > for all hecklers. Yes, I say bring back old fashioned rallies - hecklers and all! If a politician can't think quickly enough on his feet to deal with them, then he/she should not be in office. Here's to more fun. William Clark           Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:09:59 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > > > > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > > > What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > > To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel > in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of > which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > IMHO, seriously, the comments you make about the current US government represent hate speech. Lucky for you I am not on the Ohio Board of regents!             Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:13:36 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <454E1903.97B38708@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > > > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > > > > > > > Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > > > > > What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > > > > To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel > > in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of > > which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > > > > IMHO, seriously, the comments you make about the current US government > represent hate speech. Lucky for you I am not on the Ohio Board of regents! There you go again - completely ridiculous and contradictory assertions. The Ohio Board of Regents PROTECT free speech, so good luck with them. By the way, the most famous recent member of that Board was Tom Noe, the convicted GoP coin dealer of OBWC fame, so there's a calibration for you. William Clark               Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:12:08 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <454E1903.97B38708@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: >> IMHO, seriously, the comments you make about the current US >> government represent hate speech. Lucky for you I am not on the Ohio >> Board of regents! > > There you go again - completely ridiculous and contradictory > assertions. The Ohio Board of Regents PROTECT free speech, so good > luck with them. By the way, the most famous recent member of that > Board was Tom Noe, the convicted GoP coin dealer of OBWC fame, so > there's a calibration for you. I agree that you have a right to free speech. I also believe you should temper it when you are supposed to be teaching mechanics classes. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson             Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:28:35 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Robert Hamilton wrote: > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: >> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to >> revel in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and >> lifestyles. Most of which you would clearly send to Antarctica. >> > > IMHO, seriously, the comments you make about the current US government > represent hate speech. Lucky for you I am not on the Ohio Board of > regents! I have spent 12 years defending William Clark's rights to his views. I feel he should have every right to speak hatefully about Bushtard. I do not feel he has the right to do this in his classroom; but he has not indicated to any of us that he does share his personal bias with his students when he is supposed to be covering some specific (and paid for) curriculum. William - during your classes; do you diverge from what you were instructed to teach in order to force your personal views upon the minds of the next generation of US Citizens? -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson               Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:24:08 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1bp3h.4510$TX.1416@bignews1.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Robert Hamilton wrote: > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > >> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to > >> revel in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and > >> lifestyles. Most of which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > >> > > > > IMHO, seriously, the comments you make about the current US government > > represent hate speech. Lucky for you I am not on the Ohio Board of > > regents! > > I have spent 12 years defending William Clark's rights to his views. I feel > he should have every right to speak hatefully about Bushtard. I do not feel > he has the right to do this in his classroom; but he has not indicated to > any of us that he does share his personal bias with his students when he is > supposed to be covering some specific (and paid for) curriculum. > William - during your classes; do you diverge from what you were > instructed to teach in order to force your personal views upon the minds of > the next generation of US Citizens? I would like to see you or anyone indoctrinate students in a science or engineering classroom. Of course I do not attempt to 'impose' views on any student in the classroom - there is far too much complex technical material to be communicated, and I challenge anyone to use crystallography or Bloch wave theory as a vehicle for promoting a political view, even if they wanted to (which I don't). I cannot recall ever mentioning Bush or Clinton in the classroom - Michigan is, of course, another matter entirely ;-). Outside the classroom, if a student asks me for my view on any issue, I will give it, just as anyone else would, for them to take or leave. They are st enough to make up their own minds, and there is no place for trying to brainwash them. If I was to have any influence on a student, it would simply be by example. If they like what I do, or who I am, they are free to try to emulate that, but if they do not, then they are equally free to go their own way. Clear enough? William Clark                 Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:15:32 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > I would like to see you or anyone indoctrinate students in a science > or engineering classroom. Among other things, I do teach classes. I teach specific technologies within the computer science field to other computer scientists. > Of course I do not attempt to 'impose' > views on any student in the classroom - there is far too much complex > technical material to be communicated, and I challenge anyone to use > crystallography or Bloch wave theory as a vehicle for promoting a > political view, even if they wanted to (which I don't). That's all I was asking. If you keep your views out of the classroom then I think you are sharing your views the correct way. Of course I think you should do it on your own ISP and not OSU's; but you know that's my position already. > I cannot > recall ever mentioning Bush or Clinton in the classroom - Michigan > is, of course, another matter entirely ;-). Outside the classroom, if > a student asks me for my view on any issue, I will give it, just as > anyone else would, for them to take or leave. They are st enough > to make up their own minds, and there is no place for trying to > brainwash them. If I was to have any influence on a student, it would > simply be by example. If they like what I do, or who I am, they are > free to try to emulate that, but if they do not, then they are > equally free to go their own way. > > Clear enough? Yep. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson               Date: 05 Nov 2006 17:36:21 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Head Shot wrote: > Robert Hamilton wrote: > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > >> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to > >> revel in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and > >> lifestyles. Most of which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > >> > > > > IMHO, seriously, the comments you make about the current US government > > represent hate speech. Lucky for you I am not on the Ohio Board of > > regents! > > I have spent 12 years defending William Clark's rights to his views. I feel > he should have every right to speak hatefully about Bushtard. I do not feel > he has the right to do this in his classroom; but he has not indicated to > any of us that he does share his personal bias with his students when he is > supposed to be covering some specific (and paid for) curriculum. > William - during your classes; do you diverge from what you were > instructed to teach in order to force your personal views upon the minds of > the next generation of US Citizens? Actually, we have to develop what we teach ourselves. There is no body of knowledge, at least in Biology, that you can teach. You have to be selective, and therein lies the potential for bias. I deliberately choose sources that are opposite my opinions on controversial topics, like Sober or Kitcher on Sociobiology, for example, and then give the other side. I also include sources favorable to my views, to be sure! But I make sure the other side is in there in it's strongest form! As far as politics are concerend, they have no place in any classroom, even political science, IMHO. You can look at different views, of course, but if some student commented negatively on another student for their views, I would get what I call "very upset". Argue the points; fine, but attack people in various personal ways for having other views; that's out of line. Everyone has the right to speak their views freely, and that you happen to oppose them does not give you any right to interfere with them legitimately speaking their views. JMHO, of course.                 Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:10:54 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Robert Hamilton wrote: > Actually, we have to develop what we teach ourselves. There is no > body of knowledge, at least in Biology, that you can teach. You have > to be selective, and therein lies the potential for bias. I > deliberately choose sources that are opposite my opinions on > controversial topics, like Sober or Kitcher on Sociobiology, for > example, and then give the other side. I also include sources > favorable to my views, to be sure! But I make sure the other side is > in there in it's strongest form! Any courses I took typically had a syllabus that was driven by the textbook itself. The school has an obligation to review the contend of the textbook before building a course around it. > As far as politics are concerend, they have no place in any > classroom, even political science, IMHO. You can look at different > views, of course, but if some student commented negatively on another > student for their views, I would get what I call "very upset". Argue > the points; fine, but attack people in various personal ways for > having other views; that's out of line. Everyone has the right to > speak their views freely, and that you happen to oppose them does not > give you any right to interfere with them legitimately speaking their > views. JMHO, of course. IAWTP. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                   Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:29:23 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:10:54 -0500, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: >Any courses I took typically had a syllabus that was driven by the textbook >itself. The school has an obligation to review the contend of the textbook >before building a course around it. For the most part, college teachers choose what textbook to use for their courses. Back in my academic days, no one from the administration ever contacted me regarding what book I could, or could not, use.                 Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:26:03 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <454E1F2F.6464E540@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote: > Head Shot wrote: > > > Robert Hamilton wrote: > > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > >> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to > > >> revel in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and > > >> lifestyles. Most of which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > > >> > > > > > > IMHO, seriously, the comments you make about the current US government > > > represent hate speech. Lucky for you I am not on the Ohio Board of > > > regents! > > > > I have spent 12 years defending William Clark's rights to his views. I > > feel > > he should have every right to speak hatefully about Bushtard. I do not > > feel > > he has the right to do this in his classroom; but he has not indicated to > > any of us that he does share his personal bias with his students when he is > > supposed to be covering some specific (and paid for) curriculum. > > William - during your classes; do you diverge from what you were > > instructed to teach in order to force your personal views upon the minds of > > the next generation of US Citizens? > > Actually, we have to develop what we teach ourselves. There is no body of > knowledge, at least in Biology, that you can teach. You have to be selective, > and therein lies the potential for bias. I deliberately choose sources that > are > opposite my opinions on controversial topics, like Sober or Kitcher on > Sociobiology, for example, and then give the other side. I also include > sources > favorable to my views, to be sure! But I make sure the other side is in there > in > it's strongest form! Indeed, but in physical sciences even this kind of controversy is virtually non-existant. > > As far as politics are concerend, they have no place in any classroom, even > political science, IMHO. You can look at different views, of course, but if > some > student commented negatively on another student for their views, I would get > what I call "very upset". Argue the points; fine, but attack people in > various > personal ways for having other views; that's out of line. Everyone has the > right > to speak their views freely, and that you happen to oppose them does not give > you any right to interfere with them legitimately speaking their views. JMHO, > of > course. Couldn't agree more. William Clark           Date: 04 Nov 2006 22:53:30 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>> Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? >> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > > To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel > in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of > which you would clearly send to Antarctica. What about the free exchange of ideas from different perspectives? It is funny that the freedom of speech ends when you write a tuition check.             Date: 05 Nov 2006 10:56:04 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <9vmdndb8f82k_dDYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>> Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > >> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > > > > To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel > > in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of > > which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > > What about the free exchange of ideas from different perspectives? > > It is funny that the freedom of speech ends when you write a tuition check. But you are the very people to whom the definition of 'freedom of speech' ends when it comes to open discussion of all perspectives in the classroom. You can't have it both ways. William Clark               Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:20:05 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > But you are the very people to whom the definition of 'freedom of > speech' ends when it comes to open discussion of all perspectives in > the classroom. You can't have it both ways. Classrooms are for education; not the exercise of free speech with regard to the personal views of the professors. The education should be fair and unbiased and completely on topic; and if the parents or students are charged money then those people should have a say in what is being purchased. In public schools that are required by the state until the age of majority (Government forced education); the taxpayers of that State should have a say in what curriculum is being force fed to the children with their tax dollars. You (William Clark) have every right to be pro social programs or anti social programs; as well as being for or against any rights that are protected by the USC and her Amendments (such as the right to bear arms). You do not have the right to discuss your political views while you are there to teach Mechanics (or whatever you were hired by OSU to teach). If you share those views after class or in a lunchroom; I believe you are well within your rights and are being reasonable. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                 Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:30:36 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <43p3h.4503$TX.208@bignews1.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > But you are the very people to whom the definition of 'freedom of > > speech' ends when it comes to open discussion of all perspectives in > > the classroom. You can't have it both ways. > > > Classrooms are for education; not the exercise of free speech with regard > to the personal views of the professors. The education should be fair and > unbiased and completely on topic; and if the parents or students are > charged money then those people should have a say in what is being > purchased. In public schools that are required by the state until the age > of majority (Government forced education); the taxpayers of that State > should have a say in what curriculum is being force fed to the children with > their tax dollars. Yes, but there must be standards. The recent tactic of some evangelicals to take over school boards and forcibly insert creationism into the science curriculum is an example of bad democracy. I have no problem with creationism appearing in school curricula, but it has to be in the social science courses, since it is a belief and not a scientific theory. It has zero scientific basis, and so absolutely cannot be set into science curricula as an 'alternative' to evolution. > > You (William Clark) have every right to be pro social programs or anti > social programs; as well as being for or against any rights that are > protected by the USC and her Amendments (such as the right to bear arms). > You do not have the right to discuss your political views while you are > there to teach Mechanics (or whatever you were hired by OSU to teach). If > you share those views after class or in a lunchroom; I believe you are well > within your rights and are being reasonable. Thank you. I agree 100% with this - see my earlier post on this very topic. William Clark                   Date: 06 Nov 2006 19:40:11 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems larry wrote: > On 6 Nov 2006 12:36:07 -0800, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > >Please explain what polling information Karl Rove has that is not > >available to the public, and that significantly differs from > >information that is available to the public. Is the CIA doing polling > >now? > > Maybe he will tell us tomorrow after the Republicans kick butt > again--and Karl is sworn in as the best political Guru of all time. > > However, Karl may be retiring with Bush-- and thus doing no more > campaigns. Undoubtedly if he pulls this off in 2006 he will be able > to command millions for any campaign, anytime, anywhere. The guy is > good! > > Larry Anybody who knows anything about politics -- and that wouldn't include you -- knows that if the White House had polling data that significantly differs from the prevailing data, they would be publicizing it. You don't get your voters to the polls by withholding data that shows you can win if they show up. Is that over your head? I expect Rove does have private polling data -- and that it shows the GOP is giong to get its ass kicked tomorrow.                   Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:20:26 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > Yes, but there must be standards. Who should decide the standards? It certainly is not in USC A1 S8; so draw a line through the Fed. So now you are at the level of individual States. Is it for the State to decide; or the society that lives in the State? > The recent tactic of some > evangelicals to take over school boards and forcibly insert > creationism into the science curriculum is an example of bad > democracy. Creationism is a valid idea to some, William. Just because the Scientific Method cannot be used to study the Supernatural does not mean that something Supernatural *cannot* therefore exist. > I have no problem with creationism appearing in school > curricula, but it has to be in the social science courses, since it > is a belief and not a scientific theory. There are some Ph.D.'s that would disagree with you. Intelligent Design is a polar opposite view to abiogenesis or the Big Bang not being a creation event; and should therefore be given some level of mention when Big Bang or abiogenesis are taught. > It has zero scientific > basis, and so absolutely cannot be set into science curricula as an > 'alternative' to evolution. Again - you cannot use the scientific method to study something that is supernatural. I just do not necessarily agree that supernatural cannot be mentioned in the same course with natural. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                     Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:36:59 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:20:26 -0500, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: >> The recent tactic of some >> evangelicals to take over school boards and forcibly insert >> creationism into the science curriculum is an example of bad >> democracy. > >Creationism is a valid idea to some, William. Just because the Scientific >Method cannot be used to study the Supernatural does not mean that something >Supernatural *cannot* therefore exist. The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the discussion at all.                       Date: 06 Nov 2006 03:09:24 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Jack Hollis wrote: > On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:20:26 -0500, "Head Shot" > <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > > >> The recent tactic of some > >> evangelicals to take over school boards and forcibly insert > >> creationism into the science curriculum is an example of bad > >> democracy. > > > >Creationism is a valid idea to some, William. Just because the Scientific > >Method cannot be used to study the Supernatural does not mean that something > >Supernatural *cannot* therefore exist. > > The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a > science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or > non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the > discussion at all. Maybe, but you will miss a major issue if you don't. Science specifically looks for natural explanations for natural phenomena. Anything beyond that is not science. To think you need to explain science with religion or religion with science is illogical from a sceintific perspective and heretical from a religious (Christian at least) perspective, and thus is invalid no matter how you look at it! Science requires a correespondence with the natural world, but to require that correspondence for your religion makes you a "doubting Thomas"!                         Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:10:56 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On Mon, 06 Nov 2006 03:09:24 GMT, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net > wrote: >> The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a >> science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or >> non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the >> discussion at all. > >Maybe, but you will miss a major issue if you don't. I'm not missing a major issue. I'm just saying that a science classroom is not the place to discuss it. There are plenty of other forums in a university to discuss religion and philosophy. Before then, I'd leave it up to parents to provide whatever religious instruction to their children that they see fit.                       Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:50:01 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <ai7tk2ptptjs8hb51brfppg7gu40jrltcl@4ax.com >, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote: > On Sun, 5 Nov 2006 14:20:26 -0500, "Head Shot" > <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > > >> The recent tactic of some > >> evangelicals to take over school boards and forcibly insert > >> creationism into the science curriculum is an example of bad > >> democracy. > > > >Creationism is a valid idea to some, William. Just because the Scientific > >Method cannot be used to study the Supernatural does not mean that something > >Supernatural *cannot* therefore exist. > > > The issue is that creationism is not science and has no place in a > science course. Evolution says nothing regarding the existence or > non-existence, of God, so there's no need to bring God into the > discussion at all. Precisely. William Clark                     Date: 05 Nov 2006 16:31:54 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <UPq3h.7005$GU5.1372@bignews8.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > Yes, but there must be standards. > > Who should decide the standards? It certainly is not in USC A1 S8; so > draw a line through the Fed. So now you are at the level of individual > States. Is it for the State to decide; or the society that lives in the > State? > > > The recent tactic of some > > evangelicals to take over school boards and forcibly insert > > creationism into the science curriculum is an example of bad > > democracy. > > Creationism is a valid idea to some, William. As a flat earth was (probably still is) valid to some. > Just because the Scientific > Method cannot be used to study the Supernatural does not mean that something > Supernatural *cannot* therefore exist. Giant green spiders on the dark side of the moon may exist. You cannot argue that they *cannot* exist. You want to waste class time talking about it? > > I have no problem with creationism appearing in school > > curricula, but it has to be in the social science courses, since it > > is a belief and not a scientific theory. > > There are some Ph.D.'s that would disagree with you. You can find some Ph.D.'s to say almost anything. > Intelligent Design is > a polar opposite view to abiogenesis or the Big Bang not being a creation > event; and should therefore be given some level of mention when Big Bang or > abiogenesis are taught. Should we also give some level of mention to flat-earthers and green spider theorists? > > It has zero scientific > > basis, and so absolutely cannot be set into science curricula as an > > 'alternative' to evolution. > > Again - you cannot use the scientific method to study something that is > supernatural. I just do not necessarily agree that supernatural cannot be > mentioned in the same course with natural. It's obvious from your own claims (science cannot be used to study the supernatural) that the supernatural should not be studied in science class. Isn't that all William is saying?                       Date: 05 Nov 2006 19:56:38 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <waderameyxiii-C6C435.16315405112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com >, The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote: > In article <UPq3h.7005$GU5.1372@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > > > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > > Yes, but there must be standards. > > > > Who should decide the standards? It certainly is not in USC A1 S8; so > > draw a line through the Fed. So now you are at the level of individual > > States. Is it for the State to decide; or the society that lives in the > > State? > > > > > The recent tactic of some > > > evangelicals to take over school boards and forcibly insert > > > creationism into the science curriculum is an example of bad > > > democracy. > > > > Creationism is a valid idea to some, William. > > As a flat earth was (probably still is) valid to some. > > > Just because the Scientific > > Method cannot be used to study the Supernatural does not mean that > > something > > Supernatural *cannot* therefore exist. > > Giant green spiders on the dark side of the moon may exist. You > cannot argue that they *cannot* exist. You want to waste class > time talking about it? > > > > I have no problem with creationism appearing in school > > > curricula, but it has to be in the social science courses, since it > > > is a belief and not a scientific theory. > > > > There are some Ph.D.'s that would disagree with you. > > You can find some Ph.D.'s to say almost anything. > > > Intelligent Design is > > a polar opposite view to abiogenesis or the Big Bang not being a creation > > event; and should therefore be given some level of mention when Big Bang > > or > > abiogenesis are taught. > > Should we also give some level of mention to flat-earthers and > green spider theorists? > > > > It has zero scientific > > > basis, and so absolutely cannot be set into science curricula as an > > > 'alternative' to evolution. > > > > Again - you cannot use the scientific method to study something that is > > supernatural. I just do not necessarily agree that supernatural cannot be > > mentioned in the same course with natural. > > It's obvious from your own claims (science cannot be used to > study the supernatural) that the supernatural should not be > studied in science class. Isn't that all William is saying? Indeed it is. Thank for for pointing it out to him. I don;t think he'd take it from me. William Clark                     Date: 05 Nov 2006 16:18:33 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <UPq3h.7005$GU5.1372@bignews8.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > Yes, but there must be standards. > > Who should decide the standards? It certainly is not in USC A1 S8; so > draw a line through the Fed. So now you are at the level of individual > States. Is it for the State to decide; or the society that lives in the > State? > > > The recent tactic of some > > evangelicals to take over school boards and forcibly insert > > creationism into the science curriculum is an example of bad > > democracy. > > Creationism is a valid idea to some, William. Just because the Scientific > Method cannot be used to study the Supernatural does not mean that something > Supernatural *cannot* therefore exist. I don't mind that it is a valid idea to some - let's talk about it, but in the right place. It is NOT a scientific theory, and so does not belong in the science classroom. In social studies, to be discussed along with other belief and value systems, fine, but not as part of the science curriculum. > > > > I have no problem with creationism appearing in school > > curricula, but it has to be in the social science courses, since it > > is a belief and not a scientific theory. > > There are some Ph.D.'s that would disagree with you. Intelligent Design is > a polar opposite view to abiogenesis or the Big Bang not being a creation > event; and should therefore be given some level of mention when Big Bang or > abiogenesis are taught. No it should not. This is the disingenuous approach that creationists use to wedge it into the science curriculum. I don't care if some PhD's espouse it - you yourself have shown little enough regard for the PhD not to use that argument - it is simply NOT based on science or the scientific method. It has no provable or disprovable hypotheses to test, it is simply a belief system. It cannot stand alongside any scientific theory because it is not science, pure and simple. Ergo it does not belong in any part of the school curriculum intended to teach science. > > > > It has zero scientific > > basis, and so absolutely cannot be set into science curricula as an > > 'alternative' to evolution. > > Again - you cannot use the scientific method to study something that is > supernatural. I just do not necessarily agree that supernatural cannot be > mentioned in the same course with natural. If you want to teach the supernatural, go to cosmology school, but do not try to insert it into school science curricula as a flimsy pretext to get Christianity into schools. That is no different to teachers trying to indoctrinate students with their politics - something you rightly stand against. William Clark                       Date: 05 Nov 2006 19:47:16 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > I don't mind that it is a valid idea to some - let's talk about it, > but in the right place. Name the place. > It is NOT a scientific theory, Definitely agree. > and so does not > belong in the science classroom. I am not sure I agree with that. > In social studies, to be discussed > along with other belief and value systems, fine, but not as part of > the science curriculum. But parts of it are science. Odds and statistics are scientific. And Sir Hoyle did a ton of work on that part of it. He worked his ass off for quite some time with regard to fine tuning. > No it should not. This is the disingenuous approach that creationists > use to wedge it into the science curriculum. I don't care if some > PhD's espouse it - you yourself have shown little enough regard for > the PhD not to use that argument - it is simply NOT based on science > or the scientific method. Yeah, there are Bible Thumpers in sheep's clothing like Behe and Stroebel (who by the way is a great writer). But Sir Hoyle? Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.? Those are some serious minds, William. It's not scientific method; but how could something supernatural be? To know what caused Big Bang; we have to be outside of time and outside of this Universe to observe it. Can't be done. And we cannot see the spawn of other child universes. So we just have to guess and never know. > It has no provable or disprovable > hypotheses to test, it is simply a belief system. Yep. > It cannot stand > alongside any scientific theory because it is not science, pure and > simple. Ergo it does not belong in any part of the school curriculum > intended to teach science. Science is a tool for the natural. What would the tool be for the supernatural? There isn't one. > If you want to teach the supernatural, go to cosmology school, but do > not try to insert it into school science curricula as a flimsy pretext > to get Christianity into schools. That is no different to teachers > trying to indoctrinate students with their politics - something you > rightly stand against. I am totally against "god-did-it" but how do you discuss Big Bang without the possibility of it being a Creation Event that had a Creator; and how do you address the first abiogenesis? It's possible something tinkered with that. I am not saying it's probable; and for all I know the tinkerer was just some alien. But as a scientist you have to look at all possibilities and then start drawing a line through the ones that don't pan out. (yeah, yeah; i know - using the scientific method). -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                         Date: 05 Nov 2006 20:10:33 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <kCv3h.4748$U76.1031@bignews5.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > I don't mind that it is a valid idea to some - let's talk about it, > > but in the right place. > > Name the place. Social studies courses, especially those focusing on comparative religions. > > > It is NOT a scientific theory, > > Definitely agree. > > > and so does not > > belong in the science classroom. > > I am not sure I agree with that. Obviously not - but the fact it is it no more belongs in a science classroom than quantum theory belongs in a Spanish class. > > > In social studies, to be discussed > > along with other belief and value systems, fine, but not as part of > > the science curriculum. > > But parts of it are science. Odds and statistics are scientific. And Sir > Hoyle did a ton of work on that part of it. He worked his ass off for quite > some time with regard to fine tuning. None of it is science. There are no data, so there are no statistics. In fact, there are absolutely no hypotheses associated with creationism that can be investigated by any scientific method. It is simply not science. > > > > No it should not. This is the disingenuous approach that creationists > > use to wedge it into the science curriculum. I don't care if some > > PhD's espouse it - you yourself have shown little enough regard for > > the PhD not to use that argument - it is simply NOT based on science > > or the scientific method. > > Yeah, there are Bible Thumpers in sheep's clothing like Behe and Stroebel > (who by the way is a great writer). But Sir Hoyle? Jonathan Wells, Ph.D.? > Those are some serious minds, William. It's not scientific method; but > how could something supernatural be? To know what caused Big Bang; we have > to be outside of time and outside of this Universe to observe it. Can't be > done. And we cannot see the spawn of other child universes. So we just > have to guess and never know. No they are not. At least, not in the context of pushing it into school science curricula. What we are talking about here has nothing to do with Hoyle and the Big Bang, it has to do with promoting the idea that everything on earth was created directly by God, and that there is no place for evolution. That is how extreme these people are, and these are the ideas that must not be allowed to pollute the classroom. > > > It has no provable or disprovable > > hypotheses to test, it is simply a belief system. > > Yep. > > > It cannot stand > > alongside any scientific theory because it is not science, pure and > > simple. Ergo it does not belong in any part of the school curriculum > > intended to teach science. > > Science is a tool for the natural. What would the tool be for the > supernatural? There isn't one. Well, it certainly isn't the school science curriculum, that's for sure. > > > > If you want to teach the supernatural, go to cosmology school, but do > > not try to insert it into school science curricula as a flimsy pretext > > to get Christianity into schools. That is no different to teachers > > trying to indoctrinate students with their politics - something you > > rightly stand against. > > I am totally against "god-did-it" but how do you discuss Big Bang without > the possibility of it being a Creation Event that had a Creator; and how do > you address the first abiogenesis? It's possible something tinkered with > that. I am not saying it's probable; and for all I know the tinkerer was > just some alien. But as a scientist you have to look at all possibilities > and then start drawing a line through the ones that don't pan out. (yeah, > yeah; i know - using the scientific method). That is an entirely different scenario. From the scientific perspective, it is not necessary to ascribe any responsibility for the Big Bang, or any other theory for the origin of the universe. That can be left to individuals, in the home or elsewhere. It is not the government's business to deal in individual's religious beliefs. Science classes must deal with the available, testable, facts, that is all. William Clark                           Date: 06 Nov 2006 03:01:54 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems To me, the funny thing about these tired old creationist arguements coming up again and again is tha the whole idea of the original natural philosophy was to disvocer how God did things...so we find out some amazing things and people trash them because they don't jibe with preconceived beleifs! It's funny that there is not strong opposition to cell theory...no, you were not formed in the womb by the hand of God, but started out as a fertilized secondary oocyte and divided into a large colony of cells..and *physically, you are a large colony of cells; nothing more! So you shared a common ancestor with a salmon!                           Date: 05 Nov 2006 20:17:30 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > None of it is science. There are no data, so there are no statistics. > In fact, there are absolutely no hypotheses associated with > creationism that can be investigated by any scientific method. It is > simply not science. I suggest you read Sir Hoyle's work on fine tuning. It surely is statistical analysis. > No they are not. At least, not in the context of pushing it into > school science curricula. What we are talking about here has nothing > to do with Hoyle and the Big Bang, it has to do with promoting the > idea that everything on earth was created directly by God, and that > there is no place for evolution. That is how extreme these people > are, and these are the ideas that must not be allowed to pollute the > classroom. I am not talking about bible thumpers. Holye and some otherss are/were well respected scientists. > That is an entirely different scenario. From the scientific > perspective, it is not necessary to ascribe any responsibility for > the Big Bang, or any other theory for the origin of the universe. IMHO, a teacher talking about Big Bang should be able to accept a student asking "what could have caused a Big Bang?" > That can be left to individuals, in the home or elsewhere. It is not > the government's business to deal in individual's religious beliefs. Um; it's not the Fed's business to even require or pay for education. But here they are with a Department of Education and a huge budget. > Science classes must deal with the available, testable, facts, that > is all. Science is founded on new hypothesis; or we would still be thinking the earth was flat and thinking stars were tears in the fabric separating heaven and earth. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                             Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:55:34 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <G2w3h.4765$U76.2170@bignews5.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > None of it is science. There are no data, so there are no statistics. > > In fact, there are absolutely no hypotheses associated with > > creationism that can be investigated by any scientific method. It is > > simply not science. > > I suggest you read Sir Hoyle's work on fine tuning. It surely is > statistical analysis. I have - it has nothing to do with creationism as a rejection of evolution, which is the issue we are dealing with today. > > > > No they are not. At least, not in the context of pushing it into > > school science curricula. What we are talking about here has nothing > > to do with Hoyle and the Big Bang, it has to do with promoting the > > idea that everything on earth was created directly by God, and that > > there is no place for evolution. That is how extreme these people > > are, and these are the ideas that must not be allowed to pollute the > > classroom. > > I am not talking about bible thumpers. Holye and some otherss are/were well > respected scientists. Indeed, but he has never said anything about, for example, rejecting the fossil record as evidence for evolution, or interpreting the bible's account of creation literally. It is not necessary to include God in any discussion of the Big Bang at the classroom level. > > > > That is an entirely different scenario. From the scientific > > perspective, it is not necessary to ascribe any responsibility for > > the Big Bang, or any other theory for the origin of the universe. > > IMHO, a teacher talking about Big Bang should be able to accept a student > asking "what could have caused a Big Bang?" That has nothing to do with "man is too complex to have been developed by evolution - God must have created man as he is". And it is still not a topic that science teachers in schools should address - such questions should be referred to parents, churches, and the like. > > > > That can be left to individuals, in the home or elsewhere. It is not > > the government's business to deal in individual's religious beliefs. > > Um; it's not the Fed's business to even require or pay for education. But > here they are with a Department of Education and a huge budget. > > > > Science classes must deal with the available, testable, facts, that > > is all. > > Science is founded on new hypothesis; or we would still be thinking the > earth was flat and thinking stars were tears in the fabric separating heaven > and earth. Creationism is not a new hypothesis - in fact, it is not a hypothesis at all, in the scientific sense of the word, because a hypothesis, by definition, can be tested and disproved by scientific experiment. Exit creationism and ID. William Clark               Date: 05 Nov 2006 11:11:30 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <9vmdndb8f82k_dDYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>> In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: >>> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>>>> Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? >>>> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? >>> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel >>> in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of >>> which you would clearly send to Antarctica. >> What about the free exchange of ideas from different perspectives? >> >> It is funny that the freedom of speech ends when you write a tuition check. > > But you are the very people to whom the definition of 'freedom of > speech' ends when it comes to open discussion of all perspectives in the > classroom. You can't have it both ways. Non liberal views are not tolerated in most post secondary classrooms. This is bias, this is stifling the free exchange of opinions and ideas.                 Date: 05 Nov 2006 16:43:37 From: tiggerspalewife Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <QNidnebVvOmskNPYnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@comcast.com > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: Let's hope this somehow might break even with non-liberal views not being tolerated in corporate America. This is also bias, this is stifling the free exchange of opinions and ideas.                 Date: 05 Nov 2006 11:32:09 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <QNidnebVvOmskNPYnZ2dnUVZ_o6dnZ2d@comcast.com >, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <9vmdndb8f82k_dDYnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>> In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > >>> > >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>>>> Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > >>>> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > >>> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to revel > >>> in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most of > >>> which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > >> What about the free exchange of ideas from different perspectives? > >> > >> It is funny that the freedom of speech ends when you write a tuition check. > > > > But you are the very people to whom the definition of 'freedom of > > speech' ends when it comes to open discussion of all perspectives in the > > classroom. You can't have it both ways. > > Non liberal views are not tolerated in most post secondary classrooms. > This is bias, this is stifling the free exchange of opinions and ideas. Total BS, Bert, total BS. You do not know what you are talking about, and I submit you have never taught in that environment, otherwise you would not make such a ridiculous statement. My daughter, for example, had a high school social studies teacher who was openly Republican. That's fine with me. William Clark                   Date: 05 Nov 2006 12:24:54 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > Total BS, Bert, total BS. You do not know what you are talking about, > and I submit you have never taught in that environment, otherwise you > would not make such a ridiculous statement. My daughter, for example, > had a high school social studies teacher who was openly Republican. > That's fine with me. I do not believe that the social studies teacher in your example should be allowed to share his party affiliations or anything other than the curriculum with your child. If you feel it is important for your child to know personal things about the teacher; it should happen outside of the classroom and in your presence (unless you decide to trust the teacher outside of your presence). Most academic environments are extremely liberally biased; and that is not fair and just exposure with regard to your children. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                     Date: 05 Nov 2006 13:35:58 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <A7p3h.4508$TX.4179@bignews1.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > Total BS, Bert, total BS. You do not know what you are talking about, > > and I submit you have never taught in that environment, otherwise you > > would not make such a ridiculous statement. My daughter, for example, > > had a high school social studies teacher who was openly Republican. > > That's fine with me. > > I do not believe that the social studies teacher in your example should be > allowed to share his party affiliations or anything other than the > curriculum with your child. If you feel it is important for your child to > know personal things about the teacher; it should happen outside of the > classroom and in your presence (unless you decide to trust the teacher > outside of your presence). Most academic environments are extremely > liberally biased; and that is not fair and just exposure with regard to > your children. No, in his case he made no secret of his affiliation (he ran as a Republican in a local election), but he never attempted to propagandize the children in his class, and allowed them to express their (often differing) views openly. That is what education should do - take difficult and complex issues, and allow kids to see all sides of them. Then at some point they make up their own minds on the basis of all the available information they have gathered or been presented with. It would be very difficult for a teacher in that particular discipline to keep his stance completely hidden; the important thing is that they don't use their position to browbeat. This guy did not, he was an excellent teacher, and got the kids very involved in the subject. That is good enough for me. William Clark                       Date: 05 Nov 2006 14:28:37 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > No, in his case he made no secret of his affiliation (he ran as a > Republican in a local election), but he never attempted to > propagandize the children in his class, and allowed them to express > their (often differing) views openly. That is what education should > do - take difficult and complex issues, and allow kids to see all > sides of them. Then at some point they make up their own minds on the > basis of all the available information they have gathered or been > presented with. It would be very difficult for a teacher in that > particular discipline to keep his stance completely hidden; the > important thing is that they don't use their position to browbeat. > This guy did not, he was an excellent teacher, and got the kids very > involved in the subject. That is good enough for me. 1) Have you read any of the publishings of Sir Hoyle with regard to the odds of fine tuning? Do you feel his work has no place in a science class? He makes an argument using statistics for a supernatural involvement in this universe at critical moments. 2) What are your thoughts on singularities - In particular, what are your thoughts on the Big Bang being a creation event (the beginning of this Universe)? If you believe in Big Bang; what are your thought on the Big Bang being an effect; and what do you believe are the sum of possible causes? If one of the possible causes that you put on your list is that a creation event may have had some sort of catalyst; do you feel those catalysts should be detailed in a science class if the catalyst is supernatural instead of natural? Please keep in mind that even if the architect is non-intelligent; the scientific method cannot transcend the Big Bang singularity and therefore is useless. So, since the scientific method is valid; why can't natural and supernatural authors exist in the same list? -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                         Date: 05 Nov 2006 16:23:23 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <zXq3h.7007$GU5.2372@bignews8.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > No, in his case he made no secret of his affiliation (he ran as a > > Republican in a local election), but he never attempted to > > propagandize the children in his class, and allowed them to express > > their (often differing) views openly. That is what education should > > do - take difficult and complex issues, and allow kids to see all > > sides of them. Then at some point they make up their own minds on the > > basis of all the available information they have gathered or been > > presented with. It would be very difficult for a teacher in that > > particular discipline to keep his stance completely hidden; the > > important thing is that they don't use their position to browbeat. > > This guy did not, he was an excellent teacher, and got the kids very > > involved in the subject. That is good enough for me. > > > 1) Have you read any of the publishings of Sir Hoyle with regard to the > odds of fine tuning? Do you feel his work has no place in a science class? > He makes an argument using statistics for a supernatural involvement in this > universe at critical moments. > > 2) What are your thoughts on singularities - In particular, what are your > thoughts on the Big Bang being a creation event (the beginning of this > Universe)? If you believe in Big Bang; what are your thought on the Big > Bang being an effect; and what do you believe are the sum of possible > causes? If one of the possible causes that you put on your list is that a > creation event may have had some sort of catalyst; do you feel those > catalysts should be detailed in a science class if the catalyst is > supernatural instead of natural? Please keep in mind that even if the > architect is non-intelligent; the scientific method cannot transcend the > Big Bang singularity and therefore is useless. So, since the scientific > method is valid; why can't natural and supernatural authors exist in the > same list? I have no problems with the notion of some universal creator influencing events (maybe) on the largest scale. Christianity is not incompatible with evolution. However, I do not believe the nonsense that man is too complex not to have been 'designed' by some greater force - that is just ridiculous, and ignores the proven result of natural selection over hundreds of generations. Nor do I accept that all the fossils are contemporaneous, and were created with the earth. Archbishop Usher claimed that the earth was created on October 16th, 4004 BC. I think we have made some progress since then. William Clark                           Date: 05 Nov 2006 19:56:14 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > I have no problems with the notion of some universal creator > influencing events (maybe) on the largest scale. I agree. > Christianity is not > incompatible with evolution. I think it is. Christianity is based on Judaism; and in my culture (I am a Jew) they believe that the earth was created close to 6,000 years ago. 6,000 years isn't long enough for anything to evolve. In fact, I think my ex wife is devolving. > However, I do not believe the nonsense > that man is too complex not to have been 'designed' by some greater > force - that is just ridiculous, and ignores the proven result of > natural selection over hundreds of generations. Take it a step back - the first abiogenesis and the mouse trap. DNA is pretty complex; and I am saying that as a computer scientist. A lot of programming went into DNA. > Nor do I accept that > all the fossils are contemporaneous, and were created with the earth. That is insane and I agree with you. But the whole Cambrian Explosion event - that's pretty weird. All the phylo's appear in a cosmic moment. Wait - I have to put on my tin foil hat - Area 51 is trying to contact me. > Archbishop Usher claimed that the earth was created on October 16th, > 4004 BC. I think we have made some progress since then. Not if you are Christian. They have been following this Jewish magician for 2000 years. Nothing changed except the new scam called rapture that some chick invented in 1832. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                             Date: 05 Nov 2006 22:02:12 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <KKv3h.4752$U76.1620@bignews5.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > I have no problems with the notion of some universal creator > > influencing events (maybe) on the largest scale. > > I agree. > > > Christianity is not > > incompatible with evolution. > > I think it is. Christianity is based on Judaism; and in my culture (I am a > Jew) they believe that the earth was created close to 6,000 years ago. > 6,000 years isn't long enough for anything to evolve. In fact, I think my > ex wife is devolving. I mean 'compatible' here in the sense of the first item only. The doctrinal dogma you are welcome to. > > > > > However, I do not believe the nonsense > > that man is too complex not to have been 'designed' by some greater > > force - that is just ridiculous, and ignores the proven result of > > natural selection over hundreds of generations. > > Take it a step back - the first abiogenesis and the mouse trap. DNA is > pretty complex; and I am saying that as a computer scientist. A lot of > programming went into DNA. More like a lot of heuristic events, over billions of years. Influence the longevity of those events by the need for survival, and you have a very effective 'decision tree', leading to the eventual stability of DNA. > > > > Nor do I accept that > > all the fossils are contemporaneous, and were created with the earth. > > That is insane and I agree with you. But the whole Cambrian Explosion > event - that's pretty weird. All the phylo's appear in a cosmic moment. > Wait - I have to put on my tin foil hat - Area 51 is trying to contact me. > > > > Archbishop Usher claimed that the earth was created on October 16th, > > 4004 BC. I think we have made some progress since then. > > Not if you are Christian. They have been following this Jewish magician for > 2000 years. Nothing changed except the new scam called rapture that some > chick invented in 1832. Depends on your view of Christianity. Many of the creationists would have this view pounded into our school kids, but many others of us know that it is patent nonsense and reject it entirely. It is this ignorant fundamentalism (and you have versions of it in Judaism, too) that we are fighting to keep out of our schools. William Clark                               Date: 05 Nov 2006 22:08:43 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > More like a lot of heuristic events, over billions of years. Influence > the longevity of those events by the need for survival, and you have a > very effective 'decision tree', leading to the eventual stability of > DNA. The first abiogenesis had nothing to do with the need for survival. It was non-organic material all coming together to create the first cell. And that first cell had DNA or RNA. And the window of opportunity was not billions and billions of years. The early portion of the history of this planet was not ripe for abiogenesis. > Depends on your view of Christianity. Many of the creationists would > have this view pounded into our school kids, but many others of us > know that it is patent nonsense and reject it entirely. It is this > ignorant fundamentalism (and you have versions of it in Judaism, too) > that we are fighting to keep out of our schools. That fundamentalism is why I no longer associate myself with the spiritual aspect of my religion. I like the cultural part (a point of pride and heritage for me); but the dogma is a bunch of hooey. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                                 Date: 06 Nov 2006 03:13:20 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <XGx3h.7367$GU5.1712@bignews8.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > More like a lot of heuristic events, over billions of years. Influence > > the longevity of those events by the need for survival, and you have a > > very effective 'decision tree', leading to the eventual stability of > > DNA. > > The first abiogenesis had nothing to do with the need for survival. It was > non-organic material all coming together to create the first cell. And that > first cell had DNA or RNA. And the window of opportunity was not billions > and billions of years. The early portion of the history of this planet was > not ripe for abiogenesis. It was undoubtedly much simpler than "the first cell". > > > Depends on your view of Christianity. Many of the creationists would > > have this view pounded into our school kids, but many others of us > > know that it is patent nonsense and reject it entirely. It is this > > ignorant fundamentalism (and you have versions of it in Judaism, too) > > that we are fighting to keep out of our schools. > > That fundamentalism is why I no longer associate myself with the spiritual > aspect of my religion. I like the cultural part (a point of pride and > heritage for me); but the dogma is a bunch of hooey. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)                                   Date: 05 Nov 2006 22:18:02 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Alan Baker wrote: > In article <XGx3h.7367$GU5.1712@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>> More like a lot of heuristic events, over billions of years. >>> Influence the longevity of those events by the need for survival, >>> and you have a very effective 'decision tree', leading to the >>> eventual stability of DNA. >> >> The first abiogenesis had nothing to do with the need for survival. >> It was non-organic material all coming together to create the first >> cell. And that first cell had DNA or RNA. And the window of >> opportunity was not billions and billions of years. The early >> portion of the history of this planet was not ripe for abiogenesis. > > It was undoubtedly much simpler than "the first cell". Mousetrap. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                                     Date: 06 Nov 2006 03:20:39 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <GPx3h.7432$GU5.7204@bignews8.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > In article <XGx3h.7367$GU5.1712@bignews8.bellsouth.net>, > > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > > > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: > >>> More like a lot of heuristic events, over billions of years. > >>> Influence the longevity of those events by the need for survival, > >>> and you have a very effective 'decision tree', leading to the > >>> eventual stability of DNA. > >> > >> The first abiogenesis had nothing to do with the need for survival. > >> It was non-organic material all coming together to create the first > >> cell. And that first cell had DNA or RNA. And the window of > >> opportunity was not billions and billions of years. The early > >> portion of the history of this planet was not ripe for abiogenesis. > > > > It was undoubtedly much simpler than "the first cell". > > > Mousetrap. Sorry, but what clever comeback to you think that was? -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)                           Date: 05 Nov 2006 16:48:57 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <clark.31-0B472B.16232305112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu >, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: > Christianity is not incompatible > with evolution. Maybe you could fashion some notion of god that is compatible with evolution, but Christianity? The Old Testament? There's a reason Christians have perceived science and most of the free enquiry dating from the Enlightenment as a threat: It punches all kinds of holes in their holy books.                             Date: 05 Nov 2006 22:03:48 From: Jack Hollis Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On Sun, 05 Nov 2006 16:48:57 -0800, The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote: >> Christianity is not incompatible >> with evolution. > >Maybe you could fashion some notion of god that is compatible >with evolution, but Christianity? The Old Testament? Let's put things into perspective. The Catholic Church has no problem with evolution. The Protestant denominations do not have a clearly defined leader like the Catholic Pope to define dogma, so their members tend to have varied opinions on the matter. This is similar to the Jews where the Orthodox Jews don't believe in evolution and the Conservative and Reform Jews have no problem with it. This issue really comes down to if you believe in a literal interpretation of the bible or not. Unfortunately, there are seven passages in the bible that say that the sun goes around the earth and we all know that is not true. So much for the literal interpretation.                               Date: 05 Nov 2006 22:13:27 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Jack Hollis wrote: > This issue really comes down to if you believe in a literal > interpretation of the bible or not. A document being divine clearly would indicate the words in it are literal. > Unfortunately, there are seven > passages in the bible that say that the sun goes around the earth and > we all know that is not true. So much for the literal interpretation. Actually; so much for the document being divine. Unless God didn't know the Earth revolved around the Sun. Maybe omnipotent beings can screw up too? -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                                 Date: 06 Nov 2006 05:45:03 From: bill-o Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On 5-Nov-2006, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > Jack Hollis wrote: > > This issue really comes down to if you believe in a literal > > interpretation of the bible or not. > > A document being divine clearly would indicate the words in it are > literal. How so? there is no connection AFAIK, the truth is usually much deeper than the surface mmeaning of the words. -- bill-o A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.                                   Date: 05 Nov 2006 23:52:41 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <454ecbdb$0$17470$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >, "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote: > On 5-Nov-2006, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > > > Jack Hollis wrote: > > > This issue really comes down to if you believe in a literal > > > interpretation of the bible or not. > > > > A document being divine clearly would indicate the words in it are > > literal. > > How so? there is no connection AFAIK, the truth is usually much deeper than > the surface mmeaning of the words. Weasel City.                             Date: 05 Nov 2006 20:13:32 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <waderameyxiii-BDBE36.16485705112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com >, The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net > wrote: > In article > <clark.31-0B472B.16232305112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > > Christianity is not incompatible > > with evolution. > > Maybe you could fashion some notion of god that is compatible > with evolution, but Christianity? The Old Testament? There's a > reason Christians have perceived science and most of the free > enquiry dating from the Enlightenment as a threat: It punches all > kinds of holes in their holy books. I think you are talking about fundamental evangelical christianity, which is a long way from rational beliefs that can reconcile the existence of some kind of spiritual entity with scientific processes going on around us. William Clark                               Date: 05 Nov 2006 18:57:12 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <clark.31-3BB04A.20133205112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu >, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote: > In article > <waderameyxiii-BDBE36.16485705112006@comcast.dca.giganews.com>, > The World Wide Wade <waderameyxiii@comcast.remove13.net> wrote: > > > In article > > <clark.31-0B472B.16232305112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > > > > Christianity is not incompatible > > > with evolution. > > > > Maybe you could fashion some notion of god that is compatible > > with evolution, but Christianity? The Old Testament? There's a > > reason Christians have perceived science and most of the free > > enquiry dating from the Enlightenment as a threat: It punches all > > kinds of holes in their holy books. > > I think you are talking about fundamental evangelical christianity, > which is a long way from rational beliefs that can reconcile the > existence of some kind of spiritual entity with scientific processes > going on around us. You say "some kind of spiritual entity", I said "some notion of god". Fine. It's not Christianity.                               Date: 05 Nov 2006 20:24:48 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > I think you are talking about fundamental evangelical christianity, > which is a long way from rational beliefs that can reconcile the > existence of some kind of spiritual entity with scientific processes > going on around us. Well, here is the rub on that one, William. If you ask any Christian or practicing Jew if the Old Testament is divinely inspired or perhaps even written by the hand of God through Moses as a vehicle; they will tell you yes it is. If something is divine and supernatural; it is not bound by the single direction of time (an omnipotent being is not constrained by the laws of the universe). This being would exist at all times simultaneously. You know, omniscience and all that crap? At any rate; if the Creator was omniscient and wrote the book then there would be no need for His religion to be updated all the time to conform to science. So; by default the moment science found out the Old Testament was full of shit and the Christian Church updated their beliefs to conform; they actually admitted the document could not be divine. Organized religion is a great place to scope out the babes on a Sunday morning. Nothing more or less. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                                 Date: 06 Nov 2006 03:05:12 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Head Shot wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > I think you are talking about fundamental evangelical christianity, > > which is a long way from rational beliefs that can reconcile the > > existence of some kind of spiritual entity with scientific processes > > going on around us. > > Well, here is the rub on that one, William. If you ask any Christian or > practicing Jew if the Old Testament is divinely inspired or perhaps even > written by the hand of God through Moses as a vehicle; they will tell you > yes it is. No they won't. I won't. There is good knowledge as to where these writings came from, and Moses isn't where any of them came from. You could learn where these writings came from if you want.                                   Date: 05 Nov 2006 22:16:39 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Robert Hamilton wrote: > No they won't. I won't. There is good knowledge as to where these > writings came from, and Moses isn't where any of them came from. You > could learn where these writings came from if you want. Um, Moses wrote Tanach. I will play with you all you want; but I spent my childhood going to a Hebrew School and I know Tanach front and back. In case you are wondering where the Old Testament says Moses wrote down God's words: Exodus 24:3-7. "Moshe came and told the people everything Adonai had said, including all the rulings. The people answered with one voice: 'We will obey every word Adonai has spoken.' Moshe wrote down all the words of Adonai... Then he took the book of the covenant and read it aloud, so that the people could hear; and they responded, 'Everything that Adonai has spoken, we will do and obey.'" -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson                                     Date: 06 Nov 2006 05:05:48 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Head Shot wrote: > Robert Hamilton wrote: > > No they won't. I won't. There is good knowledge as to where these > > writings came from, and Moses isn't where any of them came from. You > > could learn where these writings came from if you want. > > Um, Moses wrote Tanach. I will play with you all you want; but I spent > my childhood going to a Hebrew School and I know Tanach front and back. In > case you are wondering where the Old Testament says Moses wrote down God's > words: > > Exodus 24:3-7. "Moshe came and told the people everything Adonai had said, > including all the rulings. The people answered with one voice: 'We will obey > every word Adonai has spoken.' Moshe wrote down all the words of Adonai... > Then he took the book of the covenant and read it aloud, so that the people > could hear; and they responded, 'Everything that Adonai has spoken, we will > do and obey.'" The passage is second hand, at least. The author is saying what Moses did, he is not Moses telling what he did!                                 Date: 05 Nov 2006 21:57:15 From: William A. T. Clark Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <w9w3h.4767$U76.1089@bignews5.bellsouth.net >, "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > I think you are talking about fundamental evangelical christianity, > > which is a long way from rational beliefs that can reconcile the > > existence of some kind of spiritual entity with scientific processes > > going on around us. > > > Well, here is the rub on that one, William. If you ask any Christian or > practicing Jew if the Old Testament is divinely inspired or perhaps even > written by the hand of God through Moses as a vehicle; they will tell you > yes it is. If something is divine and supernatural; it is not bound by the > single direction of time (an omnipotent being is not constrained by the laws > of the universe). This being would exist at all times simultaneously. > You know, omniscience and all that crap? At any rate; if the Creator was > omniscient and wrote the book then there would be no need for His religion > to be updated all the time to conform to science. So; by default the > moment science found out the Old Testament was full of shit and the > Christian Church updated their beliefs to conform; they actually admitted > the document could not be divine. Organized religion is a great place to > scope out the babes on a Sunday morning. Nothing more or less. That is perfectly fine with me. The New Testament is only four of the 60+ accounts of the life and times of Jesus that were selected by the Catholic Church for being most consistent with their view of Christianity. William Clark                                   Date: 05 Nov 2006 22:03:18 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <w9w3h.4767$U76.1089@bignews5.bellsouth.net>, > "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote: > >> William A. T. Clark wrote: >>> I think you are talking about fundamental evangelical christianity, >>> which is a long way from rational beliefs that can reconcile the >>> existence of some kind of spiritual entity with scientific processes >>> going on around us. >> >> >> Well, here is the rub on that one, William. If you ask any >> Christian or practicing Jew if the Old Testament is divinely >> inspired or perhaps even written by the hand of God through Moses as >> a vehicle; they will tell you yes it is. If something is divine >> and supernatural; it is not bound by the single direction of time >> (an omnipotent being is not constrained by the laws of the >> universe). This being would exist at all times simultaneously. >> You know, omniscience and all that crap? At any rate; if the >> Creator was omniscient and wrote the book then there would be no >> need for His religion to be updated all the time to conform to >> science. So; by default the moment science found out the Old >> Testament was full of shit and the Christian Church updated their >> beliefs to conform; they actually admitted the document could not be >> divine. Organized religion is a great place to scope out the babes >> on a Sunday morning. Nothing more or less. > > That is perfectly fine with me. The New Testament is only four of the > 60+ accounts of the life and times of Jesus that were selected by the > Catholic Church for being most consistent with their view of > Christianity. They cherry picked. And we Jews have the best excuse of all - someone stole our Ark of the Covenant; so we can't show you what Moses wrote or those two tablets. But you can trust us that this is what God said, and it's divine. My kids try that all the time - but they blame the lost stuff on the dogs. The bible thumpers should tell me that my dog ate all the empirical evidence of Jesus. At least then I know Jesus has a cell phone; because I am missing one of those. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson     Date: 04 Nov 2006 19:39:31 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote: > "John B." wrote: > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > > public life. > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on it. > Coulter is > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and others. > Even here, > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than anything Ann > Coulter says. Can you not see that references to *individuals* are very different from tarring an entire group? > The problem with the left in the US is that they will not tolerate any > dissent on their > views. They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices opposing views; even > though almost > all their policies failed. Conservatives don't heckle Patty Sheehan off the > stage, or > disrupt convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were speakers; but we > know what > liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; someone else has to > commit the > acts she comments on. -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)       Date: 04 Nov 2006 21:50:52 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Alan Baker wrote: > In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > wrote: > > > "John B." wrote: > > > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > > > public life. > > > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on it. > > Coulter is > > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and others. > > Even here, > > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than anything Ann > > Coulter says. > > Can you not see that references to *individuals* are very different from > tarring an entire group? > OK. Consider what these blogs say about what they call "neocons".         Date: 04 Nov 2006 22:01:37 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <454D0958.C308AC7@att.net >, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > > In article <454CE462.67DD22A1@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > wrote: > > > > > "John B." wrote: > > > > > > > The_Professor wrote: > > > > > > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > > > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > > > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was > > > > > GRRREAT, > > > > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > > > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > > > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > > > > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > > > > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > > > > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > > > > public life. > > > > > > First off, the "quote" seems to be a fraud, so I withdraw comment on it. > > > Coulter is > > > clearly using sarcastic wit. The real scum are blogs like MoveOn and > > > others. > > > Even here, > > > we see references to Bush and Rumsfeld that are far worse than anything > > > Ann > > > Coulter says. > > > > Can you not see that references to *individuals* are very different from > > tarring an entire group? > > > > OK. Consider what these blogs say about what they call "neocons". Which blogs? -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)     Date: 04 Nov 2006 14:32:12 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Robert Hamilton wrote: >The > problem with the left in the US is that they will not tolerate any > dissent on their views. I have a different take, Robert. I do not mind that they have weird views; I just mind if they follow those views to the point that they violate US Constitution or misuse taxes for the purpose of equalizing the upper and lower classes in some sort of bizarre social experiment. > They absolutely assasinate anyone who voices > opposing views; even though almost all their policies failed. The view of taxpayers is that these policies/experiments fail; but to the folks living in the ghettos with their palm extended those policies were a wonderful success. > Conservatives don't heckle Patty Sheehan off the stage, or disrupt > convocations where idiots like Noam Chomsky were speakers; but we > know what liberals do, don't we? All Ann Coulter does is comment; > someone else has to commit the acts she comments on. If Ann Coulter would do her commentary in the nude in my bedroom I would like it better. LOL Did you know she is a huge deadhead? How can anyone be mean to a blonde hair, blue eyed deadhead with a 9 figure bank account. It reaks of envy, methinks. Well, against my better judgement I am gonna put my walking cast on and go shoot 9 holes. Then I will drown my foot pain in sushi. -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 04 Nov 2006 07:16:12 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article > <1162564379.943791.4290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > > > cannot possibly be misunderstood. > > > > I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > > > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > I did a Google search and found very little - just a few blogs > that keep reposting the "Coulter quote", much like you are doing. > A statement like that would have caused a sensation and there > would be thousands of hits. I just searched at Intervention > Magazine and don't get hits on the text you posted. This looks > like just another internet hoax - a pretty transparent one at > that. Well, gee, maybe Intervention took it down. Did you ever think of that?     Date: 04 Nov 2006 11:53:56 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162653371.996819.322300@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > In article > > <1162564379.943791.4290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>, > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > > > > cannot possibly be misunderstood. > > > > > > I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > > > > > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > > > > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > > > I did a Google search and found very little - just a few blogs > > that keep reposting the "Coulter quote", much like you are doing. > > A statement like that would have caused a sensation and there > > would be thousands of hits. I just searched at Intervention > > Magazine and don't get hits on the text you posted. This looks > > like just another internet hoax - a pretty transparent one at > > that. > > > Well, gee, maybe Intervention took it down. Did you ever think of that? There are lots of hoaxes on the internet ... lots of people fall for them ... maybe you're one of them ... Did you ever think of that?       Date: From: Subject:   Date: 04 Nov 2006 07:14:23 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems The_Professor wrote: > John B. wrote: > > The_Professor wrote: > > > John B. wrote: > > > > "R&B" wrote: > > > > > "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > > news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > > > "R&B" wrote: > > > > > >> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > > > > > >> for a > > > > > >> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > > > > > >> little > > > > > >> like the pot calling the kettle black. > > > > > > > > > > > > Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > > > > > > don't like? > > > > > > The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > > > > > > deserves it. > > > > > > > > > > > >> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > > > > > >> public. > > > > > > > > > > > > True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > > > > > > > > > > > >> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > > > > > >> speaking > > > > > >> altogether. > > > > > > > > > > > > Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > > > > > >>A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared > > > > > >>text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you > > > > > >>don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end > > > > > >>up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > > > > > > > > > > > > If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > > > > > > because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > > > > > > Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > > > > > > Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > > > > > > prepared text. > > > > > > > > > > > > You pick. > > > > > > > > > > > > Tex > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry > > > > > blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling > > > > > speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest > > > > > of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. > > > > > > > > > > I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the > > > > > door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. > > > > > > > > > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > > > > > cannot possibly be misunderstood. > > > > > > > > I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > > > > > > > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > > > > > Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry > > > apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this > > > issue, or is she consistent? > > > > She's consistently despicable. > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > which is at least somewhat despicable. Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from public life.     Date: 04 Nov 2006 13:48:30 From: Bert Robbins Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems John B. wrote: > The_Professor wrote: >> John B. wrote: >>> The_Professor wrote: >>>> John B. wrote: >>>>> "R&B" wrote: >>>>>> "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message >>>>>> news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... >>>>>>> "R&B" wrote: >>>>>>>> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, >>>>>>>> for a >>>>>>>> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a >>>>>>>> little >>>>>>>> like the pot calling the kettle black. >>>>>>> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you >>>>>>> don't like? >>>>>>> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he >>>>>>> deserves it. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in >>>>>>>> public. >>>>>>> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) >>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public >>>>>>>> speaking >>>>>>>> altogether. >>>>>>> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: >>>>>>>> A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared >>>>>>>> text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you >>>>>>>> don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end >>>>>>>> up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." >>>>>>> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell >>>>>>> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) >>>>>>> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling >>>>>>> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a >>>>>>> prepared text. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> You pick. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Tex >>>>>> >>>>>> You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry >>>>>> blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling >>>>>> speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest >>>>>> of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. >>>>>> >>>>>> I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the >>>>>> door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they >>>>>> cannot possibly be misunderstood. >>>>> I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: >>>>> >>>>> "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The >>>>> lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, >>>>> enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. >>>>> Some will have to die in the support of our cause." >>>>> >>>>> Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 >>>> Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry >>>> apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this >>>> issue, or is she consistent? >>> She's consistently despicable. >> I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator >> whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we >> can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, >> fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses >> deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, >> which is at least somewhat despicable. > > > Ann Coulter is a font of hatred. She talks about "liberals" -- ALL > liberals -- the way racists used to talk about black people, when one > could get away with that kind of talk. She's a bigot who directs her > bigotry at a group you can still malign without being ostracized from > public life. > Are you going to get as upset about the people who disparage the neo-cons? What about those who disparage conservatives, will you vent your anger at those obvious bigots too?   Date: 03 Nov 2006 16:35:49 From: BigPurdueFan Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1162592441.356762.197050@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > > > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > > > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > > > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > > > > > > > Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry > > > > apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this > > > > issue, or is she consistent? > > > > > > She's consistently despicable. > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > Ann Coulter? Respected? > > LOL! No, respecxted. :-)   Date: 03 Nov 2006 16:32:30 From: Tex Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Slo wrote: > John B. wrote: > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > I don't like defending the indefensible Coulter but, is that > a legit quote? I just googled for it and I couldn't find it > referenced back before the Kerry Kerfuffle blew into town. Not defending her, cuz she's too wacky for me (it's an act, but still!) and she's too skinny.... But there is no way she said that.... "if it's on the Internet, it's probably not true" Tex   Date: 03 Nov 2006 16:30:45 From: Tex Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Head Shot wrote: > Alan Baker wrote: > > Ann Coulter? Respected? > > You don't respect this: > > http://img25.exs.cx/img25/452/anncoulter8ev.jpg She weighs at least a Pflum more than Ann Coulter. :) Tex   Date: 03 Nov 2006 16:21:21 From: Slo Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems John B. wrote: > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 I don't like defending the indefensible Coulter but, is that a legit quote? I just googled for it and I couldn't find it referenced back before the Kerry Kerfuffle blew into town.     Date: 03 Nov 2006 18:10:26 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162599681.021338.254020@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, "Slo" <Slosteve@gmail.com > wrote: > John B. wrote: > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > I don't like defending the indefensible Coulter but, is that > a legit quote? No. > I just googled for it and I couldn't find it > referenced back before the Kerry Kerfuffle blew into town. It's an obvious hoax.   Date: 03 Nov 2006 14:20:41 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems John B. wrote: > The_Professor wrote: > > John B. wrote: > > > "R&B" wrote: > > > > "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > > news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > > > "R&B" wrote: > > > > >> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > > > > >> for a > > > > >> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > > > > >> little > > > > >> like the pot calling the kettle black. > > > > > > > > > > Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > > > > > don't like? > > > > > The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > > > > > deserves it. > > > > > > > > > >> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > > > > >> public. > > > > > > > > > > True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > > > > > > > > > >> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > > > > >> speaking > > > > >> altogether. > > > > > > > > > > Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > > > > >>A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared > > > > >>text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you > > > > >>don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end > > > > >>up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > > > > > > > > > > If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > > > > > because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > > > > > Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > > > > > Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > > > > > prepared text. > > > > > > > > > > You pick. > > > > > > > > > > Tex > > > > > > > > > > > > You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry > > > > blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling > > > > speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest > > > > of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. > > > > > > > > I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the > > > > door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. > > > > > > > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > > > > cannot possibly be misunderstood. > > > > > > I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > > > > > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > > > > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > > > Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry > > apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this > > issue, or is she consistent? > > She's consistently despicable. I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, which is at least somewhat despicable.     Date: 06 Nov 2006 08:03:56 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article > <clark.31-0B472B.16232305112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > > Christianity is not incompatible > > with evolution. > > Maybe you could fashion some notion of god that is compatible > with evolution, but Christianity? The Old Testament? There's a > reason Christians have perceived science and most of the free > enquiry dating from the Enlightenment as a threat: It punches all > kinds of holes in their holy books. Christians? There are more than a billion Christians and it may surprise you to learn that they don't all hold the same opinion. I'm a practicing Roman Catholic and I believe that evolution is compatible with Christianity. I don't believe the stories in the Old Testament and most Catholics don't beleive them, either. Only the most conservative, fundamentalist Christians believe the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah's Ark, Jonah and the Whale, etc, and feel threated by science.       Date: 06 Nov 2006 11:05:40 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162829036.080838.138600@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > The World Wide Wade wrote: > > In article > > <clark.31-0B472B.16232305112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu>, > > "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote: > > > > > Christianity is not incompatible > > > with evolution. > > > > Maybe you could fashion some notion of god that is compatible > > with evolution, but Christianity? The Old Testament? There's a > > reason Christians have perceived science and most of the free > > enquiry dating from the Enlightenment as a threat: It punches all > > kinds of holes in their holy books. > > Christians? There are more than a billion Christians and it may > surprise you to learn that they don't all hold the same opinion. I'm a > practicing Roman Catholic and I believe that evolution is compatible > with Christianity. I don't believe the stories in the Old Testament and > most Catholics don't beleive them, either. Only the most conservative, > fundamentalist Christians believe the stories of Adam and Eve, Noah's > Ark, Jonah and the Whale, etc, and feel threated by science. Well of course the Roman Catholic Church was violently opposed to science in the latter's great discocery period in the 16th and 17th centuries. The Vatican has adapted as it had to for keting purposes; otherwise it would have gone the way of of the steam engine. I don't remember Jesus saying anything negative about the whoppers in the Old Testament. Plenty of whoppers in the New Testament too. I don't remember Jesus saying anything negative about slavery either, and there's plenty in the NT condoning it. Jesus said some good things, he said some bad things. It seems people can now cherry pick among passages in the bible and still call themselves Christians. This is a useless designation. It implies every atheist is a Christian. I can find a bunch of things in the Koran I agree with; am I then a Moslem?     Date: 03 Nov 2006 23:28:47 From: Alan Baker Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162592441.356762.197050@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote: > > > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > > > > > Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry > > > apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this > > > issue, or is she consistent? > > > > She's consistently despicable. > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > which is at least somewhat despicable. Ann Coulter? Respected? LOL! -- 'It is Mac OS X, not BSD.' -- 'From Mac OS to BSD Unix.' "It's BSD Unix with Apple's APIs and GUI on top of it' -- 'nothing but BSD Unix' (Edwin on Mac OS X) '[The IBM PC] could boot multiple OS, such as DOS, C/PM, GEM, etc.' -- 'I claimed nothing about GEM other than it was available software for the IBM PC. (Edwin on GEM)       Date: 04 Nov 2006 18:51:20 From: Robert Hamilton Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Alan Baker wrote: > In article <1162592441.356762.197050@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > > > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > > > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > > > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > > > > > > > > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > > > > > > > Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry > > > > apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this > > > > issue, or is she consistent? > > > > > > She's consistently despicable. > > > > I think that's a bit extreme. She is a respecxted social commwntator > > whose main tool is sarcastic wit. Too bad we are all so lame that we > > can't take a bit of sarcasm. The witches of Berwick thing was GRRREAT, > > fgor example, IMHO because those women were exploiting their spouses > > deaths. They've made an enormous amount of money off those deaths, > > which is at least somewhat despicable. > > Ann Coulter? Respected? > > LOL! Maybe not by you, but you probably respect Patty Sheehan...who is a fool IMHO. Coulter has a sense of humor an a wit. Sheehan is a dullard.       Date: 03 Nov 2006 18:38:49 From: Head Shot Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Alan Baker wrote: > Ann Coulter? Respected? You don't respect this: http://img25.exs.cx/img25/452/anncoulter8ev.jpg -- ___________________________________________________________ A strong body makes the mind strong. As to the species of exercises, I advise the gun. While this gives moderate exercise to the body, it gives boldness, enterprise and independence to the mind. -- Thomas Jefferson   Date: 03 Nov 2006 11:22:07 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems The_Professor wrote: > John B. wrote: > > "R&B" wrote: > > > "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > "R&B" wrote: > > > >> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > > > >> for a > > > >> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > > > >> little > > > >> like the pot calling the kettle black. > > > > > > > > Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > > > > don't like? > > > > The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > > > > deserves it. > > > > > > > >> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > > > >> public. > > > > > > > > True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > > > > > > > >> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > > > >> speaking > > > >> altogether. > > > > > > > > Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > > > >>A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared > > > >>text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you > > > >>don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end > > > >>up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > > > > > > > > If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > > > > because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > > > > Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > > > > Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > > > > prepared text. > > > > > > > > You pick. > > > > > > > > Tex > > > > > > > > > You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry > > > blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling > > > speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest > > > of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. > > > > > > I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the > > > door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. > > > > > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > > > cannot possibly be misunderstood. > > > > I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > > > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 > > Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry > apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this > issue, or is she consistent? She's consistently despicable.   Date: 03 Nov 2006 09:30:45 From: Dene Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Bobby Knight wrote: > >"faux pas", before I get blasted... > > No problem. It's expected of you. LB, Feeling some nips on your ankles? -Greg   Date: 03 Nov 2006 09:02:52 From: Doug Reese Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems larry wrote: > On 2 Nov 2006 23:53:01 -0800, "Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com> wrote: > > > > >larry wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:53:17 -0500, "Otto" > >> <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> > >> >Tell Murtha that. > >> > >> Do some homework. Murtha was a reserve--NOT an active duty > >> ine--and was never brave under fire, etc. The real ines I know > >> laugh at him--just as the Navy does at Kerry. > > > >"Do your homework"? > > > >This is pretty funny, coming from you. > > > >"Murtha learned about military service from the bottom up, beginning as > >a raw recruit when he left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to > >join the ines out of a growing sense of obligation to his country > >during the Korean War. There he earned the American Spirit Honor Medal, > >awarded to fewer than one in 10,000 recruits. He rose through the ranks > >to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for > >Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. He then was assigned to > >the Second ine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 1959, > >Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, > >ine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after > >his discharge from ACTIVE DUTY until he VOLUNTEERED for VIETNAM in > >1966-67, where he served as the S-2 intelligence officer for the 1st > >Battalion, 1st ine Regiment, 1st ine Division and received the > >Bronze Star with COMBAT "V", two PURPLE HEARTS and the Vietnamese Cross > >of Gallantry." > > > >Unbelieveable, Larry, unbelievable . . . . but let no one say you > >aren't consistent. > > > >Doug Reese > > A reserve intelligence officer who never got close to a rifle or a > bullet-- probably cut himself shaving like Kerry's self-inflicted > Purple Heart wounds. Bullshit, Larry, pure bullshit. He was active duty -- fact. He has a Bronze Star with "V" and two Purple Hearts -- fact. You can't get those without being in combat -- fact. Bullshit, Larry, you've done it again, bullshit -- fact. Doug Reese >I know some senior ines (Active Duty) who > were there at the same time--and they laugh at Murtha--then and now. > He got rank by ass-kissing. > > Larry   Date: 03 Nov 2006 07:29:38 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems John B. wrote: > "R&B" wrote: > > "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > "R&B" wrote: > > >> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > > >> for a > > >> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > > >> little > > >> like the pot calling the kettle black. > > > > > > Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > > > don't like? > > > The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > > > deserves it. > > > > > >> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > > >> public. > > > > > > True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > > > > > >> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > > >> speaking > > >> altogether. > > > > > > Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > > >>A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared > > >>text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you > > >>don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end > > >>up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > > > > > > If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > > > because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > > > Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > > > Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > > > prepared text. > > > > > > You pick. > > > > > > Tex > > > > > > You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry > > blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling > > speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest > > of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. > > > > I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the > > door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. > > > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > > cannot possibly be misunderstood. > > I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 Typical urban view of the military...shared by Coulter and Kerry apparently...now does Coulter claim to have contrary views on this issue, or is she consistent?     Date: 08 Nov 2006 08:24:10 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems The_Professor wrote: > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > In article <45514217.E5E7E55A@att.net>, Robert Hamilton <DBID@att.net> > > wrote: > > > > > "William A. T. Clark" wrote: > > > > > > > In article <KYydnWMqgZm6583YnZ2dnUVZ_h-dnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > > > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > William A. T. Clark wrote: > > > > > > In article <4r9ea9Fqb6vgU1@mid.individual.net>, > > > > > > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message > > > > > >> news:clark.31-4BD3EC.22481504112006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu... > > > > > >>> In article <lJudnVD73rPWuNDYnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>, > > > > > >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote: > > > > > >>> > > > > > >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote: > > > > > >>>>> Good Lord, 'tolerate no dissent'? Will you listen to yourself? > > > > > >>>> What is the purpose of campus, college and university, speech codes? > > > > > >>> To prevent hate speech - something some of you on this ng seem to > > > > > >>> revel > > > > > >>> in. Otherwise, to tolerate all opinions, races, and lifestyles. Most > > > > > >>> of > > > > > >>> which you would clearly send to Antarctica. > > > > > >>> > > > > > >> Tell that to your local conservative student group. > > > > > > > > > > > > The College Republicans do just fine on this campus. In spite of the > > > > > > fact that they launched a deliberate attempt to shout Clinton down when > > > > > > he was here campaigning, breaking down crowd control barriers to do so, > > > > > > they are allowed to express their views as openly as any other group. > > > > > > > > > > Republicans aren't stupid, they are good at taking the Democrats actions > > > > > and making them their own. > > > > > > > > Not the case - Bush and company won't set foot on a campus, all his > > > > 'rallies' are invitation only to GoP faithful. Any likely dissenters > > > > were either prevented from entering, or removed by security. > > > > > > > > Another example of democracy at work. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Now that's a hoot. Republicans at OSU are wrong for trying to shout down > > > Clinton > > > because that inteferes with his freedom of speech *AND* Bush not letting > > > people > > > into his rallies to shout him down limits Democrat (apparently) free speech! > > > I > > > agree that people who shout down sleakers at rallies are interfering with > > > free > > > speech. If you have something you want to say, hold your own rally! And that > > > goes > > > for all hecklers. > > > > Yes, I say bring back old fashioned rallies - hecklers and all! If a > > politician can't think quickly enough on his feet to deal with them, > > then he/she should not be in office. > > > > Here's to more fun. > > > > William Clark > > the problem is that the hecklers shout down the speaker. In any event, > hecklers are losers who know thay can't draw an audience on their own, > and the only way they can attach any significance to their pettly loser > lives is to be "seenn" making some scene at a high profile event. This > is true of all hecklers, IMHO. Losers; total, pathetic losers. People > go to a Bush rally to see Bush. People go to a Clinton rally to see > Clinton. If you don't like 'em; don't go. A few weeks ago some of the Minutemen from the Southwest spoke at Columbia at the invitation of the College Republicans there. Some left-wing students stormed the stage and prohibited them from talking. I am no fan of the Minutemen, but I was disgusted by this. And the sad fact is that Columbia got blamed for it, even though the university administration was livid about what these students had done.   Date: 03 Nov 2006 06:32:59 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "R&B" wrote: > "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > > > "R&B" wrote: > >> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > >> for a > >> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > >> little > >> like the pot calling the kettle black. > > > > Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > > don't like? > > The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > > deserves it. > > > >> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > >> public. > > > > True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > > > >> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > >> speaking > >> altogether. > > > > Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > >>A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared > >>text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you > >>don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end > >>up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > > > > If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > > because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > > Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > > Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > > prepared text. > > > > You pick. > > > > Tex > > > You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry > blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling > speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest > of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. > > I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the > door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > cannot possibly be misunderstood. I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. Some will have to die in the support of our cause." Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03     Date: 03 Nov 2006 13:32:20 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162564379.943791.4290@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote: > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > > cannot possibly be misunderstood. > > I couldn't agree more. Here's a perfect example: > > "Soldiers are just cowards with their backs against the wall. The > lowest IQ men in our society, those incapable of normal careers, > enlist. Their choice in life: prison or the military. > Some will have to die in the support of our cause." > > Ann Coulter - Intervention Magazine, 11/06/03 I did a Google search and found very little - just a few blogs that keep reposting the "Coulter quote", much like you are doing. A statement like that would have caused a sensation and there would be thousands of hits. I just searched at Intervention Magazine and don't get hits on the text you posted. This looks like just another internet hoax - a pretty transparent one at that.   Date: 03 Nov 2006 05:30:25 From: Tex Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "R&B" wrote: > "Tex" <ktexkoenig@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1162417275.791799.50280@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com... > > > > "R&B" wrote: > >> You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > >> for a > >> Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > >> little > >> like the pot calling the kettle black. > > > > Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > > don't like? > > The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > > deserves it. > > > >> Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > >> public. > > > > True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > > > >> Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > >> speaking > >> altogether. > > > > Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > >>A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's prepared > >>text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up if you > >>don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? You end > >>up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > > > > If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > > because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > > Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > > Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > > prepared text. > > > > You pick. > > > > Tex > > > You're wasting your time with me. Life wasted it's time with you. > But it doesn't change the fact that his intent was to insult the president, > not the troops. Mind reader? His spoken words would not back up your claim. His after the fact backpeddling might. > And anyone who asserts that his intention was to insult the > troops is a damn fool. Of course that wasn't his intent. Why would he > insult the troops? Why would anyone? He's been doing it since he left Vietnam...his record speaks louder than your hippie shirts. Tex   Date: 02 Nov 2006 23:53:01 From: Doug Reese Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems larry wrote: > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:53:17 -0500, "Otto" > <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > >Tell Murtha that. > > Do some homework. Murtha was a reserve--NOT an active duty > ine--and was never brave under fire, etc. The real ines I know > laugh at him--just as the Navy does at Kerry. "Do your homework"? This is pretty funny, coming from you. "Murtha learned about military service from the bottom up, beginning as a raw recruit when he left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to join the ines out of a growing sense of obligation to his country during the Korean War. There he earned the American Spirit Honor Medal, awarded to fewer than one in 10,000 recruits. He rose through the ranks to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. He then was assigned to the Second ine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 1959, Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, ine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after his discharge from ACTIVE DUTY until he VOLUNTEERED for VIETNAM in 1966-67, where he served as the S-2 intelligence officer for the 1st Battalion, 1st ine Regiment, 1st ine Division and received the Bronze Star with COMBAT "V", two PURPLE HEARTS and the Vietnamese Cross of Gallantry." Unbelieveable, Larry, unbelievable . . . . but let no one say you aren't consistent. Doug Reese > Larry     Date: 03 Nov 2006 08:55:30 From: larry Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On 2 Nov 2006 23:53:01 -0800, "Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com > wrote: > >larry wrote: >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:53:17 -0500, "Otto" >> <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote: >> >> >Tell Murtha that. >> >> Do some homework. Murtha was a reserve--NOT an active duty >> ine--and was never brave under fire, etc. The real ines I know >> laugh at him--just as the Navy does at Kerry. > >"Do your homework"? > >This is pretty funny, coming from you. > >"Murtha learned about military service from the bottom up, beginning as >a raw recruit when he left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to >join the ines out of a growing sense of obligation to his country >during the Korean War. There he earned the American Spirit Honor Medal, >awarded to fewer than one in 10,000 recruits. He rose through the ranks >to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for >Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. He then was assigned to >the Second ine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 1959, >Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, >ine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after >his discharge from ACTIVE DUTY until he VOLUNTEERED for VIETNAM in >1966-67, where he served as the S-2 intelligence officer for the 1st >Battalion, 1st ine Regiment, 1st ine Division and received the >Bronze Star with COMBAT "V", two PURPLE HEARTS and the Vietnamese Cross >of Gallantry." > >Unbelieveable, Larry, unbelievable . . . . but let no one say you >aren't consistent. > >Doug Reese A reserve intelligence officer who never got close to a rifle or a bullet-- probably cut himself shaving like Kerry's self-inflicted Purple Heart wounds. I know some senior ines (Active Duty) who were there at the same time--and they laugh at Murtha--then and now. He got rank by ass-kissing. Larry       Date: 03 Nov 2006 11:01:18 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <ftsmk29s79qo7077mek64c7bsffg07hbss@4ax.com >, larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > On 2 Nov 2006 23:53:01 -0800, "Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com> wrote: > > > > >larry wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:53:17 -0500, "Otto" > >> <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote: > >> > >> >Tell Murtha that. > >> > >> Do some homework. Murtha was a reserve--NOT an active duty > >> ine--and was never brave under fire, etc. The real ines I know > >> laugh at him--just as the Navy does at Kerry. > > > >"Do your homework"? > > > >This is pretty funny, coming from you. > > > >"Murtha learned about military service from the bottom up, beginning as > >a raw recruit when he left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to > >join the ines out of a growing sense of obligation to his country > >during the Korean War. There he earned the American Spirit Honor Medal, > >awarded to fewer than one in 10,000 recruits. He rose through the ranks > >to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for > >Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. He then was assigned to > >the Second ine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 1959, > >Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, > >ine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after > >his discharge from ACTIVE DUTY until he VOLUNTEERED for VIETNAM in > >1966-67, where he served as the S-2 intelligence officer for the 1st > >Battalion, 1st ine Regiment, 1st ine Division and received the > >Bronze Star with COMBAT "V", two PURPLE HEARTS and the Vietnamese Cross > >of Gallantry." > > > >Unbelieveable, Larry, unbelievable . . . . but let no one say you > >aren't consistent. > > > >Doug Reese > > A reserve intelligence officer who never got close to a rifle or a > bullet-- probably cut himself shaving like Kerry's self-inflicted > Purple Heart wounds. I know some senior ines (Active Duty) who > were there at the same time--and they laugh at Murtha--then and now. > He got rank by ass-kissing. > > Larry BS as usual. Bronze Stars weren't given away.     Date: 03 Nov 2006 10:06:56 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162540380.999575.138650@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com >, "Doug Reese" <dreese@erols.com > wrote: > larry wrote: > > On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 19:53:17 -0500, "Otto" > > <ottondebREMove#$@^%!@*&@bellsouth.net> wrote: > > > > >Tell Murtha that. > > > > Do some homework. Murtha was a reserve--NOT an active duty > > ine--and was never brave under fire, etc. The real ines I know > > laugh at him--just as the Navy does at Kerry. > > "Do your homework"? > > This is pretty funny, coming from you. > > "Murtha learned about military service from the bottom up, beginning as > a raw recruit when he left Washington and Jefferson College in 1952 to > join the ines out of a growing sense of obligation to his country > during the Korean War. There he earned the American Spirit Honor Medal, > awarded to fewer than one in 10,000 recruits. He rose through the ranks > to become a drill instructor at Parris Island and was selected for > Officer Candidate School at Quantico, Virginia. He then was assigned to > the Second ine Division, Camp Lejeune, North Carolina. In 1959, > Captain Murtha took command of the 34th Special Infantry Company, > ine Corps Reserves, in Johnstown. He remained in the Reserves after > his discharge from ACTIVE DUTY until he VOLUNTEERED for VIETNAM in > 1966-67, where he served as the S-2 intelligence officer for the 1st > Battalion, 1st ine Regiment, 1st ine Division and received the > Bronze Star with COMBAT "V", two PURPLE HEARTS and the Vietnamese Cross > of Gallantry." > > Unbelieveable, Larry, unbelievable . . . . but let no one say you > aren't consistent. > > Doug Reese > And while we're dispelling 'Larry myths', here's another on Kerry with link: Navy says Kerry's service awards were properly approved WASHINGTON (AP) The Navy's chief investigator concluded Friday that procedures were followed properly in the approval of Sen. John Kerry's Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals, according to an internal Navy memo. Vice Adm. R.A. Route, the Navy inspector general, conducted the review of Kerry's Vietnam-ear military service awards at the request of Judicial Watch, a public interest group. The group has also asked for the release of additional records documenting the Democratic presidential candidate's military service. Judicial Watch had requested in August that the Navy open an investigation of the matter, but Route said in an internal memo obtained by The Associated Press that he saw no reason for a full-scale probe. "Our examination found that existing documentation regarding the Silver Star, Bronze Star and Purple Heart medals indicates the awards approval process was properly followed," Route wrote in the memo sent Friday to Navy Secretary Gordon England. "In particular, the senior officers who awarded the medals were properly delegated authority to do so. In addition, we found that they correctly followed the procedures in place at the time for approving these awards." Some veterans have challenged Kerry's version of the circumstances surrounding the incident that led to his Silver Star award for battlefield heroism, as well as his three Purple Heart medals. The Silver Star was awarded for his actions in pursuit of enemy forces while commander of swift boat unit PCF-94 in Vietnam in February 1969. Judicial Watch also asked the Navy inspector general to investigate Kerry's anti-war activities after he returned from Vietnam and left active duty. Route concluded that there was no justification for looking further into the decisions to award the medals or the anti-war activities. "Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place over 30 years ago would not be productive," he wrote. "The passage of time would make reconstruction of the facts and circumstances unreliable, and would not allow the information gathered to be considered in the context of the time in which the events took place. "Our review also considered the fact that Senator Kerry's post-active duty activities were public and that military and civilian officials were aware of his actions at the time. For these reasons, I have determined that Senator Kerry's awards were properly approved and will take no further action in this matter." ------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------- Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/president/2004-09-1 7-kerry-navy-awards_x.htm       Date: 03 Nov 2006 08:59:08 From: larry Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:56 -0500, Lloyd Parsons <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote: >"Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place >over 30 years ago would not be productive," Which means "I am afraid to open that hornet's nest." What did you expect-- some sort of expose'? Larry         Date: 04 Nov 2006 00:38:07 From: JJK Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems lloydparsons wrote: > >"Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place > >over 30 years ago would not be productive," Larry wrote: > Which means "I am afraid to open that hornet's nest." What did you > expect-- some sort of expose'? If Nixon's entourage couldn't find anything to discredit Kerry while the "trail" was warm, it is virtually certain that you're foolish to shamefully try to discredit someone with more honor than you.         Date: 03 Nov 2006 11:04:41 From: Lloyd Parsons Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <n8tmk2liku430qo4datpr081j9i8imntto@4ax.com >, larry <larry@deldata.com > wrote: > On Fri, 03 Nov 2006 10:06:56 -0500, Lloyd Parsons > <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote: > > >"Conducting any additional review regarding events that took place > >over 30 years ago would not be productive," > > Which means "I am afraid to open that hornet's nest." What did you > expect-- some sort of expose'? > > Larry What it means is that only through your neocon colored eyes would you see it in any way except the negative position you have taken. You really ought to get you nose out of the ass of all those 'senior military officers' you claim to run with.   Date: 02 Nov 2006 21:47:41 From: pete z Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems larry wrote: > WASHINGTON - The White House accused Sen. John Kerry on Tuesday of > troop-bashing, seizing on a comment the Democrat made to California > students that those unable to navigate the country's education > system"get stuck in Iraq." > > "Senator Kerry not only owes an apology to those who are serving, but > also to the families of those who've given their lives in this,"White > House press secretary Tony Snow said."This is an absolute insult." > > Kerry, a decorated Vietnam veteran and Bush's rival in 2004, fired > back, saying the president and his administration are the ones who owe > U.S. troops an apology because they"misled America into war and have > given us a Katrina foreign policy that has betrayed our ideals, killed > and maimed our soldiers, and widened the terrorist threat instead of > defeating it." > > "This is the classic GOP playbook,"Kerry said in a harshly worded > statement."I'm sick and tired of these despicable Republican attacks > that always seem to come from those who never can be found to serve in > war, but love to attack those who did. I'm not going to be lectured by > a stuffed suit White House mouthpiece standing behind a podium." > > Snow was asked about the comment which Kerry made during a campaign > rally Monday for California Democratic gubernatorial candidate Phil > Angelides. The White House spokesman was clearly ready, consulting his > notes to read a fuller account of Kerry's statement and unleashing a > sharp attack. > > The Massachusetts senator, who is considering another presidential run > in 2008, had opened his speech at Pasadena City College with several > one-liners, joking at one point that Bush had lived in Texas but > now"lives in a state of denial." > > Then he said:"You know, education, if you make the most of it, you > study hard, you do your homework and you make an effort to be st, > you can do well. If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." > > Snow said the quote"fits a pattern"of negative reks from Kerry > about U.S. soldiers and suggested that whether Democratic candidates _ > particularly those running on their military service backgrounds _ > agree with their 2004 standard-bearer should be a campaign litmus > test. > > Unsubstantiated allegations about Kerry's Vietnam War heroism from a > group called Swift Boat Veterans for Truth figured prominently in the > 2004 Kerry-Bush race. Even Kerry has blamed his slow and uncertain > response to the group's claims for helping doom his White House > chances. > > Snow said a lot of Americans have joined the military since the Sept. > 11 terrorist attacks. > > "As for the notion that you can say this sort of thing about the > troops and say you support them, it's interesting,"the press secretary > said. > > A potential rival to Kerry in 2008 _ Republican Sen. John McCain _ > said in a statement that Kerry"owes an apology to the many thousands > of Americans serving in Iraq, who answered their country's call > because they are patriots and not because of any deficiencies in their > education." > > Like Kerry, McCain is a decorated Vietnam veteran. > > House Majority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, also called on Kerry to > apologize, labeling his comments"disrespectful and insulting to the > men and women serving in our military." > > ___ Post his swing with a 1 iron off a tight lie.   Date: 02 Nov 2006 18:14:46 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "R&B" wrote: > > You're wasting your time with me. I'll be the first to admit that Kerry > blew it. He had a valid point to make, and like the stumbling, bumbling > speaker that he is (barely better than Bush, the stumblingest, bumblingest > of all-time), he blew his one shot at making his point. > > I got what he meant. But by saying it in such a clumsy manner, he left the > door wide open for people like you to call into question his true meaning. > > I'm a big believer in people speaking in crystal-clear fashion, so they > cannot possibly be misunderstood. Kerry failed to meet that litmus test. > But it doesn't change the fact that his intent was to insult the president, > not the troops. And anyone who asserts that his intention was to insult the > troops is a damn fool. Of course that wasn't his intent. Why would he > insult the troops? Why would anyone? > > Randy I don't think Kerry "meant" to insult anyone. He revealed a very standard bias a lot of urban types, especially those who think they are "sophisticaed" have about the armed forces; if you can't hack college, you join the military..so study hard or you'll wind up stuck in Iraq! IMHO, he clearly meant that. Had he taken the time to think about what he was saying, he wouldn't have said it...but he obviously did not!   Date: 02 Nov 2006 15:04:55 From: BigPurdueFan Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems MnMikew wrote: > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1162490383.455948.147910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > > > BigPurdueFan wrote: > >> John B. wrote: > >> > MnMikew wrote: > >> > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > >> > > news:1162418430.512458.242270@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > >> > > > > >> > > > Tex wrote: > >> > > >> "R&B" wrote: > >> > > >> > You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in > >> > > >> > sentences, > >> > > >> > for a > >> > > >> > Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing > >> > > >> > is a > >> > > >> > little > >> > > >> > like the pot calling the kettle black. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and > >> > > >> you > >> > > >> don't like? > >> > > >> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > >> > > >> deserves it. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes > >> > > >> > in > >> > > >> > public. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > >> > > >> > >> > > >> > Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid > >> > > >> > public > >> > > >> > speaking > >> > > >> > altogether. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > >> > > >> >A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's > >> > > >> >prepared text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you > >> > > >> >end up > >> > > >> >if you don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're > >> > > >> >intellectually lazy? > >> > > >> >You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President > >> > > >> >Bush." > >> > > >> > >> > > >> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > >> > > >> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, > >> > > >> 1) > >> > > >> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a > >> > > >> bumbling > >> > > >> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > >> > > >> prepared text. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> You pick. > >> > > >> > >> > > >> Tex > >> > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > What a wonderful gift John Kerry has given the Republican Party. > >> > > > They > >> > > > have zero accomplishments to point to as reasons why the voters > >> > > > should > >> > > > keep them in office. They have done such a horrible job of > >> > > > governing > >> > > > that the only thing they've been able to say in their defense is: > >> > > > you > >> > > > think we're bad? Well, the Democrats would be REALLY bad. Now they > >> > > > don't have to say that anymore, because they've got John Kerry to > >> > > > kick > >> > > > around. While you're pummeling him, don't forget to thank him for > >> > > > giving you this diversion from the real issues. > >> > > > > >> > > The real issues like Foley right? > >> > > >> > Uh, no, I was thinking more in terms of Iraq, Afghanistan, corruption > >> > (Abramoff, DeLay, Safavian, Cunningham, etc.), record deficits, runaway > >> > spending, that kind of stuff. But, hey, you all had Michael J. Fox last > >> > week and now you've got Kerry this week. If somebody else puts his > >> > foot in his mouth in the next day or two, that'll keep you going right > >> > up to Election Day. > >> > >> Michael J Fox put his foot in his mouth? > > > > No, he didn't. Poor choice of words on my part. > > > And you're both named John. :-) That makes three of us.....or were you including me?   Date: 02 Nov 2006 09:59:43 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems BigPurdueFan wrote: > John B. wrote: > > MnMikew wrote: > > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > > > news:1162418430.512458.242270@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > > > Tex wrote: > > > >> "R&B" wrote: > > > >> > You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > > > >> > for a > > > >> > Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > > > >> > little > > > >> > like the pot calling the kettle black. > > > >> > > > >> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > > > >> don't like? > > > >> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > > > >> deserves it. > > > >> > > > >> > Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > > > >> > public. > > > >> > > > >> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > > > >> > > > >> > Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > > > >> > speaking > > > >> > altogether. > > > >> > > > >> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > > > >> >A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's > > > >> >prepared text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up > > > >> >if you don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? > > > >> >You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > > > >> > > > >> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > > > >> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > > > >> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > > > >> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > > > >> prepared text. > > > >> > > > >> You pick. > > > >> > > > >> Tex > > > > > > > > > > > > What a wonderful gift John Kerry has given the Republican Party. They > > > > have zero accomplishments to point to as reasons why the voters should > > > > keep them in office. They have done such a horrible job of governing > > > > that the only thing they've been able to say in their defense is: you > > > > think we're bad? Well, the Democrats would be REALLY bad. Now they > > > > don't have to say that anymore, because they've got John Kerry to kick > > > > around. While you're pummeling him, don't forget to thank him for > > > > giving you this diversion from the real issues. > > > > > > > The real issues like Foley right? > > > > Uh, no, I was thinking more in terms of Iraq, Afghanistan, corruption > > (Abramoff, DeLay, Safavian, Cunningham, etc.), record deficits, runaway > > spending, that kind of stuff. But, hey, you all had Michael J. Fox last > > week and now you've got Kerry this week. If somebody else puts his > > foot in his mouth in the next day or two, that'll keep you going right > > up to Election Day. > > Michael J Fox put his foot in his mouth? No, he didn't. Poor choice of words on my part.     Date: 02 Nov 2006 14:08:58 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1162490383.455948.147910@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com... > > BigPurdueFan wrote: >> John B. wrote: >> > MnMikew wrote: >> > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message >> > > news:1162418430.512458.242270@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> > > > >> > > > Tex wrote: >> > > >> "R&B" wrote: >> > > >> > You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in >> > > >> > sentences, >> > > >> > for a >> > > >> > Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing >> > > >> > is a >> > > >> > little >> > > >> > like the pot calling the kettle black. >> > > >> >> > > >> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and >> > > >> you >> > > >> don't like? >> > > >> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he >> > > >> deserves it. >> > > >> >> > > >> > Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes >> > > >> > in >> > > >> > public. >> > > >> >> > > >> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) >> > > >> >> > > >> > Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid >> > > >> > public >> > > >> > speaking >> > > >> > altogether. >> > > >> >> > > >> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: >> > > >> >A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's >> > > >> >prepared text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you >> > > >> >end up >> > > >> >if you don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're >> > > >> >intellectually lazy? >> > > >> >You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President >> > > >> >Bush." >> > > >> >> > > >> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell >> > > >> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, >> > > >> 1) >> > > >> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a >> > > >> bumbling >> > > >> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a >> > > >> prepared text. >> > > >> >> > > >> You pick. >> > > >> >> > > >> Tex >> > > > >> > > > >> > > > What a wonderful gift John Kerry has given the Republican Party. >> > > > They >> > > > have zero accomplishments to point to as reasons why the voters >> > > > should >> > > > keep them in office. They have done such a horrible job of >> > > > governing >> > > > that the only thing they've been able to say in their defense is: >> > > > you >> > > > think we're bad? Well, the Democrats would be REALLY bad. Now they >> > > > don't have to say that anymore, because they've got John Kerry to >> > > > kick >> > > > around. While you're pummeling him, don't forget to thank him for >> > > > giving you this diversion from the real issues. >> > > > >> > > The real issues like Foley right? >> > >> > Uh, no, I was thinking more in terms of Iraq, Afghanistan, corruption >> > (Abramoff, DeLay, Safavian, Cunningham, etc.), record deficits, runaway >> > spending, that kind of stuff. But, hey, you all had Michael J. Fox last >> > week and now you've got Kerry this week. If somebody else puts his >> > foot in his mouth in the next day or two, that'll keep you going right >> > up to Election Day. >> >> Michael J Fox put his foot in his mouth? > > No, he didn't. Poor choice of words on my part. > And you're both named John. :-)   Date: 02 Nov 2006 09:20:04 From: BigPurdueFan Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems John B. wrote: > MnMikew wrote: > > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > > news:1162418430.512458.242270@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > > > > > Tex wrote: > > >> "R&B" wrote: > > >> > You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > > >> > for a > > >> > Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > > >> > little > > >> > like the pot calling the kettle black. > > >> > > >> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > > >> don't like? > > >> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > > >> deserves it. > > >> > > >> > Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > > >> > public. > > >> > > >> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > > >> > > >> > Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > > >> > speaking > > >> > altogether. > > >> > > >> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > > >> >A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's > > >> >prepared text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up > > >> >if you don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? > > >> >You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > > >> > > >> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > > >> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > > >> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > > >> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > > >> prepared text. > > >> > > >> You pick. > > >> > > >> Tex > > > > > > > > > What a wonderful gift John Kerry has given the Republican Party. They > > > have zero accomplishments to point to as reasons why the voters should > > > keep them in office. They have done such a horrible job of governing > > > that the only thing they've been able to say in their defense is: you > > > think we're bad? Well, the Democrats would be REALLY bad. Now they > > > don't have to say that anymore, because they've got John Kerry to kick > > > around. While you're pummeling him, don't forget to thank him for > > > giving you this diversion from the real issues. > > > > > The real issues like Foley right? > > Uh, no, I was thinking more in terms of Iraq, Afghanistan, corruption > (Abramoff, DeLay, Safavian, Cunningham, etc.), record deficits, runaway > spending, that kind of stuff. But, hey, you all had Michael J. Fox last > week and now you've got Kerry this week. If somebody else puts his > foot in his mouth in the next day or two, that'll keep you going right > up to Election Day. Michael J Fox put his foot in his mouth?   Date: 01 Nov 2006 18:01:42 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems The World Wide Wade wrote: > In article > <1162424477.725957.292490@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: > > > > You've never seen the effects of crack and crystal meth on people. > > Beating, rapes...and not everyone who is shot dies. A well know > > statistic is that an African American male child, say 15, has a 50% > > chance of either being dead or incarcerated by age 30.... > > And your source for this "well-known statistic" would be ...? People in the local African American community. The basis for your skepticism is?   Date: 01 Nov 2006 17:40:59 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Larry Bud wrote: > "R&B" wrote: > > You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, for a > > Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a little > > like the pot calling the kettle black. > > But it's not the same thing. Bush can't give speeches and botches > written words. Kerry read his speech perfectly. This wasn't a faux > paux, it was premeditated. "faux pas", before I get blasted...     Date: 01 Nov 2006 20:10:36 From: Bobby Knight Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems On 1 Nov 2006 17:40:59 -0800, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote: > >Larry Bud wrote: >> "R&B" wrote: >> > You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, for a >> > Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a little >> > like the pot calling the kettle black. >> >> But it's not the same thing. Bush can't give speeches and botches >> written words. Kerry read his speech perfectly. This wasn't a faux >> paux, it was premeditated. > >"faux pas", before I get blasted... No problem. It's expected of you.   Date: 01 Nov 2006 17:40:10 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "R&B" wrote: > You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, for a > Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a little > like the pot calling the kettle black. But it's not the same thing. Bush can't give speeches and botches written words. Kerry read his speech perfectly. This wasn't a faux paux, it was premeditated.     Date: 01 Nov 2006 18:13:26 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162431610.769933.40690@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com >, "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com > wrote: > "R&B" wrote: > > You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, for a > > Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a little > > like the pot calling the kettle black. > > But it's not the same thing. Bush can't give speeches and botches > written words. Kerry read his speech perfectly. This wasn't a faux > paux, it was premeditated. You're a liar.   Date: 01 Nov 2006 17:36:02 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems Chris Bellomy wrote: > Larry Bud <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote: > : > :> Anyone with half a brain knew he was speaking of Bush, not the troops. > : > : Please Randy, don't insult us. His words were clear: > : > : "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you > : do your homework and you make an effort to be st, you can do well. > : If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." > : > : Kerry hates the military. > > Tell me this: are you this stupid, or are you just this dishonest? Tell me this: Do you fuck male goats, or female goats? Both? Great! Now that we have the insults over, I'm just going by the words Kerry has said all his life. I mean, I didn't say the stuff he's said, and I'm not making it up. Don't you guys at least have the balls to stand by the words you say? In Kerry's non-apology, he said his words were a botched joke. I'm still trying to figure out what the joke was.   Date: 01 Nov 2006 17:26:31 From: Larry Bud Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William A. T. Clark wrote: > In article <1162387418.474535.235820@f16g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, > "Larry Bud" <larrybud2002@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > Anyone with half a brain knew he was speaking of Bush, not the troops. > > > > Please Randy, don't insult us. His words were clear: > > > > "You know, education, if you make the most of it, you study hard, you > > do your homework and you make an effort to be st, you can do well. > > If you don't, you get stuck in Iraq." > > > > Kerry hates the military. He's proven it with statements throughout > > his life. This is no different. And I hardly raised an eyebrow when > > I heard it. > > You know, you and Dubya can huff and puff all you like, but in the wake > of Swift Boats this tactic won't fly a second time. LOL! What tactic? Listening to the words Kerry himself said? You can spin it all you want (I realize you and the dems are trying), but his words are clear.     Date: 02 Nov 2006 03:18:16 From: JJK Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William T. Clark wrote: > > You know, you and Dubya can huff and puff all you like, but in the wake > > of Swift Boats this tactic won't fly a second time. "Larry Bud" wrote: > LOL! What tactic? Listening to the words Kerry himself said? You can > spin it all you want (I realize you and the dems are trying), but his > words are clear. I will not excuse Kerry for his verbal foible (he must account for himself, which he apparently did today). However, if you want to take anyone to task for being clear or lying to the public, look no further than the man in charge. A single digit is sufficient to account for the number of times he's seemed to make sense while talking in public.       Date: 02 Nov 2006 06:48:03 From: JJK Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems William T. Clark wrote: > > > You know, you and Dubya can huff and puff all you like, but in the wake > > > of Swift Boats this tactic won't fly a second time. > > "Larry Bud" wrote: > > LOL! What tactic? Listening to the words Kerry himself said? You can > > spin it all you want (I realize you and the dems are trying), but his > > words are clear. > "JJK" wrote: > I will not excuse Kerry for his verbal foible (he must account for himself, > which he apparently did today). However, if you want to take anyone to task > for being clear or lying to the public,<snip> ... for NOT being clear. Good grief.   Date: 01 Nov 2006 17:11:55 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems JJK wrote: > Larry wrote: > <snipped BS> > > The Federal deficit is down almost 50%, just as predicted over last > > year. A new direction from there means what? > <snipped HS> > > > You obviously failed accounting 101. Yes, but he did pretty well in propaganda 101. The Bush administration has for six years predicted deficits that were higher than they really believed they would be. Then, when the numbers come in, they say: Look! Our policies are working. The deficit is much lower than we projected. And people likew Larry fall for it every time.   Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:44:52 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems The_Professor wrote: > multi wrote: > > On 1 Nov 2006 11:46:30 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >multi wrote: > > >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:25:23 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> >Iraq is still > > >> >statistically safer than certain parts of Washington DC and Detroit. > > >> > > >> I would think that with all the practice you get, you'd be better at > > >> lying. We lost over 100 well-trained and well-armed professional > > >> fighters in Iraq last month, out of 140,000 troops. That's almost one > > >> in a thousand, in one month, of guys who live in a heavily barricaded > > >> compound, and only venture out in armed groups, in tanks or armored > > >> transports. Detroit has about a million people, so for it to be more > > >> dangerous than Iraq, almost a thousand should be murdered in a month, > > >> even without allowing for the fact that most of the victims are > > >> untrained and unarmed, and are walking down the street with no > > >> protection at all. The actual figure for 2005 was a little over 300. > > >> For the whole year. > > >> > > >> To that, add the fact that thanks to our incredibly efficient military > > >> doctors, for every soldier killed in Iraq, there are at least ten more > > >> who suffer grievous wounds, but survive, because many of the killings > > >> are by bomb, grenade, or mortar. In Detroit, most of the killings are > > >> by pistol, so if you're not killed, you're probably not wounded, > > >> either. Yup, much safer in Iraq. > > > > > > > > >I have made the same point, but I qualify it with "inner city", you > > >know, those areas that have "benefitted" from 2+ generations of social > > >engineering. Here in the Jackson, MS area, we have a rgion bounded by > > >I-220,I-20 and I-55, which is essebtially inner city Jackson. The > > >"inner city" has migrated out a bit to the SW recently, but that is > > >where the 80-100 murders per year occur in the Jackson area. Anywhere > > >else, murders are very rare. Now there are maybe 180,000 people in all > > >of Jackson, and maybe, at the most, half those live in the "inner > > >city". So if you live in the inner city of Jackson, you have about a > > >1/1000 chance of being murdered. > > > > Per YEAR. The nearly 1/1000 rate in Iraq is per MONTH. > > > > > Consider that most of those murdered > > >are black men between the ages of 18 and 40, and it becomes even more > > >safer to be in Iraq, especially for a black male. > > > > You are ignoring the other point I made. You are apparently defining > > "safe" as "alive," but you are not "safe" if your leg is blown off, or > > if your brains are scrambled by the concussion effect of a nearby > > blast that doesn't physically touch you. That hardly ever happens in > > any part of Jackson. It happens to several Americans in Iraq for > > every one that is killed. > > You've never seen the effects of crack and crystal meth on people. > Beating, rapes...and not everyone who is shot dies. A well know > statistic is that an African American male child, say 15, ...clarification...inner city child....   Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:41:17 From: The_Professor Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems multi wrote: > On 1 Nov 2006 11:46:30 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: > > > > >multi wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:25:23 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com> > >> wrote: > >> >Iraq is still > >> >statistically safer than certain parts of Washington DC and Detroit. > >> > >> I would think that with all the practice you get, you'd be better at > >> lying. We lost over 100 well-trained and well-armed professional > >> fighters in Iraq last month, out of 140,000 troops. That's almost one > >> in a thousand, in one month, of guys who live in a heavily barricaded > >> compound, and only venture out in armed groups, in tanks or armored > >> transports. Detroit has about a million people, so for it to be more > >> dangerous than Iraq, almost a thousand should be murdered in a month, > >> even without allowing for the fact that most of the victims are > >> untrained and unarmed, and are walking down the street with no > >> protection at all. The actual figure for 2005 was a little over 300. > >> For the whole year. > >> > >> To that, add the fact that thanks to our incredibly efficient military > >> doctors, for every soldier killed in Iraq, there are at least ten more > >> who suffer grievous wounds, but survive, because many of the killings > >> are by bomb, grenade, or mortar. In Detroit, most of the killings are > >> by pistol, so if you're not killed, you're probably not wounded, > >> either. Yup, much safer in Iraq. > > > > > >I have made the same point, but I qualify it with "inner city", you > >know, those areas that have "benefitted" from 2+ generations of social > >engineering. Here in the Jackson, MS area, we have a rgion bounded by > >I-220,I-20 and I-55, which is essebtially inner city Jackson. The > >"inner city" has migrated out a bit to the SW recently, but that is > >where the 80-100 murders per year occur in the Jackson area. Anywhere > >else, murders are very rare. Now there are maybe 180,000 people in all > >of Jackson, and maybe, at the most, half those live in the "inner > >city". So if you live in the inner city of Jackson, you have about a > >1/1000 chance of being murdered. > > Per YEAR. The nearly 1/1000 rate in Iraq is per MONTH. > > > Consider that most of those murdered > >are black men between the ages of 18 and 40, and it becomes even more > >safer to be in Iraq, especially for a black male. > > You are ignoring the other point I made. You are apparently defining > "safe" as "alive," but you are not "safe" if your leg is blown off, or > if your brains are scrambled by the concussion effect of a nearby > blast that doesn't physically touch you. That hardly ever happens in > any part of Jackson. It happens to several Americans in Iraq for > every one that is killed. You've never seen the effects of crack and crystal meth on people. Beating, rapes...and not everyone who is shot dies. A well know statistic is that an African American male child, say 15, has a 50% chance of either being dead or incarcerated by age 30....but the big story is the "War in Iraq". You've even got a 10,000 strong gang in southern California that could probably blow El Sadr's "army" off the map in a week, but the story is 'The War in Iraq"...... The real story is the growing chaos in the US (and France...and England....).     Date: 01 Nov 2006 16:07:31 From: The World Wide Wade Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems In article <1162424477.725957.292490@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com >, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net > wrote: > multi wrote: > > On 1 Nov 2006 11:46:30 -0800, "The_Professor" <dbid@att.net> wrote: > > > > > > > >multi wrote: > > >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006 16:25:23 -0800, larry <larry@deldata.com> > > >> wrote: > > >> >Iraq is still > > >> >statistically safer than certain parts of Washington DC and Detroit. > > >> > > >> I would think that with all the practice you get, you'd be better at > > >> lying. We lost over 100 well-trained and well-armed professional > > >> fighters in Iraq last month, out of 140,000 troops. That's almost one > > >> in a thousand, in one month, of guys who live in a heavily barricaded > > >> compound, and only venture out in armed groups, in tanks or armored > > >> transports. Detroit has about a million people, so for it to be more > > >> dangerous than Iraq, almost a thousand should be murdered in a month, > > >> even without allowing for the fact that most of the victims are > > >> untrained and unarmed, and are walking down the street with no > > >> protection at all. The actual figure for 2005 was a little over 300. > > >> For the whole year. > > >> > > >> To that, add the fact that thanks to our incredibly efficient military > > >> doctors, for every soldier killed in Iraq, there are at least ten more > > >> who suffer grievous wounds, but survive, because many of the killings > > >> are by bomb, grenade, or mortar. In Detroit, most of the killings are > > >> by pistol, so if you're not killed, you're probably not wounded, > > >> either. Yup, much safer in Iraq. > > > > > > > > >I have made the same point, but I qualify it with "inner city", you > > >know, those areas that have "benefitted" from 2+ generations of social > > >engineering. Here in the Jackson, MS area, we have a rgion bounded by > > >I-220,I-20 and I-55, which is essebtially inner city Jackson. The > > >"inner city" has migrated out a bit to the SW recently, but that is > > >where the 80-100 murders per year occur in the Jackson area. Anywhere > > >else, murders are very rare. Now there are maybe 180,000 people in all > > >of Jackson, and maybe, at the most, half those live in the "inner > > >city". So if you live in the inner city of Jackson, you have about a > > >1/1000 chance of being murdered. > > > > Per YEAR. The nearly 1/1000 rate in Iraq is per MONTH. > > > > > Consider that most of those murdered > > >are black men between the ages of 18 and 40, and it becomes even more > > >safer to be in Iraq, especially for a black male. > > > > You are ignoring the other point I made. You are apparently defining > > "safe" as "alive," but you are not "safe" if your leg is blown off, or > > if your brains are scrambled by the concussion effect of a nearby > > blast that doesn't physically touch you. That hardly ever happens in > > any part of Jackson. It happens to several Americans in Iraq for > > every one that is killed. > > You've never seen the effects of crack and crystal meth on people. > Beating, rapes...and not everyone who is shot dies. A well know > statistic is that an African American male child, say 15, has a 50% > chance of either being dead or incarcerated by age 30.... And your source for this "well-known statistic" would be ...?   Date: 01 Nov 2006 14:52:08 From: John B. Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems MnMikew wrote: > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message > news:1162418430.512458.242270@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... > > > > Tex wrote: > >> "R&B" wrote: > >> > You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in sentences, > >> > for a > >> > Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a > >> > little > >> > like the pot calling the kettle black. > >> > >> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you > >> don't like? > >> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he > >> deserves it. > >> > >> > Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in > >> > public. > >> > >> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) > >> > >> > Similarly, Dubya is not an articulate man. He should avoid public > >> > speaking > >> > altogether. > >> > >> Really...Let's see what Kerry was "supposed" to say: > >> >A Kerry spokeswoman, Amy Brundage, said later that the senator's > >> >prepared text had >called for him to say: "Do you know where you end up > >> >if you don't study, if you aren't >st, if you're intellectually lazy? > >> >You end up getting us stuck in a war in Iraq. Just ask >President Bush." > >> > >> If that was really the prepared text....he went into ad lib hell > >> because what he really said wasn't even close to that. So either, 1) > >> Amy Brundage is a lieing sack of shit trying to cover for a bumbling > >> Kerry, or 2) Kerry is really a dumb fuck that can't even read a > >> prepared text. > >> > >> You pick. > >> > >> Tex > > > > > > What a wonderful gift John Kerry has given the Republican Party. They > > have zero accomplishments to point to as reasons why the voters should > > keep them in office. They have done such a horrible job of governing > > that the only thing they've been able to say in their defense is: you > > think we're bad? Well, the Democrats would be REALLY bad. Now they > > don't have to say that anymore, because they've got John Kerry to kick > > around. While you're pummeling him, don't forget to thank him for > > giving you this diversion from the real issues. > > > The real issues like Foley right? Uh, no, I was thinking more in terms of Iraq, Afghanistan, corruption (Abramoff, DeLay, Safavian, Cunningham, etc.), record deficits, runaway spending, that kind of stuff. But, hey, you all had Michael J. Fox last week and now you've got Kerry this week. If somebody else puts his foot in his mouth in the next day or two, that'll keep you going right up to Election Day.     Date: 02 Nov 2006 10:16:21 From: MnMikew Subject: Re: Kerry Screws the Dems "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message news:1162421528.496055.186580@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com... > > MnMikew wrote: >> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message >> news:1162418430.512458.242270@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com... >> > >> > Tex wrote: >> >> "R&B" wrote: >> >> > You know, Tex, as many times as Dubya has botched syntax in >> >> > sentences, >> >> > for a >> >> > Dubya supporter to take Kerry to task for doing the same thing is a >> >> > little >> >> > like the pot calling the kettle black. >> >> >> >> Ya think? Or maybe it's just your side taking a little flak and you >> >> don't like? >> >> The guy fucked up...and then made it worse. Enjoy the heat, he >> >> deserves it. >> >> >> >> > Kerry is not a funny man. He should avoid trying to tell jokes in >> >> > public. >> >> >> >> True enough, he should try reading comprehension too...(see below) >> >> >> >> > Similarly, Dubya is not an articu