Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

golf-forums.net
Promoting golf discussion.

Main

Date: 26 Oct 2006 06:50:16
From: annika1980
Subject: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
By Daniela Deane
Washington Post Staff Writer
Tuesday, ober 24, 2006; 4:42 PM

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh today attacked actor
Michael J. Fox for inserting his halting voice into the U.S. Senate
campaign in Missouri, suggesting Fox was "acting" in a commercial where

he's shown shaking while endorsing the importance of stem cell
research.

"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told
listeners today, encouraging them to go online to watch Fox's
commercial, which first aired . 21 in St. Louis during a World
Series game. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
act."

In the commercial, Fox throws his support behind Democratic Missouri
Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, who supports stem cell research,
against Republican James M. Talent. Fox also taped similar ads for
other Democratic candidates, including Benjamin L. Cardin in his Senate

race against Republican Michael S. Steele in Maryland and Wisconsin
Gov. Jim Doyle (D), who is seeking reelection.

The ads bear witness to the actor's unmistakable decline from
Parkinson's, which the actor has suffered from for a long time, and
harnesses that physical degeneration into a political message.

"What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans, Americans
like me," Fox said in the television spot, which will continue airing
throughout Missouri this week.

"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the

symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control
himself."

Limbaugh said Fox could "control himself enough to stay in the frame of

the picture" and to keep "his eyes right on the . . . teleprompter. But

his head and shoulders are moving all over the place."

"He is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent
opposes research that would help him get cured," Limbaugh said, adding
that Talent only opposes "fetal stem cell research, but not adult."

"This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox," Limbaugh said. "Either he

didn't take his medication or he's acting."

Fox, who gained fame for his roles in the "Family Ties" and "Spin City"

television shows and "Back to the Future" movies, has long been open
about his battle with Parkinson's and his support for the research that

could lead to a treatment.

But in this ad he shows a noticeable degree of decline not widely seen
in previous public appearances. His speech is clear but his head and
body are jerky and unsteady.

William J. Weiner M.D., professor and chairman of the department of
neurology at the University of Maryland Medical Center and director of
the Parkinson's clinic there, says the following about Fox's behavior:
"What you are seeing on the video is side effects of the medication. He

has to take that medication to sit there and talk to you like that. ...

He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of

Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of

this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....

Date: 26 Oct 2006 10:36:23
From: Dene
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

larry wrote:

> >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >
> >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >
> >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....

I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.

-Greg

Date: 26 Oct 2006 12:32:14
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 26 2006 10:36:23 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

>
>larry wrote:
>
>> >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
>> >
>> >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>> >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>> >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>> >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>> >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>> >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
>> >
>> >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>
>I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.

AND this was a taped ad. What we saw was likely the 12th take-- the
professional director was following the orders from the DNC to make it
look dramatic. "Michael, can you shake your head a little further?
How about rocking back and forth more. OK, lets shoot it again
folks." We were shamelessly manipulated. The content was also
shamelessly false and simply wrong. There are dozens and dozens of US
medical research institutions doing full stem cell research on
Embryos-- the only labs not doing that are the government labs--that
are funded by taxes. But you'll never hear that from that side.
Typical liberal dishonesty. They are not ready to govern and they
demonstrate that every day. They've learned nothing from 12 years in
the political wilderness.

Larry

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:23:57
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <8032k29mola6n13sfe6j8eho5rphm0908t@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On 26 2006 10:36:23 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >larry wrote:
> >
> >> >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >> >
> >> >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >> >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >> >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >> >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >> >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >> >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >> >
> >> >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >
> >I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>
> AND this was a taped ad. What we saw was likely the 12th take-- the
> professional director was following the orders from the DNC to make it
> look dramatic. "Michael, can you shake your head a little further?
> How about rocking back and forth more. OK, lets shoot it again
> folks." We were shamelessly manipulated. The content was also
> shamelessly false and simply wrong. There are dozens and dozens of US
> medical research institutions doing full stem cell research on
> Embryos-- the only labs not doing that are the government labs--that
> are funded by taxes. But you'll never hear that from that side.
> Typical liberal dishonesty. They are not ready to govern and they
> demonstrate that every day. They've learned nothing from 12 years in
> the political wilderness.
>
> Larry

Larry, you really are a scumbag in the true Limbaugh tradition. So stem
cell research on embryos is fine as long as your neocon buddies can make
a fast buck out of it, but out of the question for impartial federally
funded scientists who do what they do because they choose to use
research to improve the lot of mankind? What a despicable philosophy.
Anyone who has any familiarity with this awful disease and its
treatments knows that there is absolutely no control over when and how
the body will react to any particular dose of medication - to imply that
his dose was somehow manipulated for TV simply illustrates a) your
complete ignorance of anything to do with PD, and b) the moral
bankruptcy that is typical of you and your neocon ilk.

For now, Larry, just crawl back under your sound-bite rock, and take
that fat pig Limbaugh with you. Maybe the two of you can pop a few of
his pills while you're there.

William Clark

Date: 26 Oct 2006 20:53:10
From: Michael Anselmo
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

>> >I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>> >shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>>
>> AND this was a taped ad. What we saw was likely the 12th take-- the
>> professional director was following the orders from the DNC to make it
>> look dramatic. "Michael, can you shake your head a little further?
>> How about rocking back and forth more. OK, lets shoot it again
>> folks." We were shamelessly manipulated. The content was also
>> shamelessly false and simply wrong. There are dozens and dozens of US
>> medical research institutions doing full stem cell research on
>> Embryos-- the only labs not doing that are the government labs--that
>> are funded by taxes. But you'll never hear that from that side.
>> Typical liberal dishonesty. They are not ready to govern and they
>> demonstrate that every day. They've learned nothing from 12 years in
>> the political wilderness.
>>
>> Larry
>
> Larry, you really are a scumbag in the true Limbaugh tradition. So stem
> cell research on embryos is fine as long as your neocon buddies can make
> a fast buck out of it, but out of the question for impartial federally
> funded scientists who do what they do because they choose to use
> research to improve the lot of mankind? What a despicable philosophy.
> Anyone who has any familiarity with this awful disease and its
> treatments knows that there is absolutely no control over when and how
> the body will react to any particular dose of medication - to imply that
> his dose was somehow manipulated for TV simply illustrates a) your
> complete ignorance of anything to do with PD, and b) the moral
> bankruptcy that is typical of you and your neocon ilk.
>
> For now, Larry, just crawl back under your sound-bite rock, and take
> that fat pig Limbaugh with you. Maybe the two of you can pop a few of
> his pills while you're there.
>
> William Clark

Willy, I don't really want to get in the way of you savaging Larry but I
couldn't let something you said pass without comment. You said "So stem cell
research on embryos is fine as long as your neocon buddies can make a fast
buck out of it, but out of the question for IMPARTIAL FEDERALLY FUNDED
SCIENTISTS who do what they do because they choose TO USE RESEARCH TO
IMPROVE THE LOT OF MANKIND?"

Surely you jest. The federally funded scientists you talk about work in
universities and would use their mothers in a medical experiment if it meant
getting another 2 year grant from Uncle Sugar. The competition for grants is
fierce, and although in the end mankind benefits (sometimes) these guys are
in it to publish and continue their careers (thus eating regularly and
attending faculty teas) and survive another few years until the next grant.
If the next grant doesn't come through, they are history and on to the next
lab if they can find one. You assign too much altruism to government
(contract) workers.

OK, I've had my say. You and Larry can take it from here.

Mike

Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:14:51
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <yKSdnTrGq93pxdzYnZ2dnUVZ_qydnZ2d@adelphia.com >,
"Michael Anselmo" <manselmo@NOEFFINGSPAMoptonline.net > wrote:

> >> >I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >> >shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>
> >> AND this was a taped ad. What we saw was likely the 12th take-- the
> >> professional director was following the orders from the DNC to make it
> >> look dramatic. "Michael, can you shake your head a little further?
> >> How about rocking back and forth more. OK, lets shoot it again
> >> folks." We were shamelessly manipulated. The content was also
> >> shamelessly false and simply wrong. There are dozens and dozens of US
> >> medical research institutions doing full stem cell research on
> >> Embryos-- the only labs not doing that are the government labs--that
> >> are funded by taxes. But you'll never hear that from that side.
> >> Typical liberal dishonesty. They are not ready to govern and they
> >> demonstrate that every day. They've learned nothing from 12 years in
> >> the political wilderness.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> > Larry, you really are a scumbag in the true Limbaugh tradition. So stem
> > cell research on embryos is fine as long as your neocon buddies can make
> > a fast buck out of it, but out of the question for impartial federally
> > funded scientists who do what they do because they choose to use
> > research to improve the lot of mankind? What a despicable philosophy.
> > Anyone who has any familiarity with this awful disease and its
> > treatments knows that there is absolutely no control over when and how
> > the body will react to any particular dose of medication - to imply that
> > his dose was somehow manipulated for TV simply illustrates a) your
> > complete ignorance of anything to do with PD, and b) the moral
> > bankruptcy that is typical of you and your neocon ilk.
> >
> > For now, Larry, just crawl back under your sound-bite rock, and take
> > that fat pig Limbaugh with you. Maybe the two of you can pop a few of
> > his pills while you're there.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> Willy, I don't really want to get in the way of you savaging Larry but I
> couldn't let something you said pass without comment. You said "So stem cell
> research on embryos is fine as long as your neocon buddies can make a fast
> buck out of it, but out of the question for IMPARTIAL FEDERALLY FUNDED
> SCIENTISTS who do what they do because they choose TO USE RESEARCH TO
> IMPROVE THE LOT OF MANKIND?"
>
> Surely you jest. The federally funded scientists you talk about work in
> universities and would use their mothers in a medical experiment if it meant
> getting another 2 year grant from Uncle Sugar. The competition for grants is
> fierce, and although in the end mankind benefits (sometimes) these guys are
> in it to publish and continue their careers (thus eating regularly and
> attending faculty teas) and survive another few years until the next grant.
> If the next grant doesn't come through, they are history and on to the next
> lab if they can find one. You assign too much altruism to government
> (contract) workers.
>
> OK, I've had my say. You and Larry can take it from here.
>
> Mike

OK, now I am a 'federally funded scientist working in a university' and
I openly challenge you to find one single thing that I have done that is
remotely politically biased or cutthroat as you imply. Your caricature
of universities is just typical of the kind of pabulum that neocon press
and legislators spew - based in pure prejudice laced with ignorance. If
there is any obsession with continuing funding, it is because such
research (and undergraduate teaching) are ridiculously underfunded at
state level (we spend less of the GDP on research that almost any other
advanced country), and university faculty are being forced to be less
like researchers and more like accountants. Most of us could earn far
more in the private sector, but the notion of making some contribution
to the education of future generations still counts for something, much
as you would like to deny it. After all, we could leave it to someone
else, and then every kid could be like Limbaugh, fat, ignorant, and
hypocritical.

You're right, you've had your say, and a pretty pointless say it was.

William Clark

Date: 26 Oct 2006 16:33:44
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Thu, 26 2006 19:23:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>In article <8032k29mola6n13sfe6j8eho5rphm0908t@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On 26 2006 10:36:23 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >larry wrote:
>> >
>> >> >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
>> >> >
>> >> >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>> >> >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>> >> >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>> >> >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>> >> >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>> >> >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
>> >> >
>> >> >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>> >
>> >I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>> >shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>>
>> AND this was a taped ad. What we saw was likely the 12th take-- the
>> professional director was following the orders from the DNC to make it
>> look dramatic. "Michael, can you shake your head a little further?
>> How about rocking back and forth more. OK, lets shoot it again
>> folks." We were shamelessly manipulated. The content was also
>> shamelessly false and simply wrong. There are dozens and dozens of US
>> medical research institutions doing full stem cell research on
>> Embryos-- the only labs not doing that are the government labs--that
>> are funded by taxes. But you'll never hear that from that side.
>> Typical liberal dishonesty. They are not ready to govern and they
>> demonstrate that every day. They've learned nothing from 12 years in
>> the political wilderness.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Larry, you really are a scumbag in the true Limbaugh tradition. So stem
>cell research on embryos is fine as long as your neocon buddies can make
>a fast buck out of it, but out of the question for impartial federally
>funded scientists who do what they do because they choose to use
>research to improve the lot of mankind? What a despicable philosophy.
>Anyone who has any familiarity with this awful disease and its
>treatments knows that there is absolutely no control over when and how
>the body will react to any particular dose of medication - to imply that
>his dose was somehow manipulated for TV simply illustrates a) your
>complete ignorance of anything to do with PD, and b) the moral
>bankruptcy that is typical of you and your neocon ilk.
>
>For now, Larry, just crawl back under your sound-bite rock, and take
>that fat pig Limbaugh with you. Maybe the two of you can pop a few of
>his pills while you're there.
>
>William Clark

I post about concepts and public ideas under discussion, you post
about me. Lame--but revealing of your intellect.

Larry

Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:17:59
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <sch2k25v2u84up3jvnbaclokbtnlm142ji@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 2006 19:23:57 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <8032k29mola6n13sfe6j8eho5rphm0908t@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 26 2006 10:36:23 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >larry wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >> >> >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >> >> >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >> >> >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >> >> >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >> >> >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >> >> >
> >> >> >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >> >
> >> >I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >> >shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>
> >> AND this was a taped ad. What we saw was likely the 12th take-- the
> >> professional director was following the orders from the DNC to make it
> >> look dramatic. "Michael, can you shake your head a little further?
> >> How about rocking back and forth more. OK, lets shoot it again
> >> folks." We were shamelessly manipulated. The content was also
> >> shamelessly false and simply wrong. There are dozens and dozens of US
> >> medical research institutions doing full stem cell research on
> >> Embryos-- the only labs not doing that are the government labs--that
> >> are funded by taxes. But you'll never hear that from that side.
> >> Typical liberal dishonesty. They are not ready to govern and they
> >> demonstrate that every day. They've learned nothing from 12 years in
> >> the political wilderness.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Larry, you really are a scumbag in the true Limbaugh tradition. So stem
> >cell research on embryos is fine as long as your neocon buddies can make
> >a fast buck out of it, but out of the question for impartial federally
> >funded scientists who do what they do because they choose to use
> >research to improve the lot of mankind? What a despicable philosophy.
> >Anyone who has any familiarity with this awful disease and its
> >treatments knows that there is absolutely no control over when and how
> >the body will react to any particular dose of medication - to imply that
> >his dose was somehow manipulated for TV simply illustrates a) your
> >complete ignorance of anything to do with PD, and b) the moral
> >bankruptcy that is typical of you and your neocon ilk.
> >
> >For now, Larry, just crawl back under your sound-bite rock, and take
> >that fat pig Limbaugh with you. Maybe the two of you can pop a few of
> >his pills while you're there.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> I post about concepts and public ideas under discussion, you post
> about me. Lame--but revealing of your intellect.
>
> Larry

No you don't, you post warmed over regurgitations of ignorant,
loudmouthed radio 'commentators'. Find one single piece of "concepts and
public ideas' in your trashing of Michael J. Fox - go on, I dare you.
You really expect to claim the moral and intellectual high ground based
on that?

Well, I suppose it is the only way that you can avoid answering the
question without seeming to be tucking your tail between your legs and
running. Doesn't work, though - we can all see right through it.

William Clark

Date: 26 Oct 2006 12:58:19
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com > wrote:

> larry wrote:
>
> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> > >
> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> > >
> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>
> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>
> -Greg

You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
the show at all.

I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
ilk are famous for.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 15:07:34
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...
> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> larry wrote:
>>
>> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
>> > >of
>> > >
>> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
>> > >of
>> > >
>> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>>
>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>>
>> -Greg
>
> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> the show at all.
>
> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> ilk are famous for.

And of course nobody on the left and their ilk does that right?

Date: 26 Oct 2006 16:02:06
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Thu, 26 2006 15:07:34 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...
>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>> larry wrote:
>>>
>>> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
>>> > >of
>>> > >
>>> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>>> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>>> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>>> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>>> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>>> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
>>> > >of
>>> > >
>>> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>>>
>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>>>
>>> -Greg
>>
>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>> the show at all.
>>
>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>> ilk are famous for.
>
>And of course nobody on the left and their ilk does that right?

Nobody on the left can get an audience. Air Amarica is dead, no
listeners, no advertisers, no money.

The DNC has had to BORROW millions because their believers won't put
their money where their mouth is. Easy to understand.

Larry

Date: 26 Oct 2006 18:09:38
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <rgf2k2h6klos0qptf72eqnebv96hr3jgke@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 2006 15:07:34 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> >news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...
> >> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> larry wrote:
> >>>
> >>> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
> >>> > >of
> >>> > >
> >>> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >>> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >>> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >>> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >>> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >>> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
> >>> > >of
> >>> > >
> >>> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>>
> >>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>>
> >>> -Greg
> >>
> >> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> >> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >> the show at all.
> >>
> >> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >> ilk are famous for.
> >
> >And of course nobody on the left and their ilk does that right?
>
> Nobody on the left can get an audience. Air Amarica is dead, no
> listeners, no advertisers, no money.
>
> The DNC has had to BORROW millions because their believers won't put
> their money where their mouth is. Easy to understand.
>
> Larry

Gosh, Larry. You mean that San Diego market is so lame that they have
no opposing points of view on the radio?

Here's the station that Air America is on : San Diego, CA - KLSD-AM

Also, driving across Missouri the other day, I was listening to Randi
Rhodes and Al Franken quite clearly on stations not with Air America.

So another line of BS from you...

Date: 26 Oct 2006 16:30:11
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Thu, 26 2006 18:09:38 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <rgf2k2h6klos0qptf72eqnebv96hr3jgke@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 2006 15:07:34 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>> >news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...
>> >> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> larry wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
>> >>> > >of
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>> >>> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>> >>> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>> >>> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>> >>> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>> >>> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
>> >>> > >of
>> >>> > >
>> >>> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>> >>>
>> >>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>> >>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>> >>>
>> >>> -Greg
>> >>
>> >> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
>> >> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>> >> the show at all.
>> >>
>> >> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>> >> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>> >> ilk are famous for.
>> >
>> >And of course nobody on the left and their ilk does that right?
>>
>> Nobody on the left can get an audience. Air Amarica is dead, no
>> listeners, no advertisers, no money.
>>
>> The DNC has had to BORROW millions because their believers won't put
>> their money where their mouth is. Easy to understand.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Gosh, Larry. You mean that San Diego market is so lame that they have
>no opposing points of view on the radio?
>
>Here's the station that Air America is on : San Diego, CA - KLSD-AM
>
>Also, driving across Missouri the other day, I was listening to Randi
>Rhodes and Al Franken quite clearly on stations not with Air America.
>
>So another line of BS from you...

They are on last legs, Franken is not being paid I understand. They
owe him $400k. Keep listening to those stations, if they don't start
carrying O'Reilly or Hannity or Rush shortly it wll be Mexican music!
Larry

Date: 27 Oct 2006 00:05:41
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <d5h2k2puk8nu2v138jv94u2o5f2grfdek3@4ax.com >
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

You DO realize that limpballs pays a certain amount of money each month
to the radio stations to allow his programming, don't you. It's not a
matter of the fatass sitting there just raking in the money and stations
beating down his doors to have him on. He PAYS to have his programming
on. Don't you find this a little odd as you try to tell us what a great
asset he is to AM radio blabathons.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 18:36:26
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <d5h2k2puk8nu2v138jv94u2o5f2grfdek3@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 2006 18:09:38 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <rgf2k2h6klos0qptf72eqnebv96hr3jgke@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 2006 15:07:34 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> >news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...
> >> >> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> larry wrote:
> >> >>>
> >> >>> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his
> >> >>> > >ignorance
> >> >>> > >of
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look
> >> >>> > >like
> >> >>> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
> >> >>> > >stiff,
> >> >>> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's,
> >> >>> > >when
> >> >>> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >> >>> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to
> >> >>> > >talk.
> >> >>> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get
> >> >>> > >all
> >> >>> > >of
> >> >>> > >
> >> >>> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >> >>>
> >> >>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >> >>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >> >>>
> >> >>> -Greg
> >> >>
> >> >> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there
> >> >> talking
> >> >> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >> >> the show at all.
> >> >>
> >> >> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >> >> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >> >> ilk are famous for.
> >> >
> >> >And of course nobody on the left and their ilk does that right?
> >>
> >> Nobody on the left can get an audience. Air Amarica is dead, no
> >> listeners, no advertisers, no money.
> >>
> >> The DNC has had to BORROW millions because their believers won't put
> >> their money where their mouth is. Easy to understand.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Gosh, Larry. You mean that San Diego market is so lame that they have
> >no opposing points of view on the radio?
> >
> >Here's the station that Air America is on : San Diego, CA - KLSD-AM
> >
> >Also, driving across Missouri the other day, I was listening to Randi
> >Rhodes and Al Franken quite clearly on stations not with Air America.
> >
> >So another line of BS from you...
>
> They are on last legs, Franken is not being paid I understand. They
> owe him $400k. Keep listening to those stations, if they don't start
> carrying O'Reilly or Hannity or Rush shortly it wll be Mexican music!
> Larry

Like half the California stations?

Date: 26 Oct 2006 15:11:53
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <4qcis7Fmh1a7U1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...
> > In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> larry wrote:
> >>
> >> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
> >> > >of
> >> > >
> >> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
> >> > >of
> >> > >
> >> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>
> >> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>
> >> -Greg
> >
> > You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> > about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> > the show at all.
> >
> > I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> > position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> > ilk are famous for.
>
> And of course nobody on the left and their ilk does that right?

These days, mostly in response. But politicians and their talking
slaves are mostly alike.

I noticed that you didn't see the 'or anyone else' in my response. I'm
not fond of personal digs from either side of the spectrum.

I'm really hoping that soon we can get both of these tired old parties
out of power and bring in some new blood that ties to the people and not
the corporates as both major parties are.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 15:22:31
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-0734BA.15115326102006@individual.net...
> In article <4qcis7Fmh1a7U1@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...
>> > In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> larry wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his
>> >> > >ignorance
>> >> > >of
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look
>> >> > >like
>> >> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
>> >> > >stiff,
>> >> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's,
>> >> > >when
>> >> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>> >> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to
>> >> > >talk.
>> >> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get
>> >> > >all
>> >> > >of
>> >> > >
>> >> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>> >>
>> >> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>> >> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>> >>
>> >> -Greg
>> >
>> > You need to do some research. There are some articles out there
>> > talking
>> > about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>> > the show at all.
>> >
>> > I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>> > position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>> > ilk are famous for.
>>
>> And of course nobody on the left and their ilk does that right?
>
> These days, mostly in response. But politicians and their talking
> slaves are mostly alike.
>
> I noticed that you didn't see the 'or anyone else' in my response. I'm
> not fond of personal digs from either side of the spectrum.
>
I can't remember the last time I've heard a positive campaign add. All
attack, all the time, all parties. Think I'll give up politics and take up
golf. Oh wait, I live in MN, golf's over.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 15:27:51
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <4qcjo8FmdglkU1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> > These days, mostly in response. But politicians and their talking
> > slaves are mostly alike.
> >
> > I noticed that you didn't see the 'or anyone else' in my response. I'm
> > not fond of personal digs from either side of the spectrum.
> >
> I can't remember the last time I've heard a positive campaign add. All
> attack, all the time, all parties. Think I'll give up politics and take up
> golf. Oh wait, I live in MN, golf's over.

When I was driving home, down through the ozarks, I heard lots of
positive 'why vote for me' type ads from local politicians. It was
refreshing.

Here in Southern Illinois golf isn't over yet, but you have to pick your
days. Today and yesterday was a good time to do something besides golf.
High 40's to low 50's, lots of wind and passing rains. Later I might
play in that, but right now we still get some good sunshine days in the
40's or 50's that I will play in.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:04:31
From: Michael Anselmo
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-18976E.15275126102006@individual.net...
> In article <4qcjo8FmdglkU1@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > These days, mostly in response. But politicians and their talking
>> > slaves are mostly alike.
>> >
>> > I noticed that you didn't see the 'or anyone else' in my response. I'm
>> > not fond of personal digs from either side of the spectrum.
>> >
>> I can't remember the last time I've heard a positive campaign add. All
>> attack, all the time, all parties. Think I'll give up politics and take
>> up
>> golf. Oh wait, I live in MN, golf's over.
>
> When I was driving home, down through the ozarks, I heard lots of
> positive 'why vote for me' type ads from local politicians. It was
> refreshing.
>
> Here in Southern Illinois golf isn't over yet, but you have to pick your
> days. Today and yesterday was a good time to do something besides golf.
> High 40's to low 50's, lots of wind and passing rains. Later I might
> play in that, but right now we still get some good sunshine days in the
> 40's or 50's that I will play in.

Down here in FL there is an ad that states that this guy, Davis, running for
governor had the second worst attendance record when in congress. What I
want to know........who had the worst attendance record?

By the way, Here in Port St. Lucie it was in the high 70s today. It is
currently 74 degrees but too dark to play at 7 PM. Mid 80s tomorrow.

I wish I could play in the mid 80s. I'd have to go to Death Valley in August
to shoot the temperature.

By the way........I'm not a lying scumbag. Everything in this posting is
true. I can't vouch for the other guys though.

Mike

Date: 26 Oct 2006 15:53:31
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-18976E.15275126102006@individual.net...
> In article <4qcjo8FmdglkU1@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> > These days, mostly in response. But politicians and their talking
>> > slaves are mostly alike.
>> >
>> > I noticed that you didn't see the 'or anyone else' in my response. I'm
>> > not fond of personal digs from either side of the spectrum.
>> >
>> I can't remember the last time I've heard a positive campaign add. All
>> attack, all the time, all parties. Think I'll give up politics and take
>> up
>> golf. Oh wait, I live in MN, golf's over.
>
> When I was driving home, down through the ozarks, I heard lots of
> positive 'why vote for me' type ads from local politicians. It was
> refreshing.
>
> Here in Southern Illinois golf isn't over yet, but you have to pick your
> days. Today and yesterday was a good time to do something besides golf.
> High 40's to low 50's, lots of wind and passing rains. Later I might
> play in that, but right now we still get some good sunshine days in the
> 40's or 50's that I will play in.

Yes, we've been pretty much screwed out of our "Indian Summer" so far up
here.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 12:36:20
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> larry wrote:
>>
>> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
>> > >
>> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
>> > >
>> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>>
>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>>
>> -Greg
>
>You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
>about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>the show at all.
>
>I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>ilk are famous for.

Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.

You should feel very patronized. I do.

Larry

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:28:10
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <6e32k25gs21542ln3eo5m6819rfn7ls9as@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> larry wrote:
> >>
> >> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >> > >
> >> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >> > >
> >> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>
> >> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>
> >> -Greg
> >
> >You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> >about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >the show at all.
> >
> >I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >ilk are famous for.
>
> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>
> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>
> Larry

Sorry, but it was a quick take - because there is a narrow window while
medication is effective. Shameless is the like of you and Rush,
following the SwiftBoats tactic to smear anyone threatening your
precious neocon line.

You should feel very ashamed.

William Clark

Date: 27 Oct 2006 08:43:17
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=17635

by John O'Neill (Of Swift Boats)
Posted 20, 2006

Dispirited conservatives and Republicans rightfully appalled at the
Cunningham, Abramoff, and Foley scandals should remember history as
they contemplate not voting in the 2006 elections because of
disillusionment.

In early 1973, the Dow approached new highs in a booming economy. In
the 1972 election, the new left was rejected in almost every state.
The Paris Peace Treaty was concluded with North Vietnam memorializing
its pledge not to interfere militarily in the affairs of South
Vietnam. The nation was prosperous and at peace.

Worst President

Within a short time, the mainstream media were able to dismember and
destroy the Nixon Administration, using as their sword the Watergate
affair. In the congressional elections of 1974, Republican candidates
were pounded, losing 48 House seats and five Senate seats.

Until the 1990s, the so-called �Watergate Babies� (i.e. left-wing
Democrats) ruled Congress. As its first act after the 1974 election,
the new Congress cut off all aid to South Vietnam. Within a short
period of time, this led to Communist conquest of all of Indochina,
the massacre of at least 4 million of our friends in the killing
fields of Cambodia, Laos and Vietnam, and the displacement of millions
of �boat people.�

In 1976, the left wing captured the White House with the worst
President of modern times�Jimmy Carter. By 1979, the U.S. economy was
in shambles with 12% inflation, 11% unemployment, and vast deficits.
Our military was reduced to a shadow. With even our embassy officials
held hostage in Tehran, the United States became a powerless joke to
the world. It may be fairly said that but for Ronald Reagan the days
of our democracy might well have been numbered by the consequences of
the 1974 election.

It is not clear why the voters of 1974 thought it wise or just to
indirectly cause the destruction of millions of allies in Southeast
Asia because of the cover-up of a minor burglary at the Watergate.
They certainly did not know that by their votes they would punish
themselves severely, leaving, by the end of the Carter years, a U.S.
economy that was a burned-out hulk and a nation that was humiliated.

I wonder whether history will repeat itself this year. Despite
mainstream media distortion, the economy is in its strongest condition
since the Reagan years with low unemployment and inflation rates and
diminishing fiscal deficits. We have recovered from the implosion of
the Clinton Internet bubble and the shock of Sept. 11, 2001. We have
crippled al Qaeda, assembled an international coalition to deal with
North Korea and made reasonable progress in defeating at least the
foreign insurgency in Iraq. We have seen no terrorist attack on our
heartland in more than five years.

Despite the second-guessing by Democrats who have no military
experience and by a few veterans who question the Iraq policy, an
overwhelming majority of active-duty personnel support the Bush
policies and the Republican administration. For example, in 2004, an
Army Times poll of active-duty military personnel showed less than 15%
voting for Kerry and more than 80% voting for Bush. Despite the token
military veterans trotted out by the Democratic Party as Trojan horses
in Republican areas, it is clear that a large majority of veterans and
active-duty personnel reject the �cut-and-run� policies of the fringe
element now in control of the Democratic Party.

In the spring of 1975, I watched in horror our refusal to aid our
South Vietnamese friends and their collapse. I watched our friends die
by the millions in the gulags of Cambodia and Laos and in frenzied
attempts to escape on the high seas, and I remembered my friends, who
died in Vietnam, and whose sacrifice was so casually discarded by the
�Watergate Babies.� I lost faith in the United States for many years.

I wonder now if we are so blind and ignorant of history to actually
allow a new crop of �Watergate Babies� to install clearly unfit
leaders such as Nancy Pelosi (D.-Calif.), John Conyers (D.-Mich.), and
impeached Alcee Hastings (D.-Fla.) as the guiding force in our nation.
Considering that a Democratic win could mean the rise of John Murtha
(D.-Pa.) from Abscam to majority leader, and Hastings from impeached
federal judge to House Intelligence chairman, it is no exaggeration to
say both parties have bad actors. The distinction is that the
Democrats promote them and the Republicans fire them.

Finally, I wonder if voters (like those in 1974) are going to actually
vote for the betrayal of our Iraqi and Afghan allies and the
sacrifices of our troops. I wonder if our Iraq War veterans will watch
the mass execution or flight of those who fought with them and
believed in us. If so, history teaches us that in the end we will
suffer terribly ourselves. This is particularly true here, where we
face adversaries who have said they will not stop at the waters� edge
but have already reached across the ocean to destroy our nation�s
largest buildings and thousands of our people.

Mr. O'Neill is a Houston attorney who clerked for Chief Justice
William Rehnquist during the Supreme Court's ober 1974 term. He
authored the New York Times No. 1 bestseller, "Unfit for Command" in
2004.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 14:52:48
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <6e32k25gs21542ln3eo5m6819rfn7ls9as@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> larry wrote:
> >>
> >> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >> > >
> >> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >> > >
> >> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>
> >> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>
> >> -Greg
> >
> >You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> >about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >the show at all.
> >
> >I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >ilk are famous for.
>
> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>
> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>
> Larry

Why would you feel patronized? And why would Rush want to talk about
someone's afflictions that wasn't self-induced. Such as his hearing and
drug use connection?

Date: 31 Oct 2006 14:04:04
From:
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Head Shot wrote:
> annika1980 wrote:
> > Head Shot wrote:
> >>> And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you
> >>> try and
> >> muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend
> >> time in the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American.
> >> You are a coward, plain as day.
> >
> > So is it your contention that one must spend time in the military to
> > be a true American?
> > That's so stupid it isn't even worth arguing.
>
> All healthy Americans should spend a certain amount of time in the Military.
> We all want the freedom; we should all protect it. I understand that not
> everyone is healthy enough to do that; but if you are you should serve.
>

I'll join right after Bush's daughers enlist.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 18:34:46
From: Darrell Jefress
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...

> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> ilk are famous for.

In this case, at least, Limbaugh did correct himself on the air when the
specifics were pointed out to him. The article didn't mention this. Someone
pointed out to him the difference between when MJF is and is not on his
medication.

DJJ

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:30:19
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Date: 26 Oct 2006 15:54:46
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Date: 26 Oct 2006 20:17:10
From: Darrell Jefress
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-3D2557.15544626102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...

> Oh, right, but not until well after the enormous explosion of attention
> he got with his original contention.

Actually, the first correction came within an hour of his original
statement.

DJJ

Date: 26 Oct 2006 16:06:19
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Thu, 26 2006 20:17:10 GMT, "Darrell Jefress" <evely7@tokyo.com >
wrote:

>
>"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
>news:clark.31-3D2557.15544626102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>
>> Oh, right, but not until well after the enormous explosion of attention
>> he got with his original contention.
>
>Actually, the first correction came within an hour of his original
>statement.

Actually Rush defused that whole ad campaign-- That ad had been
planned for extensive use in a dozen other states. Now it is dead.
Thanks Rush!!!

Larry

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:32:50
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <sof2k2lfscjien365i9s1asdqdmb5n5aub@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 2006 20:17:10 GMT, "Darrell Jefress" <evely7@tokyo.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:clark.31-3D2557.15544626102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >
> >> Oh, right, but not until well after the enormous explosion of attention
> >> he got with his original contention.
> >
> >Actually, the first correction came within an hour of his original
> >statement.
>
> Actually Rush defused that whole ad campaign-- That ad had been
> planned for extensive use in a dozen other states. Now it is dead.
> Thanks Rush!!!
>
> Larry

Now why would it disappear? Because GoP controlled TV stations decided
to pull it once they found what it said. Far too damaging to their pet
candidates - just as they wouldn't show the Kerry war service
documentary in 2004.

That is democracy? Free speech stifled by neocon media owners? Welcome
to America!

William Clark

Date: 26 Oct 2006 13:48:53
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <ad70h.123395$QZ1.75785@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net >,
"Darrell Jefress" <evely7@tokyo.com > wrote:

> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...
>
> > I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> > position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> > ilk are famous for.
>
> In this case, at least, Limbaugh did correct himself on the air when the
> specifics were pointed out to him. The article didn't mention this. Someone
> pointed out to him the difference between when MJF is and is not on his
> medication.
>
> DJJ

I listened to Rush the day he made the original comments. He did
correct himself but just barely. And I think he wouldn't have even done
that if it hadn't been for all the negative publicity he took over it.

And I also noticed that the other right wing yakkers did what they
usually do, marched in lock step with him.

Let's face it, Rush is reprehensible in his presentation of 'new
commentary'. He is poorly educated, and his research is of the type
that only finds those things that agree with him.

He has said that his goals for his show are to attract the largest
audience and therefore be able to charge the highest ad rates. And that
is the ONLY goals he has expressed for the show. Makes you wonder just
what he would do or say if his ratings started to tank...

Date: 26 Oct 2006 12:41:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Thu, 26 2006 13:48:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <ad70h.123395$QZ1.75785@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> "Darrell Jefress" <evely7@tokyo.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...
>>
>> > I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>> > position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>> > ilk are famous for.
>>
>> In this case, at least, Limbaugh did correct himself on the air when the
>> specifics were pointed out to him. The article didn't mention this. Someone
>> pointed out to him the difference between when MJF is and is not on his
>> medication.
>>
>> DJJ
>
>I listened to Rush the day he made the original comments. He did
>correct himself but just barely. And I think he wouldn't have even done
>that if it hadn't been for all the negative publicity he took over it.
>
>And I also noticed that the other right wing yakkers did what they
>usually do, marched in lock step with him.
>
>Let's face it, Rush is reprehensible in his presentation of 'new
>commentary'. He is poorly educated, and his research is of the type
>that only finds those things that agree with him.
>
>He has said that his goals for his show are to attract the largest
>audience and therefore be able to charge the highest ad rates. And that
>is the ONLY goals he has expressed for the show. Makes you wonder just
>what he would do or say if his ratings started to tank...

20 MILLION and growing. The reason, he is usually right on the money-
Newt gave him credit for the 1994 revolution. I listened to him in
Sacramento--just a local radio show with no call screener. It was
apparent even then that Rush has stunning intelligence and unerring
political instincts. There is a reason such as E.F. Buckley are
friends and admirers of his. He will be around and an important
conservative leader for another 20+ years.

He and the other conservative talk shows will help keep the House and
Senate in Republican hands.

Larry

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:33:58
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <dj32k29s4t8vgpi5gcppf5odfskub46acf@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 2006 13:48:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ad70h.123395$QZ1.75785@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Darrell Jefress" <evely7@tokyo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...
> >>
> >> > I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >> > position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >> > ilk are famous for.
> >>
> >> In this case, at least, Limbaugh did correct himself on the air when the
> >> specifics were pointed out to him. The article didn't mention this.
> >> Someone
> >> pointed out to him the difference between when MJF is and is not on his
> >> medication.
> >>
> >> DJJ
> >
> >I listened to Rush the day he made the original comments. He did
> >correct himself but just barely. And I think he wouldn't have even done
> >that if it hadn't been for all the negative publicity he took over it.
> >
> >And I also noticed that the other right wing yakkers did what they
> >usually do, marched in lock step with him.
> >
> >Let's face it, Rush is reprehensible in his presentation of 'new
> >commentary'. He is poorly educated, and his research is of the type
> >that only finds those things that agree with him.
> >
> >He has said that his goals for his show are to attract the largest
> >audience and therefore be able to charge the highest ad rates. And that
> >is the ONLY goals he has expressed for the show. Makes you wonder just
> >what he would do or say if his ratings started to tank...
>
> 20 MILLION and growing. The reason, he is usually right on the money-
> Newt gave him credit for the 1994 revolution. I listened to him in
> Sacramento--just a local radio show with no call screener. It was
> apparent even then that Rush has stunning intelligence and unerring
> political instincts. There is a reason such as E.F. Buckley are
> friends and admirers of his. He will be around and an important
> conservative leader for another 20+ years.
>
> He and the other conservative talk shows will help keep the House and
> Senate in Republican hands.
>
> Larry

You are right - he is clearly up in the intellectual stratosphere that
you have previously reserved for George W Bush.

Right.

William Clark

Date: 26 Oct 2006 17:08:29
From: Kevin D. Timm
Subject: Re: One Iron from a tight lie

Sparky wrote:
>
> On 25--2006, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > Rob Davis wrote:
> > > > In that context ... it makes perfect sense to brag about hitting a
> > > 1-iron 230 yds and dead straight "every" time.
> > >
> > And who wouldn�t brag about that? F
>
> That's a bit short for a 1 iron...
>
> me

I agree; I consider that short for my 3 iron.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 16:24:00
From: larry
Subject: Re: One Iron from a tight lie

On Thu, 26 2006 17:08:29 -0500, "Kevin D. Timm"
<kevindtimm@comcast.net > wrote:

>Sparky wrote:
>>
>> On 25--2006, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Rob Davis wrote:
>> > > > In that context ... it makes perfect sense to brag about hitting a
>> > > 1-iron 230 yds and dead straight "every" time.
>> > >
>> > And who wouldn�t brag about that? F
>>
>> That's a bit short for a 1 iron...
>>
>> me
>
>I agree; I consider that short for my 3 iron.

Lets hear how far you hit your 1i when you're 65 and have a 95 MPH
clubhead speed.

larry

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 27 Oct 2006 01:45:43
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: One Iron from a tight lie

On Thu, 26 2006 16:24:00 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>Lets hear how far you hit your 1i when you're 65 and have a 95 MPH
>clubhead speed.

When I am 65 I intend to use the club that works best for my golf
game. Current indicators are that will be a wood.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 08:58:31
From: larry
Subject: Re: One Iron from a tight lie

On Fri, 27 2006 01:45:43 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Thu, 26 2006 16:24:00 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Lets hear how far you hit your 1i when you're 65 and have a 95 MPH
>>clubhead speed.
>
>When I am 65 I intend to use the club that works best for my golf
>game. Current indicators are that will be a wood.

Me too Howard. But the swing that allows me to hit a 1i pretty well
makes hitting 3w simple. Hitting such shots is mostly about relaxed
confidence--- and confidence comes from training with the most
difficult clubs.

Larry

Date: 26 Oct 2006 23:30:21
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: One Iron from a tight lie

In article <7rg2k2lfa1mr8plvhc5hffm8lqti5ov6pk@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 2006 17:08:29 -0500, "Kevin D. Timm"
> <kevindtimm@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Sparky wrote:
> >>
> >> On 25--2006, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Rob Davis wrote:
> >> > > > In that context ... it makes perfect sense to brag about hitting a
> >> > > 1-iron 230 yds and dead straight "every" time.
> >> > >
> >> > And who wouldn�t brag about that? F
> >>
> >> That's a bit short for a 1 iron...
> >>
> >> me
> >
> >I agree; I consider that short for my 3 iron.
>
> Lets hear how far you hit your 1i when you're 65 and have a 95 MPH
> clubhead speed.
>
> larry

All I know is that however far you claim you can hit you're 1i, I'll it
my 4i by you.

--
'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: 27 Oct 2006 16:33:57
From: Kevin D. Timm
Subject: Re: One Iron from a tight lie

larry wrote:
>
> On Thu, 26 2006 17:08:29 -0500, "Kevin D. Timm"
> <kevindtimm@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> >Sparky wrote:
> >>
> >> On 25--2006, "Fairway" <arminsson@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Rob Davis wrote:
> >> > > > In that context ... it makes perfect sense to brag about hitting a
> >> > > 1-iron 230 yds and dead straight "every" time.
> >> > >
> >> > And who wouldn�t brag about that? F
> >>
> >> That's a bit short for a 1 iron...
> >>
> >> me
> >
> >I agree; I consider that short for my 3 iron.
>
> Lets hear how far you hit your 1i when you're 65 and have a 95 MPH
> clubhead speed.
>
> larry

Why wait 'til then? I'm just comparing apples to apples

Date: 26 Oct 2006 15:09:39
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:dj32k29s4t8vgpi5gcppf5odfskub46acf@4ax.com...
> He will be around and an important conservative leader for another 20+
> >years.
>
This is a bit of a stretch. He's an ENTERTAINER, not a leader.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 16:04:14
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Thu, 26 2006 15:09:39 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote in message
>news:dj32k29s4t8vgpi5gcppf5odfskub46acf@4ax.com...
>> He will be around and an important conservative leader for another 20+
>> >years.
>>
>This is a bit of a stretch. He's an ENTERTAINER, not a leader.

He is often in front with ideas--and has been the primary 'stiffener"
for politician backs when they may be tempted to go "all wobbly." He
exerts real power.

Larry

Date: 26 Oct 2006 14:51:41
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <dj32k29s4t8vgpi5gcppf5odfskub46acf@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 2006 13:48:53 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ad70h.123395$QZ1.75785@bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net>,
> > "Darrell Jefress" <evely7@tokyo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> >> news:lloydparsons-55CF3D.12581926102006@individual.net...
> >>
> >> > I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >> > position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >> > ilk are famous for.
> >>
> >> In this case, at least, Limbaugh did correct himself on the air when the
> >> specifics were pointed out to him. The article didn't mention this.
> >> Someone
> >> pointed out to him the difference between when MJF is and is not on his
> >> medication.
> >>
> >> DJJ
> >
> >I listened to Rush the day he made the original comments. He did
> >correct himself but just barely. And I think he wouldn't have even done
> >that if it hadn't been for all the negative publicity he took over it.
> >
> >And I also noticed that the other right wing yakkers did what they
> >usually do, marched in lock step with him.
> >
> >Let's face it, Rush is reprehensible in his presentation of 'new
> >commentary'. He is poorly educated, and his research is of the type
> >that only finds those things that agree with him.
> >
> >He has said that his goals for his show are to attract the largest
> >audience and therefore be able to charge the highest ad rates. And that
> >is the ONLY goals he has expressed for the show. Makes you wonder just
> >what he would do or say if his ratings started to tank...
>
> 20 MILLION and growing. The reason, he is usually right on the money-
> Newt gave him credit for the 1994 revolution. I listened to him in
> Sacramento--just a local radio show with no call screener. It was
> apparent even then that Rush has stunning intelligence and unerring
> political instincts. There is a reason such as E.F. Buckley are
> friends and admirers of his. He will be around and an important
> conservative leader for another 20+ years.
>
> He and the other conservative talk shows will help keep the House and
> Senate in Republican hands.
>
> Larry

20 Million is his weekly take, it is 4 million per day - mostly the same
sycophants with a few libs to howl about his daily BS.

If you took the self aggrandizing out of his show it would only be about
10 minutes instead of 3 hours! ;-)

And looking at what is going on right now in politics, I think that we
will see a change in at least one house of Congress, if not both. No
matter how much the right wing yakkers talk, people can see the crapola
being foisted upon them by this not very conservative Republican
congress and President.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 07:41:16
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the smartest people in the
> > US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
> > of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
> > congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
> > trivia by little people.
> >
> > Larry
>
> Really? Using tax deductible donations to finance two college 'courses'
> intended to further the aims of the GoP, and then making false
> statements to the Congressional Ethics Committee?
>
> You are right, nothing but trivia. And then being opposed for his
> Speaker position by the (Republican) chairs of the House Appropriations
> and the House Ways and Means Committees. Go ahead and blame the
> Democrats, Larry.

Also, he divorced one of his wives on her death bed. A real class act.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:31:32
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

annika1980 wrote:
> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the smartest people in
>>> the US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be
>>> President of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor,
>>> great congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought
>>> down over trivia by little people.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>> Really? Using tax deductible donations to finance two college
>> 'courses' intended to further the aims of the GoP, and then making
>> false statements to the Congressional Ethics Committee?
>>
>> You are right, nothing but trivia. And then being opposed for his
>> Speaker position by the (Republican) chairs of the House
>> Appropriations and the House Ways and Means Committees. Go ahead and
>> blame the Democrats, Larry.
>
> Also, he divorced one of his wives on her death bed. A real class
> act.

What if she was a lying, cheating slut? We don't know the circumstances of
that; nor is it any of our damn business.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 31 Oct 2006 04:47:52
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

bill-o wrote:
> On 30--2006, larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
> > And a shame because Newt Gingrich is among the smartest people in the
> > US and likely the most qualified person in the world to be President
> > of the US in 2008. He was a great college professor, great
> > congressman, and great Speaker of the House. He was brought down over
> > trivia by little people.
>
> God I can't believe I'm agreeing with LLLarry, but what got Newt ran out of
> town was much less a deal than the "non-issue" of Harry Reid and his,
> eh-hem, ethics filings/land deal.
>

Really? what was the trivial thing that got Gingrich "run out of town?"
and fined $300,000 by an ethics committee chaired by a conservaitve
Republican (Joel Hefley)?

> --
> bill-o
>
> A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
> two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 15:39:45
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 31--2006, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> Really? what was the trivial thing that got Gingrich "run out of town?"
> and fined $300,000 by an ethics committee chaired by a conservaitve
> Republican (Joel Hefley)?

I'm sorry, as bad as that is, it seems pale in comparaison of pushing then
passing a law that
put 7 figures in Reid's pocket. As far as DC goes, I think Travis Bickle
said ot best: "Someday a real rain will come and wash all this scum off the
streets."
--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:56:59
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Head Shot wrote:
> > And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you try and
> muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend time in
> the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American. You are a coward,
> plain as day.

So is it your contention that one must spend time in the military to be
a true American?
That's so stupid it isn't even worth arguing.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 16:14:15
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 30 2006 15:56:59 -0800, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>Head Shot wrote:
>> > And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you try and
>> muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend time in
>> the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American. You are a coward,
>> plain as day.
>
>So is it your contention that one must spend time in the military to be
>a true American?
>That's so stupid it isn't even worth arguing.

Not to be a true American, but certainly to be in Government with
responsibility over the military and intelligence services, jobs such
as Commander in Chief. Clinton proved that every day for 8 years--
as the distrust between the president and the military set this
country up for mistake after mistake--many of which we are just
learning about. His hatred of the military caused many of the best
and brightest to retire-- and his ignorance and philosophical bias
caused the best to leave the CIA and NSA, etc. When Bush came in we
were almost blind-- one of the reasons 9/11 was so easy for them to
do.

Larry

Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:09:52
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

annika1980 wrote:
> Head Shot wrote:
>>> And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you
>>> try and
>> muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend
>> time in the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American.
>> You are a coward, plain as day.
>
> So is it your contention that one must spend time in the military to
> be a true American?
> That's so stupid it isn't even worth arguing.

All healthy Americans should spend a certain amount of time in the Military.
We all want the freedom; we should all protect it. I understand that not
everyone is healthy enough to do that; but if you are you should serve.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 26 Oct 2006 10:01:12
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 26 2006 06:50:16 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
>By Daniela Deane
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Tuesday, ober 24, 2006; 4:42 PM
>
>Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh today attacked actor
>Michael J. Fox for inserting his halting voice into the U.S. Senate
>campaign in Missouri, suggesting Fox was "acting" in a commercial where
>
>he's shown shaking while endorsing the importance of stem cell
>research.
>
>
>"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told
>listeners today, encouraging them to go online to watch Fox's
>commercial, which first aired . 21 in St. Louis during a World
>Series game. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
>act."
>
>
>In the commercial, Fox throws his support behind Democratic Missouri
>Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, who supports stem cell research,
>against Republican James M. Talent. Fox also taped similar ads for
>other Democratic candidates, including Benjamin L. Cardin in his Senate
>
>race against Republican Michael S. Steele in Maryland and Wisconsin
>Gov. Jim Doyle (D), who is seeking reelection.
>
>
>The ads bear witness to the actor's unmistakable decline from
>Parkinson's, which the actor has suffered from for a long time, and
>harnesses that physical degeneration into a political message.
>
>
>"What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans, Americans
>like me," Fox said in the television spot, which will continue airing
>throughout Missouri this week.
>
>
>"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the
>
>symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control
>himself."
>
>
>Limbaugh said Fox could "control himself enough to stay in the frame of
>
>the picture" and to keep "his eyes right on the . . . teleprompter. But
>
>his head and shoulders are moving all over the place."
>
>
>"He is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent
>opposes research that would help him get cured," Limbaugh said, adding
>that Talent only opposes "fetal stem cell research, but not adult."
>
>
>"This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox," Limbaugh said. "Either he
>
>didn't take his medication or he's acting."

And Fox admitted in his book that he purposefully does not take his
medication when he is scheduled to testify before congress or other
public appearances. He does that to dramatize his condition. Duhhhh.
Fox allowed himself to be exploited by the DNC- which wrote that
extremely deceptive and erroneous advertisement against Talent. Thanks
to Rush they and the liberal media are exposed-- again.

The democrats simply remind the nation that they are not ready to
govern-- dishonest and irresponsible.

Larry
>
>
>Fox, who gained fame for his roles in the "Family Ties" and "Spin City"
>
>television shows and "Back to the Future" movies, has long been open
>about his battle with Parkinson's and his support for the research that
>
>could lead to a treatment.
>
>
>But in this ad he shows a noticeable degree of decline not widely seen
>in previous public appearances. His speech is clear but his head and
>body are jerky and unsteady.
>
>
>William J. Weiner M.D., professor and chairman of the department of
>neurology at the University of Maryland Medical Center and director of
>the Parkinson's clinic there, says the following about Fox's behavior:
>"What you are seeing on the video is side effects of the medication. He
>
>has to take that medication to sit there and talk to you like that. ...
>
>He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
>
>Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
>
>this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:40:10
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Date: 26 Oct 2006 13:31:56
From: FredK
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:v6q1k2h3575g3r6ib7gt0kend8mijl24ka@4ax.com...
> On 26 2006 06:50:16 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:

>
> And Fox admitted in his book that he purposefully does not take his
> medication when he is scheduled to testify before congress or other
> public appearances. He does that to dramatize his condition. Duhhhh.
> Fox allowed himself to be exploited by the DNC- which wrote that
> extremely deceptive and erroneous advertisement against Talent. Thanks
> to Rush they and the liberal media are exposed-- again.
>
> The democrats simply remind the nation that they are not ready to
> govern-- dishonest and irresponsible.
>

Hmmm. Fox did pretty much the same commercial for Arlan Specter in his 2004
campain. I'll have to google to see your outrage against the RNC and Fox
back then.

Oh. Hold on. It's Larrry. You don't actually want the facts. Go back to
istening to Rush.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 26 Oct 2006 15:52:26
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <v6q1k2h3575g3r6ib7gt0kend8mijl24ka@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On 26 2006 06:50:16 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
> >By Daniela Deane
> >Washington Post Staff Writer
> >Tuesday, ober 24, 2006; 4:42 PM
> >
> >Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh today attacked actor
> >Michael J. Fox for inserting his halting voice into the U.S. Senate
> >campaign in Missouri, suggesting Fox was "acting" in a commercial where
> >
> >he's shown shaking while endorsing the importance of stem cell
> >research.
> >
> >
> >"He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told
> >listeners today, encouraging them to go online to watch Fox's
> >commercial, which first aired . 21 in St. Louis during a World
> >Series game. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
> >act."
> >
> >
> >In the commercial, Fox throws his support behind Democratic Missouri
> >Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, who supports stem cell research,
> >against Republican James M. Talent. Fox also taped similar ads for
> >other Democratic candidates, including Benjamin L. Cardin in his Senate
> >
> >race against Republican Michael S. Steele in Maryland and Wisconsin
> >Gov. Jim Doyle (D), who is seeking reelection.
> >
> >
> >The ads bear witness to the actor's unmistakable decline from
> >Parkinson's, which the actor has suffered from for a long time, and
> >harnesses that physical degeneration into a political message.
> >
> >
> >"What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans, Americans
> >like me," Fox said in the television spot, which will continue airing
> >throughout Missouri this week.
> >
> >
> >"This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the
> >
> >symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control
> >himself."
> >
> >
> >Limbaugh said Fox could "control himself enough to stay in the frame of
> >
> >the picture" and to keep "his eyes right on the . . . teleprompter. But
> >
> >his head and shoulders are moving all over the place."
> >
> >
> >"He is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent
> >opposes research that would help him get cured," Limbaugh said, adding
> >that Talent only opposes "fetal stem cell research, but not adult."
> >
> >
> >"This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox," Limbaugh said. "Either he
> >
> >didn't take his medication or he's acting."
>
> And Fox admitted in his book that he purposefully does not take his
> medication when he is scheduled to testify before congress or other
> public appearances. He does that to dramatize his condition. Duhhhh.
> Fox allowed himself to be exploited by the DNC- which wrote that
> extremely deceptive and erroneous advertisement against Talent. Thanks
> to Rush they and the liberal media are exposed-- again.
>
> The democrats simply remind the nation that they are not ready to
> govern-- dishonest and irresponsible.
>
> Larry

Glad to see you got your daily dose of Hannity this morning - for you, a
helpful substitute for real thinking. There is a huge difference between
someone not taking medication, and so revealing the true extent of their
disease, and someone deliberately pretending to be afflicted by aping
the symptoms. Apparently Limbaugh doesn't understand the difference
(along with most other things), but it is indeed gratifying to see the
total panic that this has caused on the GoP blogs today. However, given
that medication actually enhances the spasms rather than suppresses
them, even his first contention is hard to believe.

If I am campaigning for funding to discover a cure, I would start by
showing just how serious my disease is. Why mask it with medication -
unless you think that it is acceptable for Fox (or anyone with a similar
genetic disease) to be kept indefinitely on medication (known to have
long term deleterious effects), rather than use available stem cell
techniques to look for a cure? However, to convolute this with "acting",
is simply a disgrace - another embarrassment for the GoP on a par with
SwiftBoats and all their other sleaze.

The republicans simply remind the nation that they are not fit to govern
- they will stop at absolutely nothing to retain power.

William Clark

Date: 26 Oct 2006 08:36:39
From: Liberalism is a Mental Disorder
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

You are move proof that liberalism is a very, very serious mental
disorder.

annika1980 wrote:
> Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
> By Daniela Deane
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, ober 24, 2006; 4:42 PM

Another Drive-By Media hit.

The comPost article lied through its teeth. That is par for the course
when the comPost discusses partisan politics.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 08:09:33
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

annika1980 wrote:
> Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
> By Daniela Deane
> Washington Post Staff Writer
> Tuesday, ober 24, 2006; 4:42 PM
>
> Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh today attacked actor
> Michael J. Fox for inserting his halting voice into the U.S. Senate
> campaign in Missouri, suggesting Fox was "acting" in a commercial where
>
> he's shown shaking while endorsing the importance of stem cell
> research.
>
>
> "He is exaggerating the effects of the disease," Limbaugh told
> listeners today, encouraging them to go online to watch Fox's
> commercial, which first aired . 21 in St. Louis during a World
> Series game. "He's moving all around and shaking and it's purely an
> act."
>
>
> In the commercial, Fox throws his support behind Democratic Missouri
> Senate candidate Claire McCaskill, who supports stem cell research,
> against Republican James M. Talent. Fox also taped similar ads for
> other Democratic candidates, including Benjamin L. Cardin in his Senate
>
> race against Republican Michael S. Steele in Maryland and Wisconsin
> Gov. Jim Doyle (D), who is seeking reelection.
>
>
> The ads bear witness to the actor's unmistakable decline from
> Parkinson's, which the actor has suffered from for a long time, and
> harnesses that physical degeneration into a political message.
>
>
> "What you do in Missouri matters to millions of Americans, Americans
> like me," Fox said in the television spot, which will continue airing
> throughout Missouri this week.
>
>
> "This is the only time I've ever seen Michael J. Fox portray any of the
>
> symptoms of the disease he has," Limbaugh said. "He can barely control
> himself."
>
>
> Limbaugh said Fox could "control himself enough to stay in the frame of
>
> the picture" and to keep "his eyes right on the . . . teleprompter. But
>
> his head and shoulders are moving all over the place."
>
>
> "He is acting like his disease is deteriorating because Jim Talent
> opposes research that would help him get cured," Limbaugh said, adding
> that Talent only opposes "fetal stem cell research, but not adult."
>
>
> "This is really shameless of Michael J. Fox," Limbaugh said. "Either he
>
> didn't take his medication or he's acting."
>
>
> Fox, who gained fame for his roles in the "Family Ties" and "Spin City"
>
> television shows and "Back to the Future" movies, has long been open
> about his battle with Parkinson's and his support for the research that
>
> could lead to a treatment.
>
>
> But in this ad he shows a noticeable degree of decline not widely seen
> in previous public appearances. His speech is clear but his head and
> body are jerky and unsteady.
>
>
> William J. Weiner M.D., professor and chairman of the department of
> neurology at the University of Maryland Medical Center and director of
> the Parkinson's clinic there, says the following about Fox's behavior:
> "What you are seeing on the video is side effects of the medication. He
>
> has to take that medication to sit there and talk to you like that. ...
>
> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
>
> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
>
> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....

Since he was speculating, I don't think you can say Rush was "lying" in
this instance. I think you can say that he is a vicious, mean-spirited,
hateful bastard. And that is the basis of his popularity. This kind of
publicity just before an election gets Democrats to jumping for joy.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 12:40:58
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote in message
news:1161875373.206218.105710@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>
> Since he was speculating, I don't think you can say Rush was "lying" in
> this instance.

Annika is too dense to figgure that out.

I think you can say that he is a vicious, mean-spirited,
> hateful bastard.

Agreed. He's boring as well. Almost as bad as Franken.

> This kind of publicity just before an election gets Democrats to jumping
> for >joy.
>
They need all the help they can get.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 12:34:09
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Thu, 26 2006 12:40:58 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:1161875373.206218.105710@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> Since he was speculating, I don't think you can say Rush was "lying" in
>> this instance.
>
>Annika is too dense to figgure that out.
>
> I think you can say that he is a vicious, mean-spirited,
>> hateful bastard.
>
>Agreed. He's boring as well. Almost as bad as Franken.
>
>> This kind of publicity just before an election gets Democrats to jumping
>> for >joy.
>>
>They need all the help they can get.

The blatant lies and patronizing deceit simply verifies again that the
Democrats are not ready for prime time. They are not to be trusted
with the reins of government. This election will pretty much squash
them-- back to the wilderness for another 8 years.

Larry

Date: 26 Oct 2006 21:56:55
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

The November Smithsonian has an article about the 1946 mid-term
elections. Everybody was mad at Truman because of inflation and
shortages, and both the House and the Senate went Republican big-time.
The Republicans of the time didn't realize that they weren't being
given a mandate - people were voting against Truman, not voting for
them.

Two years later Truman campaigned against their failure to do what the
voters wanted - and upset Dewey.

This can be repeated - with people voting against Bush. And if the
Democrats are as poor at selling what they get after, they will have
the same result as the 1946 Republicans had.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 16:16:37
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Thu, 26 2006 21:56:55 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>
>The November Smithsonian has an article about the 1946 mid-term
>elections. Everybody was mad at Truman because of inflation and
>shortages, and both the House and the Senate went Republican big-time.
>The Republicans of the time didn't realize that they weren't being
>given a mandate - people were voting against Truman, not voting for
>them.
>
>Two years later Truman campaigned against their failure to do what the
>voters wanted - and upset Dewey.
>
>This can be repeated - with people voting against Bush. And if the
>Democrats are as poor at selling what they get after, they will have
>the same result as the 1946 Republicans had.

The problem, Howard, is that the country knows that the Democrats have
no ideas, no positive plans, they are only "against." Rather
difficult to envision how a party can produce laws and help a country
prosper when their whole reason to be is "against."

Larry

Date: 26 Oct 2006 23:43:02
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <gbg2k217d6ql4cvfbskln3di09rdb1m58l@4ax.com >
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

You forget there lar that you are the typical repuglican. If any further
explanation is needed for the inadequacies of that party and its
followers, we need only to remember your name and the blather that spews
from you hollowhead. bush-bots are not highly thought of in today's
world, either here or the rest of the world. That's not an
accident.......it's the logical outcome. Live with it but please, feel
free to blather on as a constant reminder to all of us, why you are
aligned with the growing minority. But, we on the left are by no means
confident about the mid-terms for we have learned from the hanging chads
of Florida to the questionable computer voting in Ohio, you should never
underestimate the power of a good cheat. It looks like your last, best
alternative and one you have and will undoubtedly, use.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 08:48:38
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 26 2006 23:43:02 -0000, tiggerspalewife <anon@comments.header >
wrote:

>In article <gbg2k217d6ql4cvfbskln3di09rdb1m58l@4ax.com>
>larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>You forget there lar that you are the typical repuglican. If any further
>explanation is needed for the inadequacies of that party and its
>followers, we need only to remember your name and the blather that spews
>from you hollowhead. bush-bots are not highly thought of in today's
>world, either here or the rest of the world. That's not an
>accident.......it's the logical outcome. Live with it but please, feel
>free to blather on as a constant reminder to all of us, why you are
>aligned with the growing minority. But, we on the left are by no means
>confident about the mid-terms for we have learned from the hanging chads
>of Florida to the questionable computer voting in Ohio, you should never
>underestimate the power of a good cheat. It looks like your last, best
>alternative and one you have and will undoubtedly, use.

Whew! Did you write that with a crayon?

Larry

Date: 27 Oct 2006 19:05:27
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <1ia4k2lqaudvll8q599kva4334q174feag@4ax.com >
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

Odd that you would mention crayons loser.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 18:34:54
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <gbg2k217d6ql4cvfbskln3di09rdb1m58l@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 2006 21:56:55 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >The November Smithsonian has an article about the 1946 mid-term
> >elections. Everybody was mad at Truman because of inflation and
> >shortages, and both the House and the Senate went Republican big-time.
> >The Republicans of the time didn't realize that they weren't being
> >given a mandate - people were voting against Truman, not voting for
> >them.
> >
> >Two years later Truman campaigned against their failure to do what the
> >voters wanted - and upset Dewey.
> >
> >This can be repeated - with people voting against Bush. And if the
> >Democrats are as poor at selling what they get after, they will have
> >the same result as the 1946 Republicans had.
>
> The problem, Howard, is that the country knows that the Democrats have
> no ideas, no positive plans, they are only "against." Rather
> difficult to envision how a party can produce laws and help a country
> prosper when their whole reason to be is "against."
>
> Larry

What the country knows is that the last time the Dems were in charge we
had an economy that everyone was getting to participate in. You know,
the rich getting richer and the working man making gains in real wages.

BTW, for a party that is so controlled by the Christian right, how come
they haven't done anything about the abortion issue they so staunchly
claim.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 08:47:29
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Thu, 26 2006 18:34:54 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <gbg2k217d6ql4cvfbskln3di09rdb1m58l@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 2006 21:56:55 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >The November Smithsonian has an article about the 1946 mid-term
>> >elections. Everybody was mad at Truman because of inflation and
>> >shortages, and both the House and the Senate went Republican big-time.
>> >The Republicans of the time didn't realize that they weren't being
>> >given a mandate - people were voting against Truman, not voting for
>> >them.
>> >
>> >Two years later Truman campaigned against their failure to do what the
>> >voters wanted - and upset Dewey.
>> >
>> >This can be repeated - with people voting against Bush. And if the
>> >Democrats are as poor at selling what they get after, they will have
>> >the same result as the 1946 Republicans had.
>>
>> The problem, Howard, is that the country knows that the Democrats have
>> no ideas, no positive plans, they are only "against." Rather
>> difficult to envision how a party can produce laws and help a country
>> prosper when their whole reason to be is "against."
>>
>> Larry
>
>What the country knows is that the last time the Dems were in charge we
>had an economy that everyone was getting to participate in. You know,
>the rich getting richer and the working man making gains in real wages.
>
>BTW, for a party that is so controlled by the Christian right, how come
>they haven't done anything about the abortion issue they so staunchly
>claim.

Could it be opposition from Democrats? Duhhh. Republicans introduce
bills that would have stopped horrors like "partial birth abortion"
and Nancy Pelosi and the other godless devils oppose them-- even
filibuster to stop them.

Larry

Date: 27 Oct 2006 11:16:57
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <dda4k21r1m79fccpmlrm7npv365mluan0e@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Thu, 26 2006 18:34:54 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <gbg2k217d6ql4cvfbskln3di09rdb1m58l@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 2006 21:56:55 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >> >
> >> >The November Smithsonian has an article about the 1946 mid-term
> >> >elections. Everybody was mad at Truman because of inflation and
> >> >shortages, and both the House and the Senate went Republican big-time.
> >> >The Republicans of the time didn't realize that they weren't being
> >> >given a mandate - people were voting against Truman, not voting for
> >> >them.
> >> >
> >> >Two years later Truman campaigned against their failure to do what the
> >> >voters wanted - and upset Dewey.
> >> >
> >> >This can be repeated - with people voting against Bush. And if the
> >> >Democrats are as poor at selling what they get after, they will have
> >> >the same result as the 1946 Republicans had.
> >>
> >> The problem, Howard, is that the country knows that the Democrats have
> >> no ideas, no positive plans, they are only "against." Rather
> >> difficult to envision how a party can produce laws and help a country
> >> prosper when their whole reason to be is "against."
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >What the country knows is that the last time the Dems were in charge we
> >had an economy that everyone was getting to participate in. You know,
> >the rich getting richer and the working man making gains in real wages.
> >
> >BTW, for a party that is so controlled by the Christian right, how come
> >they haven't done anything about the abortion issue they so staunchly
> >claim.
>
> Could it be opposition from Democrats? Duhhh. Republicans introduce
> bills that would have stopped horrors like "partial birth abortion"
> and Nancy Pelosi and the other godless devils oppose them-- even
> filibuster to stop them.
>
> Larry

Duhhh, yourself.

I'm sorry Larry, but with the Republicans in firm control of both houses
of Congress and the Presidency, blaming the Democrats just won't wash.
If they really wanted to do something about it, other than blather to
keep the Christian right onboard, they could have. But they didn't even
introduce any legislation to address the issue.

That is one of the reasons that the Christian right may just sit this
one out. And if they do, the Republicans are toast.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 09:32:43
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Fri, 27 2006 11:16:57 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <dda4k21r1m79fccpmlrm7npv365mluan0e@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 26 2006 18:34:54 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <gbg2k217d6ql4cvfbskln3di09rdb1m58l@4ax.com>,
>> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On Thu, 26 2006 21:56:55 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >
>> >> >The November Smithsonian has an article about the 1946 mid-term
>> >> >elections. Everybody was mad at Truman because of inflation and
>> >> >shortages, and both the House and the Senate went Republican big-time.
>> >> >The Republicans of the time didn't realize that they weren't being
>> >> >given a mandate - people were voting against Truman, not voting for
>> >> >them.
>> >> >
>> >> >Two years later Truman campaigned against their failure to do what the
>> >> >voters wanted - and upset Dewey.
>> >> >
>> >> >This can be repeated - with people voting against Bush. And if the
>> >> >Democrats are as poor at selling what they get after, they will have
>> >> >the same result as the 1946 Republicans had.
>> >>
>> >> The problem, Howard, is that the country knows that the Democrats have
>> >> no ideas, no positive plans, they are only "against." Rather
>> >> difficult to envision how a party can produce laws and help a country
>> >> prosper when their whole reason to be is "against."
>> >>
>> >> Larry
>> >
>> >What the country knows is that the last time the Dems were in charge we
>> >had an economy that everyone was getting to participate in. You know,
>> >the rich getting richer and the working man making gains in real wages.
>> >
>> >BTW, for a party that is so controlled by the Christian right, how come
>> >they haven't done anything about the abortion issue they so staunchly
>> >claim.
>>
>> Could it be opposition from Democrats? Duhhh. Republicans introduce
>> bills that would have stopped horrors like "partial birth abortion"
>> and Nancy Pelosi and the other godless devils oppose them-- even
>> filibuster to stop them.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Duhhh, yourself.
>
>I'm sorry Larry, but with the Republicans in firm control of both houses
>of Congress and the Presidency, blaming the Democrats just won't wash.
>If they really wanted to do something about it, other than blather to
>keep the Christian right onboard, they could have. But they didn't even
>introduce any legislation to address the issue.
>
>That is one of the reasons that the Christian right may just sit this
>one out. And if they do, the Republicans are toast.

Wishful thinking. Do some homework. Many bills never even got out
of committee-- because of Democrat opposition or expected democrat
opposition on the floor. Republicans have a very very slim majority,
not a filibuster-proof majority. They can't pass anything over solid
democrat opposition.

IF the democrats get a small majority in the House, they will see how
powerless they are in the face of a presidential veto and a solid
republican minority. They will get nothing done except to show the
nation how wildly out of the mainstream they are--they will pull the
spotlight on them. Most people don't know that the godless Nancy
Pelosi represents the hard 10% left of the left in San Francisco. What
she really wants would make most democrats violently sick--democrats
with scruples will reject her.

Larry

Date: 27 Oct 2006 11:48:17
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <frc4k21679s6f7blc7t9noh3kaqa961kga@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 27 2006 11:16:57 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <dda4k21r1m79fccpmlrm7npv365mluan0e@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Thu, 26 2006 18:34:54 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> >> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <gbg2k217d6ql4cvfbskln3di09rdb1m58l@4ax.com>,
> >> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On Thu, 26 2006 21:56:55 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net>
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >
> >> >> >The November Smithsonian has an article about the 1946 mid-term
> >> >> >elections. Everybody was mad at Truman because of inflation and
> >> >> >shortages, and both the House and the Senate went Republican big-time.
> >> >> >The Republicans of the time didn't realize that they weren't being
> >> >> >given a mandate - people were voting against Truman, not voting for
> >> >> >them.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >Two years later Truman campaigned against their failure to do what the
> >> >> >voters wanted - and upset Dewey.
> >> >> >
> >> >> >This can be repeated - with people voting against Bush. And if the
> >> >> >Democrats are as poor at selling what they get after, they will have
> >> >> >the same result as the 1946 Republicans had.
> >> >>
> >> >> The problem, Howard, is that the country knows that the Democrats have
> >> >> no ideas, no positive plans, they are only "against." Rather
> >> >> difficult to envision how a party can produce laws and help a country
> >> >> prosper when their whole reason to be is "against."
> >> >>
> >> >> Larry
> >> >
> >> >What the country knows is that the last time the Dems were in charge we
> >> >had an economy that everyone was getting to participate in. You know,
> >> >the rich getting richer and the working man making gains in real wages.
> >> >
> >> >BTW, for a party that is so controlled by the Christian right, how come
> >> >they haven't done anything about the abortion issue they so staunchly
> >> >claim.
> >>
> >> Could it be opposition from Democrats? Duhhh. Republicans introduce
> >> bills that would have stopped horrors like "partial birth abortion"
> >> and Nancy Pelosi and the other godless devils oppose them-- even
> >> filibuster to stop them.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Duhhh, yourself.
> >
> >I'm sorry Larry, but with the Republicans in firm control of both houses
> >of Congress and the Presidency, blaming the Democrats just won't wash.
> >If they really wanted to do something about it, other than blather to
> >keep the Christian right onboard, they could have. But they didn't even
> >introduce any legislation to address the issue.
> >
> >That is one of the reasons that the Christian right may just sit this
> >one out. And if they do, the Republicans are toast.
>
> Wishful thinking. Do some homework. Many bills never even got out
> of committee-- because of Democrat opposition or expected democrat
> opposition on the floor. Republicans have a very very slim majority,
> not a filibuster-proof majority. They can't pass anything over solid
> democrat opposition.
>
> IF the democrats get a small majority in the House, they will see how
> powerless they are in the face of a presidential veto and a solid
> republican minority. They will get nothing done except to show the
> nation how wildly out of the mainstream they are--they will pull the
> spotlight on them. Most people don't know that the godless Nancy
> Pelosi represents the hard 10% left of the left in San Francisco. What
> she really wants would make most democrats violently sick--democrats
> with scruples will reject her.
>
> Larry

While Pelosi isn't my favorite cup of tea, after listening to Hannity
list her positions on many issues, I like her more than I like what the
repugs have done to my country.

And I'm a firm believer in the less gov't 'does' for me, the better off
I am. So a bit of gridlock in Washington will probably tickle the hell
out of me.

This current bunch has us in a war we didn't need, paid for with loans
from the Chinese, which sets up for a huge future tax increase. A
President that rules with his gut more than his brain and a cabinet that
wouldn't pass the pee-u test for ties to corporates.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 11:13:47
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Fri, 27 2006 11:48:17 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:
>
>While Pelosi isn't my favorite cup of tea, And I'm a firm believer in the less gov't 'does' for me, the better off
>I am.

Those two are nonsensical together. Nancy Pelosi is almost Communist
left-- she wants to raise taxes and control everything-- more social
spending, MUCH higher minimum wage despite the fact that that will put
thousands and thousands of the poorest out of work. She has NO IDEA
of the problems of small business-- yet this country is built on the
success of small business, small employers who often pay their
employees more than they take home!

But worst of all, she wants to disarm and blind our government-- she
voted against every weapon and resource we are now using to detect and
block attacks on our homeland by Radical Islam. If she had her way
there would be a dozen 9/11 attacks next year.

But we make our own bed-- so go ahead and vote democratic. I hope
your employer is among the first hit. If you can still access the
Internet-- IF there is an Internet, let us know how you feel.

Larry

Date: 27 Oct 2006 13:29:25
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <ili4k2tqkiudq3dhncvdqdhmjdvudbn9g7@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 27 2006 11:48:17 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> >While Pelosi isn't my favorite cup of tea, And I'm a firm believer in the
> >less gov't 'does' for me, the better off
> >I am.
>
> Those two are nonsensical together. Nancy Pelosi is almost Communist
> left-- she wants to raise taxes and control everything-- more social
> spending, MUCH higher minimum wage despite the fact that that will put
> thousands and thousands of the poorest out of work. She has NO IDEA
> of the problems of small business-- yet this country is built on the
> success of small business, small employers who often pay their
> employees more than they take home!
>
> But worst of all, she wants to disarm and blind our government-- she
> voted against every weapon and resource we are now using to detect and
> block attacks on our homeland by Radical Islam. If she had her way
> there would be a dozen 9/11 attacks next year.
>
> But we make our own bed-- so go ahead and vote democratic. I hope
> your employer is among the first hit. If you can still access the
> Internet-- IF there is an Internet, let us know how you feel.
>
> Larry

As is usual, your premises are all screwed up. Raising the minimum wage
is long overdue. And the old canard about losing jobs because it will
go up is always disproven when it happens. Here in Illinois, we didn't
wait for the feds to get off their collective asses, we raised our
minimum wage, and nary a job lost.

I'm sure you can point to the links showing she voted against every
weapon. Feel free to do so. Maybe she just votes against the ones that
are real boondogles, like the star wars one that hasn't yet worked.

And I don't have an employer...

I'm more worried about the freedom removing Republicans as far as the
internet goes than I am about the Democrats.

But if I had my way, all of them, from both parties would be heading
home right after the elections. Replaced by people that actually give
more of a damn about the people and less about the corporates.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 11:50:47
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Fri, 27 2006 13:29:25 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
<lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote:

>In article <ili4k2tqkiudq3dhncvdqdhmjdvudbn9g7@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 27 2006 11:48:17 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >While Pelosi isn't my favorite cup of tea, And I'm a firm believer in the
>> >less gov't 'does' for me, the better off
>> >I am.
>>
>> Those two are nonsensical together. Nancy Pelosi is almost Communist
>> left-- she wants to raise taxes and control everything-- more social
>> spending, MUCH higher minimum wage despite the fact that that will put
>> thousands and thousands of the poorest out of work. She has NO IDEA
>> of the problems of small business-- yet this country is built on the
>> success of small business, small employers who often pay their
>> employees more than they take home!
>>
>> But worst of all, she wants to disarm and blind our government-- she
>> voted against every weapon and resource we are now using to detect and
>> block attacks on our homeland by Radical Islam. If she had her way
>> there would be a dozen 9/11 attacks next year.
>>
>> But we make our own bed-- so go ahead and vote democratic. I hope
>> your employer is among the first hit. If you can still access the
>> Internet-- IF there is an Internet, let us know how you feel.
>>
>> Larry
>
>As is usual, your premises are all screwed up. Raising the minimum wage
>is long overdue. And the old canard about losing jobs because it will
>go up is always disproven when it happens. Here in Illinois, we didn't
>wait for the feds to get off their collective asses, we raised our
>minimum wage, and nary a job lost.

Wrong. A requirement to pay higher wages nearly always causes small
buinesses that use minimum wage personnel to lay off and avoid hiring.
There is simply no choice for many. Those are small restaurants
primarily.
>
>I'm sure you can point to the links showing she voted against every
>weapon. Feel free to do so. Maybe she just votes against the ones that
>are real boondogles, like the star wars one that hasn't yet worked.

I could list her votes but you can access them too-- you really should
do some homework before blindly following.....
>
>And I don't have an employer...
>
>I'm more worried about the freedom removing Republicans as far as the
>internet goes than I am about the Democrats.

Nonsensical. Whatever freedoms the republicans have reduced (if any)
would have been 10 times worse under democrats. Except for
republicans in the House (in the Majority) we would have 25 MILLION
illegal Mexican aliens given amnesty-- and then quickly followed by
another 25 million replacing them! If Sensibrunner and others are
reduced from their committee Chairman ships by a Democrat majority,
you can stand by for the onslaught. Don't bother trying to use an
emergency room, it will be full of Mexicans getting free care, having
their babies who will be American citizens. You will be able to
watch as your country sinks into the 3d world.
>
>But if I had my way, all of them, from both parties would be heading
>home right after the elections. Replaced by people that actually give
>more of a damn about the people and less about the corporates.

It is the responsibility of the electorate to inform themselves. They
should vote intelligently after reading enough to know the issues--and
observing the actual votes of their representatives. They should know
more than just mindless slogans or the USA Today idiot version of the
news. Your post reveals that you are uninformed.

Larry

Date: 27 Oct 2006 14:04:03
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <ijk4k2t01075a0lhqkoefr9109avu2g68f@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Fri, 27 2006 13:29:25 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <ili4k2tqkiudq3dhncvdqdhmjdvudbn9g7@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Fri, 27 2006 11:48:17 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> >> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >While Pelosi isn't my favorite cup of tea, And I'm a firm believer in
> >> >the
> >> >less gov't 'does' for me, the better off
> >> >I am.
> >>
> >> Those two are nonsensical together. Nancy Pelosi is almost Communist
> >> left-- she wants to raise taxes and control everything-- more social
> >> spending, MUCH higher minimum wage despite the fact that that will put
> >> thousands and thousands of the poorest out of work. She has NO IDEA
> >> of the problems of small business-- yet this country is built on the
> >> success of small business, small employers who often pay their
> >> employees more than they take home!
> >>
> >> But worst of all, she wants to disarm and blind our government-- she
> >> voted against every weapon and resource we are now using to detect and
> >> block attacks on our homeland by Radical Islam. If she had her way
> >> there would be a dozen 9/11 attacks next year.
> >>
> >> But we make our own bed-- so go ahead and vote democratic. I hope
> >> your employer is among the first hit. If you can still access the
> >> Internet-- IF there is an Internet, let us know how you feel.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >As is usual, your premises are all screwed up. Raising the minimum wage
> >is long overdue. And the old canard about losing jobs because it will
> >go up is always disproven when it happens. Here in Illinois, we didn't
> >wait for the feds to get off their collective asses, we raised our
> >minimum wage, and nary a job lost.
>
> Wrong. A requirement to pay higher wages nearly always causes small
> buinesses that use minimum wage personnel to lay off and avoid hiring.
> There is simply no choice for many. Those are small restaurants
> primarily.

Yep, they always reduce jobs when it looks like the minimum wage will go
up, but strangely, after it becomes law those jobs are still there.

> >
> >I'm sure you can point to the links showing she voted against every
> >weapon. Feel free to do so. Maybe she just votes against the ones that
> >are real boondogles, like the star wars one that hasn't yet worked.
>
> I could list her votes but you can access them too-- you really should
> do some homework before blindly following.....

I have and yours seems to have been listening to Rush and the other
right wing yakkers and taking their points as gospel. They are
entertainers, as are the liberal yakkers. Their points will always
prove their premises, even if the premise is invalid.

> >
> >And I don't have an employer...
> >
> >I'm more worried about the freedom removing Republicans as far as the
> >internet goes than I am about the Democrats.
>
> Nonsensical. Whatever freedoms the republicans have reduced (if any)
> would have been 10 times worse under democrats. Except for
> republicans in the House (in the Majority) we would have 25 MILLION
> illegal Mexican aliens given amnesty-- and then quickly followed by
> another 25 million replacing them! If Sensibrunner and others are
> reduced from their committee Chairman ships by a Democrat majority,
> you can stand by for the onslaught. Don't bother trying to use an
> emergency room, it will be full of Mexicans getting free care, having
> their babies who will be American citizens. You will be able to
> watch as your country sinks into the 3d world.

Hmm... Seems your boy in the highest office was the one wanting to give
amnesty...

> >
> >But if I had my way, all of them, from both parties would be heading
> >home right after the elections. Replaced by people that actually give
> >more of a damn about the people and less about the corporates.
>
> It is the responsibility of the electorate to inform themselves. They
> should vote intelligently after reading enough to know the issues--and
> observing the actual votes of their representatives. They should know
> more than just mindless slogans or the USA Today idiot version of the
> news. Your post reveals that you are uninformed.
>
> Larry

Nah, I'm just more broadly informed. I take nothing from 'pundits' and
'experts' at face value and do my own reading and research. Hell,
sometimes I even listen to the 10 minutes of Rush's show that isn't self
aggrandizement...

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 27 Oct 2006 09:35:53
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com > wrote in message
news:lloydparsons-15DE8B.18345426102006@individual.net...
>
> What the country knows is that the last time the Dems were in charge we
> had an economy that everyone was getting to participate in. You know,
> the rich getting richer and the working man making gains in real wages.

The same indicators used to judge the economy when the Dems were in charge
look pretty darn good today. What did the Dow close at again?
>
> BTW, for a party that is so controlled by the Christian right, how come
> they haven't done anything about the abortion issue they so staunchly
> claim.

It's an election year. Nobody's touching that hot potato.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 09:50:00
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <4qejqaFmu9a2U1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
> news:lloydparsons-15DE8B.18345426102006@individual.net...
> >
> > What the country knows is that the last time the Dems were in charge we
> > had an economy that everyone was getting to participate in. You know,
> > the rich getting richer and the working man making gains in real wages.
>
> The same indicators used to judge the economy when the Dems were in charge
> look pretty darn good today. What did the Dow close at again?

The Dow is a nice thing to have high, but it doesn't do squat for the
average working man's wages.

> >
> > BTW, for a party that is so controlled by the Christian right, how come
> > they haven't done anything about the abortion issue they so staunchly
> > claim.
>
> It's an election year. Nobody's touching that hot potato.

True, but they haven't done anything with it for the entire 6 years
they've been in charge except talk about how much they are against
abortion on demand. No legislation at all.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:12:40
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> In article <4qejqaFmu9a2U1@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "Lloyd Parsons" <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote in message
>> news:lloydparsons-15DE8B.18345426102006@individual.net...
>>> What the country knows is that the last time the Dems were in charge we
>>> had an economy that everyone was getting to participate in. You know,
>>> the rich getting richer and the working man making gains in real wages.
>> The same indicators used to judge the economy when the Dems were in charge
>> look pretty darn good today. What did the Dow close at again?
>
> The Dow is a nice thing to have high, but it doesn't do squat for the
> average working man's wages.

It helps to keeps those wages moving into his pockets.

And, it is good for his retirement plan. Money doesn't grow when you
stick it into a box. No union pension fund lets the money sit in a box,
it is invested in businesses and government securities.

>>> BTW, for a party that is so controlled by the Christian right, how come
>>> they haven't done anything about the abortion issue they so staunchly
>>> claim.
>> It's an election year. Nobody's touching that hot potato.
>
> True, but they haven't done anything with it for the entire 6 years
> they've been in charge except talk about how much they are against
> abortion on demand. No legislation at all.

Time, it just takes time. If an R gets elected to the presidency in 08
then you will see some movement on the abortion issue.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:49:03
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:1b32k250ctdtnjttc45q4sn1desi4k6l91@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 26 2006 12:40:58 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>news:1161875373.206218.105710@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> Since he was speculating, I don't think you can say Rush was "lying" in
>>> this instance.
>>
>>Annika is too dense to figgure that out.
>>
>> I think you can say that he is a vicious, mean-spirited,
>>> hateful bastard.
>>
>>Agreed. He's boring as well. Almost as bad as Franken.
>>
>>> This kind of publicity just before an election gets Democrats to jumping
>>> for >joy.
>>>
>>They need all the help they can get.
>
> The blatant lies and patronizing deceit simply verifies again that the
> Democrats are not ready for prime time. They are not to be trusted
> with the reins of government. This election will pretty much squash
> them-- back to the wilderness for another 8 years.
>
> Larry

The people that made predictions about the outcome of the Iraq invasion ---
should stop making predictions.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 09:22:23
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Fri, 27 2006 07:49:03 -0400, "A Brick in the Wall"
<NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote:

>
>"larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote in message
>news:1b32k250ctdtnjttc45q4sn1desi4k6l91@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 26 2006 12:40:58 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1161875373.206218.105710@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>
>>>> Since he was speculating, I don't think you can say Rush was "lying" in
>>>> this instance.
>>>
>>>Annika is too dense to figgure that out.
>>>
>>> I think you can say that he is a vicious, mean-spirited,
>>>> hateful bastard.
>>>
>>>Agreed. He's boring as well. Almost as bad as Franken.
>>>
>>>> This kind of publicity just before an election gets Democrats to jumping
>>>> for >joy.
>>>>
>>>They need all the help they can get.
>>
>> The blatant lies and patronizing deceit simply verifies again that the
>> Democrats are not ready for prime time. They are not to be trusted
>> with the reins of government. This election will pretty much squash
>> them-- back to the wilderness for another 8 years.
>>
>> Larry
>
>The people that made predictions about the outcome of the Iraq invasion ---
>should stop making predictions.

I am afraid we may be facing the last meaningless predictions-- as
Radical Islam engulfs the free world--with the tacit help of the
appeasers.

Larry

Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:17:03
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

larry wrote:
> On Fri, 27 2006 07:49:03 -0400, "A Brick in the Wall"
> <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote:
>
>> "larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote in message
>> news:1b32k250ctdtnjttc45q4sn1desi4k6l91@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 26 2006 12:40:58 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1161875373.206218.105710@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> Since he was speculating, I don't think you can say Rush was "lying" in
>>>>> this instance.
>>>> Annika is too dense to figgure that out.
>>>>
>>>> I think you can say that he is a vicious, mean-spirited,
>>>>> hateful bastard.
>>>> Agreed. He's boring as well. Almost as bad as Franken.
>>>>
>>>>> This kind of publicity just before an election gets Democrats to jumping
>>>>> for >joy.
>>>>>
>>>> They need all the help they can get.
>>> The blatant lies and patronizing deceit simply verifies again that the
>>> Democrats are not ready for prime time. They are not to be trusted
>>> with the reins of government. This election will pretty much squash
>>> them-- back to the wilderness for another 8 years.
>>>
>>> Larry
>> The people that made predictions about the outcome of the Iraq invasion ---
>> should stop making predictions.
>
> I am afraid we may be facing the last meaningless predictions-- as
> Radical Islam engulfs the free world--with the tacit help of the
> appeasers.

They will have performed a coupe d' etat in France within 10 years.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 07:27:42
From: A Brick in the Wall
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"larry" <larry@delmardata.com > wrote in message
news:cfc4k2h964r8s96t4098kha93shfodq97p@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 27 2006 07:49:03 -0400, "A Brick in the Wall"
> <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>"larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote in message
>>news:1b32k250ctdtnjttc45q4sn1desi4k6l91@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 26 2006 12:40:58 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:1161875373.206218.105710@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>
>>>>> Since he was speculating, I don't think you can say Rush was "lying"
>>>>> in
>>>>> this instance.
>>>>
>>>>Annika is too dense to figgure that out.
>>>>
>>>> I think you can say that he is a vicious, mean-spirited,
>>>>> hateful bastard.
>>>>
>>>>Agreed. He's boring as well. Almost as bad as Franken.
>>>>
>>>>> This kind of publicity just before an election gets Democrats to
>>>>> jumping
>>>>> for >joy.
>>>>>
>>>>They need all the help they can get.
>>>
>>> The blatant lies and patronizing deceit simply verifies again that the
>>> Democrats are not ready for prime time. They are not to be trusted
>>> with the reins of government. This election will pretty much squash
>>> them-- back to the wilderness for another 8 years.
>>>
>>> Larry
>>
>>The people that made predictions about the outcome of the Iraq
>>invasion ---
>>should stop making predictions.
>
> I am afraid we may be facing the last meaningless predictions-- as
> Radical Islam engulfs the free world--with the tacit help of the
> appeasers.
>
> Larry

Good of you to admit your predictions are meaningless when taken in view of
the GOP's prediction history of the last 6 years.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 15:38:31
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Sat, 28 2006 07:27:42 -0400, "A Brick in the Wall"
<NoSpam@NoThanks.com > wrote:

>
>"larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote in message
>news:cfc4k2h964r8s96t4098kha93shfodq97p@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 27 2006 07:49:03 -0400, "A Brick in the Wall"
>> <NoSpam@NoThanks.com> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"larry" <larry@delmardata.com> wrote in message
>>>news:1b32k250ctdtnjttc45q4sn1desi4k6l91@4ax.com...
>>>> On Thu, 26 2006 12:40:58 -0500, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>>news:1161875373.206218.105710@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Since he was speculating, I don't think you can say Rush was "lying"
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> this instance.
>>>>>
>>>>>Annika is too dense to figgure that out.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think you can say that he is a vicious, mean-spirited,
>>>>>> hateful bastard.
>>>>>
>>>>>Agreed. He's boring as well. Almost as bad as Franken.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This kind of publicity just before an election gets Democrats to
>>>>>> jumping
>>>>>> for >joy.
>>>>>>
>>>>>They need all the help they can get.
>>>>
>>>> The blatant lies and patronizing deceit simply verifies again that the
>>>> Democrats are not ready for prime time. They are not to be trusted
>>>> with the reins of government. This election will pretty much squash
>>>> them-- back to the wilderness for another 8 years.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>>
>>>The people that made predictions about the outcome of the Iraq
>>>invasion ---
>>>should stop making predictions.
>>
>> I am afraid we may be facing the last meaningless predictions-- as
>> Radical Islam engulfs the free world--with the tacit help of the
>> appeasers.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Good of you to admit your predictions are meaningless when taken in view of
>the GOP's prediction history of the last 6 years.

There are many books that predict what is going to happen-- and they
all conclude that the West is toast-- unless we can stop them in
places like Iraq long enough to change the mindset of the next
generation, help them get jobs and want a life other than a glorious
suicide taking Infidels with them.

That is a prediction every government official knows-- and is afraid
to tell us-- Bush is at least trying to protect the country on his
watch-- but he knows the next president will almost certainly preside
over multiple successful 9/11 style attacks here. Democrats would
appease-- and simply make the inevitable sooner.

Larry

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 27 Oct 2006 12:43:41
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

larry wrote:
> If she had her way there would be a dozen 9/11 attacks next year.

Larry, you are walking the fine line between your usual trolling and
just being a stupid, lying piece of shit.
Oh wait, you're a Republican. How redundant of me.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 13:24:53
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 27 2006 12:43:41 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>larry wrote:
>> If she had her way there would be a dozen 9/11 attacks next year.

She voted against the Patriot Act, the measure to allow wiretapping of
telephone conversations between foreign nationals and US
correspondents, and the measure to allow tracing of financial
transactions between US and foreign nations. Those are the tools
with which our government has detected several plots in progress --
which were foiled. ERGO, iIf "she had her way" those calls or money
transfers would not have been detected-- and those plots may have gone
forward into another or several more 9/11 attacks. Luckily her
unpatriotic votes were overriden by the republican majority. Hopefully
her votes will always be overridden.

Intercepted correspondence between Al Queda leaders has verified
repeatedly their goal to bring down the West-- continuing against the
US after 9/11 (in which attack they had planned to kill 30,000+ in the
World Trade Center, the White House, the US Capitol Building, and the
Pentagon. The 9/11 attack was only 10% successful. Their letters
say they want to do something at least 10 times bigger, and that is
what they are plotting as we write today.

Nancy Pelosi's votes are not debatable. They happened. There is no
other conclusion that can be drawn from a pattern of such votes-- she
will continue to undermine the security of the US, she hates our
country. She hates our military and she hates our president.

Look it up or shut up, you sound very very ignorant.

Larry

Date: 27 Oct 2006 21:05:46
From: tiggerspalewife
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <s3q4k21nhbv6fito3fji12fb3ga5gcltb3@4ax.com >
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

Spongepants Bob has nothing on you the way you soak up the party line and
then squirt it back out. have you ever had an original thought that
wasn't played out on AM neocon radio first? Just curious, lar.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 26 Oct 2006 07:59:43
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

John van der Pflum wrote:
> Again .. thanks for the clear subject line.
>
> If there is anything commendable about this post it's the subject
> line.
>
> plonk-o-rama
> --
>

Good to hear from one of the 29% who still support Bush.
You look so funny with your hands over your ears, yelling, "I can't
hear you! I can't hear you!"

Date: 26 Oct 2006 12:38:28
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote in message
news:1161874783.558315.31990@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> John van der Pflum wrote:
>> Again .. thanks for the clear subject line.
>>
>> If there is anything commendable about this post it's the subject
>> line.
>>
>> plonk-o-rama
>> --
>>
>
> Good to hear from one of the 29% who still support Bush.
> You look so funny with your hands over your ears, yelling, "I can't
> hear you! I can't hear you!"
>
Chicken little squacks again.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 10:40:11
From: John van der Pflum
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 26 2006 06:50:16 -0700, "annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com >
wrote:

>Limbaugh Says Actor Fox Exaggerates Effects of Disease in Ads
>By Daniela Deane
>Washington Post Staff Writer
>Tuesday, ober 24, 2006; 4:42 PM
>
Again .. thanks for the clear subject line.

If there is anything commendable about this post it's the subject
line.

plonk-o-rama
--

jvdp
I ain't buying beer for no replay HIO.
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com/files/OH_2006_make_a_putt.avi
http://www.rsgcincinnati.com

Date: 26 Oct 2006 09:24:59
From:
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <1161870616.116352.73780@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

Answer to subject question: almost all

BUT the same is true for Democrats.

B. Martin

Date: 26 Oct 2006 09:57:47
From: retiredusarmy
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

<marti285@umn.edu > wrote in message
news:marti285-F03A16.09245926102006@lenny.tc.umn.edu...
In article <1161870616.116352.73780@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"annika1980" <annika1980@aol.com > wrote:

Answer to subject question: almost all

BUT the same is true for Democrats.

B. Martin

I resemble that remark. I am a lying scumbag. Not because of my political
(fence sitting) musings.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 21:58:51
From: gpsman
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Carbon wrote:
> On Thu, 26 2006 19:09:32 -0700, annika1980 wrote:
>
> > And the party who was once against big government has now made the
> > government more bloated and intrusive than ever.
>
> The current bunch of extremists in Washington are spending money like
> drunken sailors on shore leave, only armed with credit cards instead of
> cash. Hello deficit.

<Shhhhh! > If we ignore it, it hasn't really happened.

"Tree in the woods" syndrome.
-----

- gpsman

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:09:32
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

larry wrote:
> > The problem, Howard, is that the country knows that the Democrats have
> no ideas, no positive plans, they are only "against." Rather
> difficult to envision how a party can produce laws and help a country
> prosper when their whole reason to be is "against."
>

As usual you got it assbackwards. The Repugs are the ones who are
against everything from affordable health care to alternative fuels to
alternative lifestyles.
And the party who was once against big government has now made the
government more bloated and intrusive than ever.

Date:
From:
Subject:

Date: 26 Oct 2006 19:02:07
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

larry wrote:
> On 26 2006 10:36:23 -0700, "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >
> >larry wrote:
> >
> >> >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >> >
> >> >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >> >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >> >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >> >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >> >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >> >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >> >
> >> >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >
> >I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>
> AND this was a taped ad. What we saw was likely the 12th take-- the
> professional director was following the orders from the DNC to make it
> look dramatic. "Michael, can you shake your head a little further?
> How about rocking back and forth more. OK, lets shoot it again
> folks." We were shamelessly manipulated. The content was also
> shamelessly false and simply wrong. There are dozens and dozens of US
> medical research institutions doing full stem cell research on
> Embryos-- the only labs not doing that are the government labs--that
> are funded by taxes. But you'll never hear that from that side.
> Typical liberal dishonesty. They are not ready to govern and they
> demonstrate that every day. They've learned nothing from 12 years in
> the political wilderness.
>
> Larry

This is what Michael J. Fox said this evening about the accusation that
he had gone off his meds to tape the spot:

NEW YORK - In a response to charges by conservative talk-show host Rush

Limbaugh, Michael J. Fox defended his appearance in recent
political campaign ads, saying he was neither acting nor off his
medication for Parkinson's disease.

On the contrary, he had been overmedicated, the actor said during an
interview aired on Thursday's "CBS Evening News with Katie Couric."

"The irony of it is that I was too medicated," Fox told Couric, adding
that his jumpy condition as he spoke to her reflected "a dearth of
medication - not by design. I just take it, and it kicks in when it
kicks in."

"That's funny - the notion that you could calculate it for effect,"
he said. "Would that we could."

OK, Larry, why don't you and Rush and all the other right-wing thugs
gang up on him again and call him a liar? That would be your style,
wouldn't it? Michael J. Fox has more integrity in his little toe than
you could ever dream of having.

Date: 26 Oct 2006 18:47:56
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

larry wrote:
> On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>
> >In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> larry wrote:
> >>
> >> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >> > >
> >> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >> > >
> >> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>
> >> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>
> >> -Greg
> >
> >You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> >about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >the show at all.
> >
> >I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >ilk are famous for.
>
> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>
> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>
> Larry

Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
consistently makes me want to puke.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 09:07:55
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 26 2006 18:47:56 -0700, "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

>
>larry wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>> > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> larry wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
>> >> > >
>> >> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>> >> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>> >> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>> >> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>> >> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>> >> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
>> >> > >
>> >> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>> >>
>> >> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>> >> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>> >>
>> >> -Greg
>> >
>> >You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
>> >about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>> >the show at all.
>> >
>> >I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>> >position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>> >ilk are famous for.
>>
>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>>
>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
>your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
>horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
>think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
>did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
>done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
>supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
>without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
>consistently makes me want to puke.

The 'admirable young man" became just another politician when he
agreed to make that highly partisan commercial-- on behalf of the
democrats-- and knowing the content was deceptive, dishonest,
untruthful. We all feel sorry for Michael, but afflicted or not,
when you enter the arena you gotta expect a fight.

In contrast, some liberals have recently attacked Charlton Heston,
laughing at him in the end stages of Alzheimer's-- George Clooney and
his sickening ilk saying he "deserves it" because he is President of
the NRA. There was no apology and a refusal to make one when
confronted. That is infinitely different than Rush pointing out that
Fox was either acting or off his meds (which is correct)--and then
apologizing profusely.

And hey, what is Clooney doing in the US anyhow?? I thought he and
Barbra and a dozen others where going to leave the US if Bush won
again????

larry

Date: 27 Oct 2006 17:01:44
From: Howard Brazee
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Fri, 27 2006 09:07:55 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>In contrast, some liberals have recently attacked Charlton Heston,
>laughing at him in the end stages of Alzheimer's-- George Clooney and
>his sickening ilk saying he "deserves it" because he is President of
>the NRA. There was no apology and a refusal to make one when
>confronted. That is infinitely different than Rush pointing out that
>Fox was either acting or off his meds (which is correct)--and then
>apologizing profusely.

And criticism of these unnamed Democrats is perfectly justified. But
noting that "Democrats are as bad as Republicans" is not a valid
defense.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 11:20:18
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Fri, 27 2006 17:01:44 GMT, Howard Brazee <howard@brazee.net >
wrote:

>On Fri, 27 2006 09:07:55 -0700, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>In contrast, some liberals have recently attacked Charlton Heston,
>>laughing at him in the end stages of Alzheimer's-- George Clooney and
>>his sickening ilk saying he "deserves it" because he is President of
>>the NRA. There was no apology and a refusal to make one when
>>confronted. That is infinitely different than Rush pointing out that
>>Fox was either acting or off his meds (which is correct)--and then
>>apologizing profusely.
>
>And criticism of these unnamed Democrats is perfectly justified. But
>noting that "Democrats are as bad as Republicans" is not a valid
>defense.

Notice the COMPLETE lack of outcry about Charleton Heston, a far more
sympathetic figure-- likely with only months to live. That because
the liberal media hates conservatives.

Larry

Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:29:38
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

John B. wrote:
> larry wrote:
>> On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> larry wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
>>>>>>
>>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>>>>
>>>> -Greg
>>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
>>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>>> the show at all.
>>>
>>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>>> ilk are famous for.
>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>>
>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>>
>> Larry
>
> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> consistently makes me want to puke.
>

It goes to motive my friend. If you skip your meds and tape a political
commercial you are opening up yourself to scrutiny and counter arguments.

You have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to
criticize anything you say.

Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
at you.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 08:35:06
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <TdSdncM2d9M_cNzYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> John B. wrote:
> > larry wrote:
> >> On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> >> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> larry wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
> >>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>>>
> >>>> -Greg
> >>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> >>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >>> the show at all.
> >>>
> >>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >>> ilk are famous for.
> >> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> >> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> >> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> >> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
> >>
> >> You should feel very patronized. I do.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> > Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> > your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> > horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> > think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> > did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> > done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> > supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> > without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> > consistently makes me want to puke.
> >
>
> It goes to motive my friend. If you skip your meds and tape a political
> commercial you are opening up yourself to scrutiny and counter arguments.

It would, if skipping your meds brought on the tremors. However, it's
the other way round - with Parkinson's skipping the meds induces rigor;
it's the meds themselves that bring the tremors with them, and they are
unpredictable and uncontrollable. Collapse of argument.
>
> You have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to
> criticize anything you say.
>
> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
> at you.

Just like his endorsement of Arlen Specter. You see, some things are
more important than political prejudice.

William Clark

Date: 28 Oct 2006 09:53:06
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <TdSdncM2d9M_cNzYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> John B. wrote:
>>> larry wrote:
>>>> On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>>>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> larry wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>>>>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look stiff,
>>>>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>>>>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>>>>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>>>>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all of
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>>>>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>>>>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> -Greg
>>>>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
>>>>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>>>>> the show at all.
>>>>>
>>>>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>>>>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>>>>> ilk are famous for.
>>>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
>>>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
>>>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
>>>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>>>>
>>>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
>>> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
>>> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
>>> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
>>> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
>>> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
>>> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
>>> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
>>> consistently makes me want to puke.
>>>
>> It goes to motive my friend. If you skip your meds and tape a political
>> commercial you are opening up yourself to scrutiny and counter arguments.
>
> It would, if skipping your meds brought on the tremors. However, it's
> the other way round - with Parkinson's skipping the meds induces rigor;
> it's the meds themselves that bring the tremors with them, and they are
> unpredictable and uncontrollable. Collapse of argument.

We only need to go to Fox's own book where he states that he does not
take his medicine when making Congressional and other appearances where
he wants the effects of the illness to be more visible. But, that
illness and whether medicine is or is not being take is not the primary
point.

What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
political ads for R's that support stem cell research?

Fox stepped into the political arena and by doing so he cannot expect
that his positions and who he advocates for will go unchallenged.

>> You have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to
>> criticize anything you say.
>>
>> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
>> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
>> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
>> at you.
>
> Just like his endorsement of Arlen Specter. You see, some things are
> more important than political prejudice.

Specter is a Democrat, he just won't admit it and switch aisles.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:53:37
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <nsCdnYetdOdf_d7YnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <TdSdncM2d9M_cNzYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> John B. wrote:
> >>> larry wrote:
> >>>> On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> >>>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> larry wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >>>>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
> >>>>>>>> stiff,
> >>>>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >>>>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >>>>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to
> >>>>>>>> talk.
> >>>>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
> >>>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>>>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >>>>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> -Greg
> >>>>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there
> >>>>> talking
> >>>>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >>>>> the show at all.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >>>>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >>>>> ilk are famous for.
> >>>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> >>>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> >>>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> >>>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
> >>>>
> >>>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
> >>>>
> >>>> Larry
> >>> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> >>> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> >>> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> >>> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> >>> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> >>> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> >>> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> >>> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> >>> consistently makes me want to puke.
> >>>
> >> It goes to motive my friend. If you skip your meds and tape a political
> >> commercial you are opening up yourself to scrutiny and counter arguments.
> >
> > It would, if skipping your meds brought on the tremors. However, it's
> > the other way round - with Parkinson's skipping the meds induces rigor;
> > it's the meds themselves that bring the tremors with them, and they are
> > unpredictable and uncontrollable. Collapse of argument.
>
> We only need to go to Fox's own book where he states that he does not
> take his medicine when making Congressional and other appearances where
> he wants the effects of the illness to be more visible. But, that
> illness and whether medicine is or is not being take is not the primary
> point.

You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
tremors. You need a medical textbook.

>
> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?

Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
bother).
>
> Fox stepped into the political arena and by doing so he cannot expect
> that his positions and who he advocates for will go unchallenged.
>
> >> You have the right to say anything you want and I have the right to
> >> criticize anything you say.
> >>
> >> Oh, and what about Fox endorsing Ben Cardin in MD when Cardin voted
> >> against embryonic stem cell research? Politics is a dirty business and
> >> you can't expect to walk through its arena and not get some crap flung
> >> at you.
> >
> > Just like his endorsement of Arlen Specter. You see, some things are
> > more important than political prejudice.
>
> Specter is a Democrat, he just won't admit it and switch aisles.

See above - truly sad.

William Clark

Date: 28 Oct 2006 13:57:14
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <nsCdnYetdOdf_d7YnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>> We only need to go to Fox's own book where he states that he does not
>> take his medicine when making Congressional and other appearances where
>> he wants the effects of the illness to be more visible. But, that
>> illness and whether medicine is or is not being take is not the primary
>> point.
>
> You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
> in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
> tremors. You need a medical textbook.

You are arguing with the wrong person when it comes to tremors and nerve
problems because I have direct personal experience with both. I know
what the medications do and how they work.

>> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
>> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
>> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
>> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
>
> Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
> bother).

He is a Democrat.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:17:45
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <vNadncbHlPVnBN7YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <nsCdnYetdOdf_d7YnZ2dnUVZ_sKdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >> We only need to go to Fox's own book where he states that he does not
> >> take his medicine when making Congressional and other appearances where
> >> he wants the effects of the illness to be more visible. But, that
> >> illness and whether medicine is or is not being take is not the primary
> >> point.
> >
> > You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
> > in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
> > tremors. You need a medical textbook.
>
> You are arguing with the wrong person when it comes to tremors and nerve
> problems because I have direct personal experience with both. I know
> what the medications do and how they work.

I also do, and it is clear that you really don't know how these
medications work.

>
> >> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
> >> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
> >> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
> >> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
> >
> > Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
> > bother).
>
> He is a Democrat.

There you go - pathetic.

William Clark

Date: 28 Oct 2006 21:44:50
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <vNadncbHlPVnBN7YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
>>> in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
>>> tremors. You need a medical textbook.
>> You are arguing with the wrong person when it comes to tremors and nerve
>> problems because I have direct personal experience with both. I know
>> what the medications do and how they work.
>
> I also do, and it is clear that you really don't know how these
> medications work.

I don't take all of them and Parkinson's is not on my current list or
aflictions. But, the medicines I take I do have a good understanding of
what they do, how they do it and how they really work for me.

>>>> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
>>>> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
>>>> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
>>>> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
>>> Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
>>> bother).
>> He is a Democrat.
>
> There you go - pathetic.

The truth hurts doesn't it.

Date: 29 Oct 2006 13:55:31
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <8KOdnem7z7MMmtnYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <vNadncbHlPVnBN7YnZ2dnUVZ_oCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> You know why? When you DON'T take the medications, the body calms down -
> >>> in fact, it almost goes into rigor. It is the medications that cause the
> >>> tremors. You need a medical textbook.
> >> You are arguing with the wrong person when it comes to tremors and nerve
> >> problems because I have direct personal experience with both. I know
> >> what the medications do and how they work.
> >
> > I also do, and it is clear that you really don't know how these
> > medications work.
>
> I don't take all of them and Parkinson's is not on my current list or
> aflictions. But, the medicines I take I do have a good understanding of
> what they do, how they do it and how they really work for me.

Then you would understand that Parkinson's Disease medications are
unpredictable in their effect. Sometimes they deal with the symptoms
without inducing serious tremors, others times they induce serious
palsy. No one can predict which it will be, and how long either effect
will last.
>
> >>>> What was Fox's purpose for appearing in a political ad? Why did Fox
> >>>> record a political add for a candidate, Ben Cardin (D-MD), where the
> >>>> candidate voted against all stem cell research? Why isn't Fox making
> >>>> political ads for R's that support stem cell research?
> >>> Arlen Specter (and saying Specter is a Democrat is just pathetic - don't
> >>> bother).
> >> He is a Democrat.
> >
> > There you go - pathetic.
>
> The truth hurts doesn't it.

Fine, then let's see him cross the aisle, and we will take it as one
more step to restoring sanity in the Senate.

William Clark

Date: 29 Oct 2006 13:59:55
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Fine, then let's see him cross the aisle, and we will take it as one
> more step to restoring sanity in the Senate.

I don't think we have even taken the FIRST step to restore sanity in the
Senate. The only way is to get every one of those Democrat and Republican
scumbags out of there and get some honest Americans that can actually
comprehend the US Constitution in there. Jefferson knew this would happen,
which is why he said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Here is a hint - the
Senators and Congressmen are NOT the patriots.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 29 Oct 2006 16:07:56
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <wS61h.41486$X11.28676@bignews7.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Fine, then let's see him cross the aisle, and we will take it as one
> > more step to restoring sanity in the Senate.
>
> I don't think we have even taken the FIRST step to restore sanity in the
> Senate. The only way is to get every one of those Democrat and Republican
> scumbags out of there and get some honest Americans that can actually
> comprehend the US Constitution in there. Jefferson knew this would happen,
> which is why he said: "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to
> time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Here is a hint - the
> Senators and Congressmen are NOT the patriots.

And you will replace them with - what, exactly?

Sounds like you should be on the next troopship to Iraq.

William Clark

Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:49:54
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Sounds like you should be on the next troopship to Iraq.

I did 12 years in the military, fatass. What have you done for your
country, coward?

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 29 Oct 2006 21:24:05
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <baa1h.18953$kI6.5623@bignews4.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Sounds like you should be on the next troopship to Iraq.
>
> I did 12 years in the military, fatass. What have you done for your
> country, coward?

More than you - and I couldn't be less frightened.

William Clark

Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:51:51
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> More than you - and I couldn't be less frightened.

I figured you out. You are not on welfare - you are one of those left wing
idiots that wants socialism in our country. No wonder you skirted the
subject of military service - you skated and let others protect your
freedom. Coward. May God help your students, idiot. In fact, how
about if we share your idiocy with all of those students? I am sure I can
find a few hundred OSU email addresses right here on Usenet and give them
some links.

William Alan Thomas Clark, Ph.D.
Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
Associate Dean, Graduate School

250 University Hall
230 N. Oval Mall
Columbus, OH 43210
(614) 292-9490
clark.31@osu.edu

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 29 Oct 2006 22:27:51
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <ZMd1h.10002$Bs.6022@bignews8.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > More than you - and I couldn't be less frightened.
>
>
> I figured you out. You are not on welfare - you are one of those left wing
> idiots that wants socialism in our country. No wonder you skirted the
> subject of military service - you skated and let others protect your
> freedom. Coward. May God help your students, idiot. In fact, how
> about if we share your idiocy with all of those students? I am sure I can
> find a few hundred OSU email addresses right here on Usenet and give them
> some links.
>
> William Alan Thomas Clark, Ph.D.
> Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
> Associate Dean, Graduate School
>
> 250 University Hall
> 230 N. Oval Mall
> Columbus, OH 43210
> (614) 292-9490
> clark.31@osu.edu

Exactly. Now, here I am brave enough to put my name right out in the
open, and here you are, claiming to be such a war hero, but hiding
behind a anonymous sig. like a child behind mother's skirts. SO who's
calling who a coward?

Don't worry about my students, I am honest with them, too, but since I
teach engineering, there is no danger of any political bias.

Next?

William Clark.

PS: By the way, it's a D, Phil. not a Ph. D, and you are rather out of
date on the other details. Please try to keep up.

Date: 29 Oct 2006 22:34:14
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <ZMd1h.10002$Bs.6022@bignews8.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> More than you - and I couldn't be less frightened.
>>
>>
>> I figured you out. You are not on welfare - you are one of those
>> left wing idiots that wants socialism in our country. No wonder
>> you skirted the subject of military service - you skated and let
>> others protect your freedom. Coward. May God help your students,
>> idiot. In fact, how about if we share your idiocy with all of
>> those students? I am sure I can find a few hundred OSU email
>> addresses right here on Usenet and give them some links.
>>
>> William Alan Thomas Clark, Ph.D.
>> Professor, Department of Materials Science and Engineering
>> Associate Dean, Graduate School
>>
>> 250 University Hall
>> 230 N. Oval Mall
>> Columbus, OH 43210
>> (614) 292-9490
>> clark.31@osu.edu
>
> Exactly. Now, here I am brave enough to put my name right out in the
> open, and here you are, claiming to be such a war hero, but hiding
> behind a anonymous sig. like a child behind mother's skirts. SO who's
> calling who a coward?

I am calling you a coward. My name and address are as readily available as
yours. Now when are you coming to Georgia, coward?

> PS: By the way, it's a D, Phil. not a Ph. D, and you are rather out of
> date on the other details. Please try to keep up.

Take that up with OSU, idiot.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 29 Oct 2006 21:40:44
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <baa1h.18953$kI6.5623@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> Sounds like you should be on the next troopship to Iraq.
>>
>> I did 12 years in the military, fatass. What have you done for your
>> country, coward?
>
> More than you

I am calling bullshit, liar.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 27 Oct 2006 07:04:36
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <1161913676.526862.237000@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com >,
"John B." <johnb505@gmail.com > wrote:

> larry wrote:
> > On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> > <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >
> > >In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > > "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> > >
> > >> larry wrote:
> > >>
> > >> > >He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
> > >> > >of
> > >> > >
> > >> > >Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> > >> > >that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
> > >> > >stiff,
> > >> > >and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> > >> > >they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> > >> > >don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> > >> > >And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
> > >> > >of
> > >> > >
> > >> > >this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> > >>
> > >> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> > >> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> > >>
> > >> -Greg
> > >
> > >You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> > >about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> > >the show at all.
> > >
> > >I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> > >position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> > >ilk are famous for.
> >
> > Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> > Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> > we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> > Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
> >
> > You should feel very patronized. I do.
> >
> > Larry
>
> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> consistently makes me want to puke.

Yes, and I'm sure that Larry didn't get so bent out of shape when Fox
taped endorsements for Arlen Specter, did he? Nor about St. Loius'
pitcher Suppan's febrile promos supporting the ban. That would be
altogether too fair.

No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
for those that dare to impugn their heroes.

William Clark

William Clark

Date: 27 Oct 2006 07:32:51
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1161913676.526862.237000@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> larry wrote:
>>> On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
>>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
>>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> larry wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
>>>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
>>>>>>> stiff,
>>>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
>>>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
>>>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
>>>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
>>>>>>> of
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
>>>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
>>>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
>>>>>
>>>>> -Greg
>>>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
>>>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
>>>> the show at all.
>>>>
>>>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
>>>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
>>>> ilk are famous for.
>>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
>>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
>>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
>>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
>>>
>>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
>>>
>>> Larry
>> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
>> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
>> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
>> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
>> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
>> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
>> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
>> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
>> consistently makes me want to puke.
>
> Yes, and I'm sure that Larry didn't get so bent out of shape when Fox
> taped endorsements for Arlen Specter, did he? Nor about St. Loius'
> pitcher Suppan's febrile promos supporting the ban. That would be
> altogether too fair.

Arlen Spector is actually one of yours, he just puts an R after his name.

> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.

The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
mastered it like the Democrats have.

Date: 27 Oct 2006 08:31:43
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <1161913676.526862.237000@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> > "John B." <johnb505@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> larry wrote:
> >>> On Thu, 26 2006 12:58:19 -0500, Lloyd Parsons
> >>> <lloydparsons@mac.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> In article <1161884183.001738.276630@k70g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>,
> >>>> "Dene" <gdstrue@aol.com> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> larry wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>> He's not over-dramatizing. ... [Limbaugh] is revealing his ignorance
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Parkinson's disease, because people with Parkinson's don't look like
> >>>>>>> that at all when they're not taking their medication. They look
> >>>>>>> stiff,
> >>>>>>> and frozen, and don't move at all. ... People with Parkinson's, when
> >>>>>>> they've had the disease for awhile, are in this bind, where if they
> >>>>>>> don't take any medication, they can be stiff and hardly able to talk.
> >>>>>>> And if they do take their medication, so they can talk, they get all
> >>>>>>> of
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> this movement, like what you see in the ad." .....
> >>>>> I'm a big fan of Boston Legal of which Fox has a reacurring role. He
> >>>>> shows little to no symptoms. Rush was right to point this out.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> -Greg
> >>>> You need to do some research. There are some articles out there talking
> >>>> about how much they have to work around his affliction to have him on
> >>>> the show at all.
> >>>>
> >>>> I have no problem with Rush or anyone else disagreeing with his
> >>>> position. I DO have a problem with the personal digs that Rush and his
> >>>> ilk are famous for.
> >>> Rush should have pointed out that it was a taped commercial ad.
> >>> Professionals wrote, then setup, then taped the dialogue. Likely what
> >>> we saw was the 12th or 20th take-- each time the director urged
> >>> Michael to make it a little more dramatic. Shameless.
> >>>
> >>> You should feel very patronized. I do.
> >>>
> >>> Larry
> >> Shameless? Fuck you, Larry. This whole argument is shameless. At least
> >> your part in it is. This admirable young man who is suffering from a
> >> horrible disease is being bludgeoned to a pulp because some people
> >> think he might have skipped his meds before taping an ad. So what if he
> >> did? Is that a reason to attack him as some kind of fraud? If he had
> >> done the exact same thing but opposed stem cell research instead of
> >> supporting it, you'd be applauding his courage. You are completely
> >> without shame. You''re the one guy in these discussions who
> >> consistently makes me want to puke.
> >
> > Yes, and I'm sure that Larry didn't get so bent out of shape when Fox
> > taped endorsements for Arlen Specter, did he? Nor about St. Loius'
> > pitcher Suppan's febrile promos supporting the ban. That would be
> > altogether too fair.
>
> Arlen Spector is actually one of yours, he just puts an R after his name.
>
> > No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
> > for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
>
> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
> mastered it like the Democrats have.

Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
book on underhand smear tactics.

William Clark

Date: 28 Oct 2006 09:37:24
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
>
> Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
> book on underhand smear tactics.

Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.

We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
in Virginia. It has become very nasty.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 10:54:41
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <hdOdnSCRncCIwN7YnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
> >>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
> >> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
> >> mastered it like the Democrats have.
> >
> > Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
> > book on underhand smear tactics.
>
> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
>
> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.

And your point is . . . ?

William Clark

Date: 28 Oct 2006 14:05:52
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <hdOdnSCRncCIwN7YnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
>>>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
>>>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
>>>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
>>> Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
>>> book on underhand smear tactics.
>> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
>> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
>> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
>> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
>> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
>>
>> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
>> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
>
> And your point is . . . ?

My point is if you don't want to get into a knock-down drag-out fight in
the political arena then stay out of it. Fox jumped in with both feet
and has suffered the words and blows of his action.

Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:21:52
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <daidnfyayuidAd7YnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <hdOdnSCRncCIwN7YnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
> >>>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
> >>>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
> >>>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
> >>> Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
> >>> book on underhand smear tactics.
> >> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
> >> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
> >> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
> >> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
> >> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
> >>
> >> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
> >> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
> >
> > And your point is . . . ?
>
> My point is if you don't want to get into a knock-down drag-out fight in
> the political arena then stay out of it. Fox jumped in with both feet
> and has suffered the words and blows of his action.

Fox jumped in because he wants every possible avenue of research to be
explored to defeat this and other neurological diseases. That's why his
foundation is the second leading sponsor of research in this area,
behind inly the NIH. That's why he has supported Specter as well as
Democrats - whoever will advance the cause best, which is what you GoP
blind neocons can't/won't see.

When we see promising avenues cut off by sheer ignorant prejudice,
indeed it does make people see red, and rightly so.

William Clark

Date: 28 Oct 2006 21:42:09
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <daidnfyayuidAd7YnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <hdOdnSCRncCIwN7YnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely reserved
>>>>>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
>>>>>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
>>>>>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
>>>>> Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
>>>>> book on underhand smear tactics.
>>>> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
>>>> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
>>>> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
>>>> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
>>>> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
>>>>
>>>> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
>>>> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
>>> And your point is . . . ?
>> My point is if you don't want to get into a knock-down drag-out fight in
>> the political arena then stay out of it. Fox jumped in with both feet
>> and has suffered the words and blows of his action.
>
> Fox jumped in because he wants every possible avenue of research to be
> explored to defeat this and other neurological diseases. That's why his
> foundation is the second leading sponsor of research in this area,
> behind inly the NIH. That's why he has supported Specter as well as
> Democrats - whoever will advance the cause best, which is what you GoP
> blind neocons can't/won't see.

I am not a neocon, I am a con.

How much have you sent in to Fox's foundation?

> When we see promising avenues cut off by sheer ignorant prejudice,
> indeed it does make people see red, and rightly so.

The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.

Date: 29 Oct 2006 13:58:36
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <8KOdne67z7Nsm9nYnZ2dnUVZ_tGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <daidnfyayuidAd7YnZ2dnUVZ_tmdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <hdOdnSCRncCIwN7YnZ2dnUVZ_rydnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> In article <TdSdncI2d9P_c9zYnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >>>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>>>> No, the righteous indignation of the ignorant right is solely
> >>>>>>> reserved
> >>>>>>> for those that dare to impugn their heroes.
> >>>>>> The Republicans are still learning how to be duplicitous. They haven't
> >>>>>> mastered it like the Democrats have.
> >>>>> Swift Boat Veterans for "Truth"? Don't kid yourself, the GoP wrote the
> >>>>> book on underhand smear tactics.
> >>>> Politics is a dirty business. There may be hand shaking and back
> >>>> slapping and kissing of babies in the public eye. But, when they
> >>>> campaigns got behind closed doors the knives come out. Neither side is
> >>>> cleaner than the other. Some campaigns are just more effective at
> >>>> getting the unwanted message of the other candidate into the public eye.
> >>>>
> >>>> We have one of these campaigns occurring just across the Potomac river
> >>>> in Virginia. It has become very nasty.
> >>> And your point is . . . ?
> >> My point is if you don't want to get into a knock-down drag-out fight in
> >> the political arena then stay out of it. Fox jumped in with both feet
> >> and has suffered the words and blows of his action.
> >
> > Fox jumped in because he wants every possible avenue of research to be
> > explored to defeat this and other neurological diseases. That's why his
> > foundation is the second leading sponsor of research in this area,
> > behind inly the NIH. That's why he has supported Specter as well as
> > Democrats - whoever will advance the cause best, which is what you GoP
> > blind neocons can't/won't see.
>
> I am not a neocon, I am a con.
>
> How much have you sent in to Fox's foundation?

More than I am prepared to tell you about in public.
>
> > When we see promising avenues cut off by sheer ignorant prejudice,
> > indeed it does make people see red, and rightly so.
>
> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.

Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
is that simple.

William Clark

Date: 30 Oct 2006 01:19:57
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 29--2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

> > The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
>
> Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> institutes and universities are cut off...

That was his point, federal funding is not ALL funding. There are many
private foundations capable funding this type of research.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:38:58
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <45455339$0$17454$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >,
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:

> On 29--2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > > The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
> >
> > Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> > against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> > institutes and universities are cut off...
>
> That was his point, federal funding is not ALL funding. There are many
> private foundations capable funding this type of research.

Not to the tune of $100 BN per year, they're aren't. And with federal
funding goes cancer research, cardiac research and the rest.

Good idea.

William Clark

Date: 30 Oct 2006 13:29:28
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>>
>> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
>
> Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
> ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
> is that simple.
>
Funny just earlier you said this:
"I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
least some understanding of all sides."

Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:06:12
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <4qn24pFnal2oU1@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >>
> >> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
> >
> > Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> > against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> > institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
> > ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
> > is that simple.
> >
> Funny just earlier you said this:
> "I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
> supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
> least some understanding of all sides."

Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly expressed
as to be incomprehensible.

William Clark

Date: 30 Oct 2006 14:37:05
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-730CF6.15061230102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <4qn24pFnal2oU1@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> >>
>> >> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
>> >
>> > Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
>> > against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
>> > institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
>> > ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant.
>> > It
>> > is that simple.
>> >
>> Funny just earlier you said this:
>> "I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
>> supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
>> least some understanding of all sides."
>
> Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
> is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly expressed
> as to be incomprehensible.
>
> William Clark

I was talking about this "evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the
ignorant".

So why are they ignorant? Because they have a different opinion than you?

Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:06:16
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <4qn63jFm0cfiU2@individual.net >,
"MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com > wrote:

> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
> news:clark.31-730CF6.15061230102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > In article <4qn24pFnal2oU1@individual.net>,
> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> >> news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >> >>
> >> >> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
> >> >
> >> > Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> >> > against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> >> > institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
> >> > ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant.
> >> > It
> >> > is that simple.
> >> >
> >> Funny just earlier you said this:
> >> "I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
> >> supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
> >> least some understanding of all sides."
> >
> > Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
> > is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly expressed
> > as to be incomprehensible.
> >
> > William Clark
>
> I was talking about this "evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the
> ignorant".
>
> So why are they ignorant? Because they have a different opinion than you?

No, they (a small minority sub-group) are imposing a belief that
violates the separation of church and state on the entire population.
And because it is a belief, there is no logic to it, so they have no
interest in discussion. Just like those who want to set creationism (a
belief) against evolution (a scientific theory, well supported by the
available evidence).

That is ignorant.

William Clark

Date: 31 Oct 2006 09:34:42
From: MnMikew
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote in message
news:clark.31-06CBEB.18061630102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> In article <4qn63jFm0cfiU2@individual.net>,
> "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote in message
>> news:clark.31-730CF6.15061230102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> > In article <4qn24pFnal2oU1@individual.net>,
>> > "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >> "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>> >> news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
>> >> >
>> >> > Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the
>> >> > argument
>> >> > against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
>> >> > institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
>> >> > ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the
>> >> > ignorant.
>> >> > It
>> >> > is that simple.
>> >> >
>> >> Funny just earlier you said this:
>> >> "I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
>> >> supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with
>> >> at
>> >> least some understanding of all sides."
>> >
>> > Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
>> > is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly
>> > expressed
>> > as to be incomprehensible.
>> >
>> > William Clark
>>
>> I was talking about this "evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by
>> the
>> ignorant".
>>
>> So why are they ignorant? Because they have a different opinion than you?
>
> No, they (a small minority sub-group) are imposing a belief that
> violates the separation of church and state on the entire population.
> And because it is a belief, there is no logic to it, so they have no
> interest in discussion. Just like those who want to set creationism (a
> belief) against evolution (a scientific theory, well supported by the
> available evidence).
>
> That is ignorant.
>
> William Clark

They must be larger than a "small minority sub-group" otherwise we wouldn't
be talking about this.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 15:17:20
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
> is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly
> expressed as to be incomprehensible.

Academics always think they are better than laymen. It's laughable.

And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you try and
muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend time in
the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American. You are a coward,
plain as day.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 30 Oct 2006 15:41:21
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Mon, 30 2006 15:17:20 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
>> is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly
>> expressed as to be incomprehensible.
>
>Academics always think they are better than laymen. It's laughable.
>
>And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you try and
>muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend time in
>the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American. You are a coward,
>plain as day.

Haven't you noticed that MOST liberals avoid the military?. They
would send their sons to Canda if the draft were reinstated. Their
heart bleeds-- and they would give the less fortunate every dime-- of
your money.

I can remember taking business courses from people who were never in
business, never even in management in a business, much less a
risk-taker who put up his money to buy a business, hire employees,
face all those tax and regulatory forms, etc. His course was a joke,
the blind teaching the blind.

Similarly a "qualified" government executive should have at least some
business ownership or senior management experience-- since small
business produces over 60% of the GDP of America. More Republicans
than democrats have real business experience...

Larry

Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:08:41
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

larry wrote:
> Haven't you noticed that MOST liberals avoid the military?. They
> would send their sons to Canda if the draft were reinstated. Their
> heart bleeds-- and they would give the less fortunate every dime-- of
> your money.

I do know that liberals are pro social program and anti gun; but I haven't
really ever seen any statistics on what portion of our Military is Democrat,
Republican, Libertarian, Independant.

> I can remember taking business courses from people who were never in
> business, never even in management in a business, much less a
> risk-taker who put up his money to buy a business, hire employees,
> face all those tax and regulatory forms, etc. His course was a joke,
> the blind teaching the blind.

That is "sort of" a beef I have with academia; even though I spent a great
deal of time there. Most professors have never been anywhere but in
University. From student to professor - that's their whole life.

> Similarly a "qualified" government executive should have at least some
> business ownership or senior management experience-- since small
> business produces over 60% of the GDP of America. More Republicans
> than democrats have real business experience...

Democrats prefer to suck the cash that others earn, whereas Republicans
prefer to keep what they earn.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 30 Oct 2006 16:22:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Mon, 30 2006 19:08:41 -0500, "Head Shot"
<HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

>larry wrote:
>> Haven't you noticed that MOST liberals avoid the military?. They
>> would send their sons to Canda if the draft were reinstated. Their
>> heart bleeds-- and they would give the less fortunate every dime-- of
>> your money.
>
>I do know that liberals are pro social program and anti gun; but I haven't
>really ever seen any statistics on what portion of our Military is Democrat,
>Republican, Libertarian, Independant.

I live near Camp Pendleton. Several of my friends are retired
Marines-- Generals and Colonels. Several acquaintances are active
duty marines. NOBODY is liberal; everyone is at least as
conservative as me. They stay mad because the White House and
Pentagon won't allow the military to clean the whole Iraq mess up--
sweep them all up and let god sort out the good guys.
>
>
>
>> I can remember taking business courses from people who were never in
>> business, never even in management in a business, much less a
>> risk-taker who put up his money to buy a business, hire employees,
>> face all those tax and regulatory forms, etc. His course was a joke,
>> the blind teaching the blind.
>
>That is "sort of" a beef I have with academia; even though I spent a great
>deal of time there. Most professors have never been anywhere but in
>University. From student to professor - that's their whole life.

In my opinion that type are not qualified to teach anything but "pure"
physics, math, chemistry, etc. But I don't want them to teach my kids
or grandkids any course that deals with life out here-- political
Science, History, economics, etc. etc. They can't keep their bias
quiet, and with no real life experience, their academic learning is
incomplete. That course could do more harm than good.
>
>
>> Similarly a "qualified" government executive should have at least some
>> business ownership or senior management experience-- since small
>> business produces over 60% of the GDP of America. More Republicans
>> than democrats have real business experience...
>
>
>Democrats prefer to suck the cash that others earn, whereas Republicans
>prefer to keep what they earn.

Certainly my observation.

Larry

Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:05:53
From: Lloyd Parsons
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <o33dk2phjifhj2geempqed88n89odv7h7n@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 2006 15:17:20 -0500, "Head Shot"
> <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
> >William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >> Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
> >> is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly
> >> expressed as to be incomprehensible.
> >
> >Academics always think they are better than laymen. It's laughable.
> >
> >And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you try and
> >muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend time in
> >the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American. You are a coward,
> >plain as day.
>
> Haven't you noticed that MOST liberals avoid the military?. They
> would send their sons to Canda if the draft were reinstated. Their
> heart bleeds-- and they would give the less fortunate every dime-- of
> your money.
>
> I can remember taking business courses from people who were never in
> business, never even in management in a business, much less a
> risk-taker who put up his money to buy a business, hire employees,
> face all those tax and regulatory forms, etc. His course was a joke,
> the blind teaching the blind.
>
> Similarly a "qualified" government executive should have at least some
> business ownership or senior management experience-- since small
> business produces over 60% of the GDP of America. More Republicans
> than democrats have real business experience...
>
> Larry

Larry, you are so full of crap. I've noticed that damn few of those
Conservatives in congress have managed to do military service, same for
their kids. Conservatives, all talk, no do!

And they seem to like to send those that failed in business to
Washington, too. Like our illustrious President.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 19:31:06
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Lloyd Parsons wrote:
> Larry, you are so full of crap. I've noticed that damn few of those
> Conservatives in congress have managed to do military service, same
> for their kids. Conservatives, all talk, no do!

What percentage of politicians on Capitol Hill have children doing time in
Iraq or Afghanestan? Also, what percentage of politicians on Capitol Hill
have a net worth under a million? Face it, the culture in America today is
to send the poor to die. All Americans should share in the responsibility
of keeping our country free.

> And they seem to like to send those that failed in business to
> Washington, too. Like our illustrious President.

That's not just Republicans. Clinton and Whitewater. Nuff said.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 30 Oct 2006 18:06:46
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <65t1h.14579$Fd7.2913@bignews6.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > Exactly, and what I am saying here is that I cannot understand what he
> > is trying to say. Hard to tolerate an opinion that is so badly
> > expressed as to be incomprehensible.
>
> Academics always think they are better than laymen. It's laughable.
>
> And you are still a coward; no matter how many sock puppets you try and
> muster up to your defense to assert that you did not need to spend time in
> the US Military to be a Patriot and/or a true American. You are a coward,
> plain as day.

Whatever.

William Clark

Date: 30 Oct 2006 14:51:22
From: Bobby Knight
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Date: 30 Oct 2006 11:58:09
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Mon, 30 2006 13:29:28 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com >
wrote:

>
>"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
>news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
>>>
>>> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
>>
>> Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
>> against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
>> institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
>> ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
>> is that simple.
>>
>Funny just earlier you said this:
>"I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
>supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
>least some understanding of all sides."

MJF admitted yesterday that he has not read the bill and thus did not
know that the Missouri ballot item contains approval of cloning-- So
here we have another liberal celebrity campaigning for something he
does not understand... and obviously being shamelessly exploited by
much smarter folks with a commercial agenda. Cloning is big
business- and companies stand to make millions on this..-

http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006//06101305.html

Larry

Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:40:39
From: Alan Baker
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <uvlck25n3n7kp0pedn4ikmmd7l72ju4gpq@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 2006 13:29:28 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> >news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> >>>
> >>> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
> >>
> >> Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> >> against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> >> institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
> >> ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
> >> is that simple.
> >>
> >Funny just earlier you said this:
> >"I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
> >supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
> >least some understanding of all sides."
>
> MJF admitted yesterday that he has not read the bill and thus did not
> know that the Missouri ballot item contains approval of cloning-- So
> here we have another liberal celebrity campaigning for something he
> does not understand... and obviously being shamelessly exploited by
> much smarter folks with a commercial agenda. Cloning is big
> business- and companies stand to make millions on this..-
>
> http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006//06101305.html
>
> Larry

What you really mean is that the "pro-life" side is incapable of
distinguishing the cloning of *cells* from the cloning of an entire
human being. The amendments bans the latter while allowing the former.

Or perhaps they're deliberately misrepresenting...

--
'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: 30 Oct 2006 18:03:21
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <alangbaker-069A40.13403730102006@news.telus.net >,
Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net > wrote:

> In article <uvlck25n3n7kp0pedn4ikmmd7l72ju4gpq@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
> > On Mon, 30 2006 13:29:28 -0600, "MnMikew" <mnmiikkew@aol.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >
> > >"William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote in message
> > >news:clark.31-E2B54B.13583629102006@charm.magnus.acs.ohio-state.edu...
> > >>>
> > >>> The avenues are not cut off just where you coerce the funding.
> > >>
> > >> Excuse me? This sentence is incomprehensible (like most of the argument
> > >> against embryonic stem cell research). The federal funds to research
> > >> institutes and universities are cut off for purely fundamental (and
> > >> ignorant) evangelical Christian prejudices, espoused by the ignorant. It
> > >> is that simple.
> > >>
> > >Funny just earlier you said this:
> > >"I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
> > >supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
> > >least some understanding of all sides."
> >
> > MJF admitted yesterday that he has not read the bill and thus did not
> > know that the Missouri ballot item contains approval of cloning-- So
> > here we have another liberal celebrity campaigning for something he
> > does not understand... and obviously being shamelessly exploited by
> > much smarter folks with a commercial agenda. Cloning is big
> > business- and companies stand to make millions on this..-
> >
> > http://www.lifesite.net/ldn/2006//06101305.html
> >
> > Larry
>
> What you really mean is that the "pro-life" side is incapable of
> distinguishing the cloning of *cells* from the cloning of an entire
> human being. The amendments bans the latter while allowing the former.
>
> Or perhaps they're deliberately misrepresenting...

Actually it's poor old Larry that can't tell the difference. You see, he
never reads the drivel he posts, he just passes it on, warts and all.

William Clark

Date: 28 Oct 2006 20:42:17
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Sat, 28 2006 20:21:52 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>When we see promising avenues cut off by sheer ignorant prejudice,
>indeed it does make people see red, and rightly so.

No avenues have been cut off. In fact, I don't know of any politician
on the left or right who is against stem cell research. The issue is
destroying human embryos in the process. There are lots of people who
regard this as immoral. I don't think that all of them are ignorant.

Personally, I wouldn't mind my tax dollars being spent on embryonic
stem cell research, but I'm aware that not everyone feels the same and
I wouldn't call them stupid for feeling that way. Human embryos are
not your average bundle of cells.

Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:01:21
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <d8t7k2lb3qbnp1re7bubfogmhb8bo3vp6u@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sat, 28 2006 20:21:52 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >When we see promising avenues cut off by sheer ignorant prejudice,
> >indeed it does make people see red, and rightly so.
>
>
> No avenues have been cut off. In fact, I don't know of any politician
> on the left or right who is against stem cell research. The issue is
> destroying human embryos in the process. There are lots of people who
> regard this as immoral. I don't think that all of them are ignorant.

Human embryos that are to be destroyed anyway. These are NOT embryos
that will be used to create life - they will be disposed of as surplus
to requirements for in vitro fertilization. It is not allowing them to
be used for the purpose of extending and protecting human life that is
truly immoral.

>
> Personally, I wouldn't mind my tax dollars being spent on embryonic
> stem cell research, but I'm aware that not everyone feels the same and
> I wouldn't call them stupid for feeling that way. Human embryos are
> not your average bundle of cells.

Actually, they are. And I say that as a Christian. All cells are life.

William Clark

Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:31:27
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Sun, 29 2006 14:01:21 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Human embryos are
>> not your average bundle of cells.
>
>Actually, they are. And I say that as a Christian. All cells are life.
>
>William Clark

The law clearly makes a distinction between human life and all other
life. There is no doubt that all human life begins at the moment of
conception. However, at the same time, it's hard (in my opinion) to
justify giving the same legal rights to a bundle of 32 cells as you
give to a 6 month old human fetus. In any case, a human embryo has
the potential to develop into a human being and no other bundle of
cells ca do that.

Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:25:40
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <afaak2p7fdacot08j9g19hakuunft6k2n1@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 2006 14:01:21 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Human embryos are
> >> not your average bundle of cells.
> >
> >Actually, they are. And I say that as a Christian. All cells are life.
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> The law clearly makes a distinction between human life and all other
> life. There is no doubt that all human life begins at the moment of
> conception. However, at the same time, it's hard (in my opinion) to
> justify giving the same legal rights to a bundle of 32 cells as you
> give to a 6 month old human fetus. In any case, a human embryo has
> the potential to develop into a human being and no other bundle of
> cells ca do that.

That's fine, but first we have shown that we can clone from other than
an embryo, and second, these embryos are marked for destruction any way.
Seems to me it would be better to put them to some useful purpose.

William Clark

Date: 29 Oct 2006 22:27:23
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Sun, 29 2006 21:25:40 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>That's fine, but first we have shown that we can clone from other than
>an embryo, and second, these embryos are marked for destruction any way.
>Seems to me it would be better to put them to some useful purpose.
>
>William Clark

In reality, many of these embryos are used by private research groups.
But access to public funding would help. I'm not against public
funding, but I don't denigrate the people who feel strongly that it's
immoral. Many of them have the best intentions.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 06:45:38
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <etrak25heqgq0ud56ukd99d3j9mikmsk47@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 2006 21:25:40 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >That's fine, but first we have shown that we can clone from other than
> >an embryo, and second, these embryos are marked for destruction any way.
> >Seems to me it would be better to put them to some useful purpose.
> >
> >William Clark
>
> In reality, many of these embryos are used by private research groups.
> But access to public funding would help. I'm not against public
> funding, but I don't denigrate the people who feel strongly that it's
> immoral. Many of them have the best intentions.

I absolutely agree. This is a country in which different opinions are
supposed to be tolerated, and this debate needs to be conducted with at
least some understanding of all sides.

William Clark

Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:22:42
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Sun, 29 2006 14:01:21 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>Human embryos that are to be destroyed anyway. These are NOT embryos
>that will be used to create life - they will be disposed of as surplus
>to requirements for in vitro fertilization. It is not allowing them to
>be used for the purpose of extending and protecting human life that is
>truly immoral.

First, human embryos are already alive.

Second, I have no problem with embryonic stem cell research even if
the embryos are created for the purpose of research.

Third, I simply can't dismiss the people who are opposed to the
research as ignorant. These people oppose this on religious and moral
grounds and that has to be respected.

That being said, the people who want to teach intelligent design in
the science classroom are ignorant.

Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:29:01
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <3u9ak2d15rouot9s2ia3kq2224iab6l0af@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 2006 14:01:21 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >Human embryos that are to be destroyed anyway. These are NOT embryos
> >that will be used to create life - they will be disposed of as surplus
> >to requirements for in vitro fertilization. It is not allowing them to
> >be used for the purpose of extending and protecting human life that is
> >truly immoral.
>
>
> First, human embryos are already alive.

But they are to be 'killed' by being disposed of.
>
> Second, I have no problem with embryonic stem cell research even if
> the embryos are created for the purpose of research.
>
> Third, I simply can't dismiss the people who are opposed to the
> research as ignorant. These people oppose this on religious and moral
> grounds and that has to be respected.

I do respect their right to hold a contrary opinion, just as I do on
abortion, and I understand where this can come from. However, I don't
find this reason compelling enough a) to allow religious dogma to frame
our laws, or b) to stand in the way of potential medical breakthroughs
that could save many other lives.
>
> That being said, the people who want to teach intelligent design in
> the science classroom are ignorant.

Agree 100%. We have problems with that here in Ohio.

William Clark

Date: 29 Oct 2006 22:51:06
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Sun, 29 2006 21:29:01 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>However, I don't
>find this reason compelling enough a) to allow religious dogma to frame
>our laws, or b) to stand in the way of potential medical breakthroughs
>that could save many other lives.

If you want to talk about laws that are framed by religion, we'll be
here a long time. Within that context, embryonic stem cell research
(ESSR) is a minor issue. I happen to be against the administration's
stance on this issue, but it's not an issue that would effect the way
I vote.

Obviously, for people who could benefit from potential advances, it is
a big issue. However, you also have to understand that if US
government were to begin funding for ESSR, it would take funding away
from something else. The pool of funds is only so big.

Every disease has its constituency. The bigger the constieuency, the
more funding you get. My guess is that ESSR gets quite a bit of
funding on the private level. The potential for profit is great and
it's cutting edge research that attracts top shelf people.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 06:44:24
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <adsak2lv4ra9vsq1112nsfgl5f356ouhu9@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Sun, 29 2006 21:29:01 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >However, I don't
> >find this reason compelling enough a) to allow religious dogma to frame
> >our laws, or b) to stand in the way of potential medical breakthroughs
> >that could save many other lives.
>
> If you want to talk about laws that are framed by religion, we'll be
> here a long time. Within that context, embryonic stem cell research
> (ESSR) is a minor issue. I happen to be against the administration's
> stance on this issue, but it's not an issue that would effect the way
> I vote.
>
> Obviously, for people who could benefit from potential advances, it is
> a big issue. However, you also have to understand that if US
> government were to begin funding for ESSR, it would take funding away
> from something else. The pool of funds is only so big.
>
> Every disease has its constituency. The bigger the constieuency, the
> more funding you get. My guess is that ESSR gets quite a bit of
> funding on the private level. The potential for profit is great and
> it's cutting edge research that attracts top shelf people.

All this is as maybe, but the crux of this issue is whether such
research ought to be BANNED, not for reasons of funding priorities (such
decisions are taken all the time), but because a religious pressure
group has it in their dogma to do so. That is what is wrong, both in
fact and in principle, and that is why we need to oppose the ban.

William Clark

Date: 30 Oct 2006 07:24:47
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
>
> All this is as maybe, but the crux of this issue is whether such
> research ought to be BANNED, not for reasons of funding priorities (such
> decisions are taken all the time), but because a religious pressure
> group has it in their dogma to do so. That is what is wrong, both in
> fact and in principle, and that is why we need to oppose the ban.

The research is not banned just the funding from federal government
coffers is banned.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 08:46:20
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <LIydnaVUlaCSctjYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >
> > All this is as maybe, but the crux of this issue is whether such
> > research ought to be BANNED, not for reasons of funding priorities (such
> > decisions are taken all the time), but because a religious pressure
> > group has it in their dogma to do so. That is what is wrong, both in
> > fact and in principle, and that is why we need to oppose the ban.
>
> The research is not banned just the funding from federal government
> coffers is banned.

Precisely. Why is it OK for the private sector to "destroy human life"
but not the public one? Makes it seem that "murder" is fine as long as
it is being done for profit.

William Clark

Date: 30 Oct 2006 20:45:49
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Mon, 30 2006 08:46:20 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>> The research is not banned just the funding from federal government
>> coffers is banned.
>
>Precisely. Why is it OK for the private sector to "destroy human life"
>but not the public one? Makes it seem that "murder" is fine as long as
>it is being done for profit.
>
>William Clark

There would have to be a legal reason to ban the research and that
would be difficult considering that abortion is legal. Restricting
government funding is a lot easier because the legislature controls
the purse strings.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:49:51
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <ehadk2dumib0nu39d19od3qgbqh5rnrjje@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 2006 08:46:20 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> The research is not banned just the funding from federal government
> >> coffers is banned.
> >
> >Precisely. Why is it OK for the private sector to "destroy human life"
> >but not the public one? Makes it seem that "murder" is fine as long as
> >it is being done for profit.
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> There would have to be a legal reason to ban the research and that
> would be difficult considering that abortion is legal. Restricting
> government funding is a lot easier because the legislature controls
> the purse strings.

In other words, if you can't prevent it by legal means, because the
Constitution won't let you, the let the evangelical right have its way
via the back door.

Hardly the American way, don't you think?

William Clark

Date: 31 Oct 2006 05:23:18
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 30--2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

> In other words, if you can't prevent it by legal means, because the
> Constitution won't let you, the let the evangelical right have its way
> via the back door.

I'm not sure you understand the Constitution. What part is relevant to your
claims?

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:02:55
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Mon, 30 2006 21:49:51 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> There would have to be a legal reason to ban the research and that
>> would be difficult considering that abortion is legal. Restricting
>> government funding is a lot easier because the legislature controls
>> the purse strings.
>
>In other words, if you can't prevent it by legal means, because the
>Constitution won't let you, the let the evangelical right have its way
>via the back door.
>
>Hardly the American way, don't you think?
>
>William Clark

No, they can't ban the research because it's not illegal. However,
the Congress has every right not to fund ESSR. The government has
restrictions on federal funding for abortion (see Hyde Amendment 1976)
and a majority of states do as well. Challenges to the Hyde Amendment
went to the USSC and the Hyde Amendment was ruled to be
Constitutional. Because an abortion is not a therapeutic procedure
(unless the life of the mother is in danger) it doesn't have to be
funded by Medicaid. The same legal argument is not applicable to
ESSR, but that doesn't matter because funding for any type of research
is discretional spending and therefore up to the discretion of
Congress.

That's the American way.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:15:36
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <e4vfk29nrrs2cboh5c495koev4vb8lj5j1@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Mon, 30 2006 21:49:51 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> There would have to be a legal reason to ban the research and that
> >> would be difficult considering that abortion is legal. Restricting
> >> government funding is a lot easier because the legislature controls
> >> the purse strings.
> >
> >In other words, if you can't prevent it by legal means, because the
> >Constitution won't let you, the let the evangelical right have its way
> >via the back door.
> >
> >Hardly the American way, don't you think?
> >
> >William Clark
>
>
> No, they can't ban the research because it's not illegal. However,
> the Congress has every right not to fund ESSR. The government has
> restrictions on federal funding for abortion (see Hyde Amendment 1976)
> and a majority of states do as well. Challenges to the Hyde Amendment
> went to the USSC and the Hyde Amendment was ruled to be
> Constitutional. Because an abortion is not a therapeutic procedure
> (unless the life of the mother is in danger) it doesn't have to be
> funded by Medicaid. The same legal argument is not applicable to
> ESSR, but that doesn't matter because funding for any type of research
> is discretional spending and therefore up to the discretion of
> Congress.
>
> That's the American way.

No, it's the evangelical Christian Right way - and it is most definitely
not the American way.

William Clark

Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:31:03
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <e4vfk29nrrs2cboh5c495koev4vb8lj5j1@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Mon, 30 2006 21:49:51 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> There would have to be a legal reason to ban the research and that
>>>> would be difficult considering that abortion is legal. Restricting
>>>> government funding is a lot easier because the legislature controls
>>>> the purse strings.
>>> In other words, if you can't prevent it by legal means, because the
>>> Constitution won't let you, the let the evangelical right have its way
>>> via the back door.
>>>
>>> Hardly the American way, don't you think?
>>>
>>> William Clark
>>
>> No, they can't ban the research because it's not illegal. However,
>> the Congress has every right not to fund ESSR. The government has
>> restrictions on federal funding for abortion (see Hyde Amendment 1976)
>> and a majority of states do as well. Challenges to the Hyde Amendment
>> went to the USSC and the Hyde Amendment was ruled to be
>> Constitutional. Because an abortion is not a therapeutic procedure
>> (unless the life of the mother is in danger) it doesn't have to be
>> funded by Medicaid. The same legal argument is not applicable to
>> ESSR, but that doesn't matter because funding for any type of research
>> is discretional spending and therefore up to the discretion of
>> Congress.
>>
>> That's the American way.
>
> No, it's the evangelical Christian Right way - and it is most definitely
> not the American way.

You need to let go of you hatred for the "evangelical Christian Right
way", whatever it is. And, why do you keep harping about it? You must
have had a run in with them in the past.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:45:38
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <MPOdnYF7nud6m9XYnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <e4vfk29nrrs2cboh5c495koev4vb8lj5j1@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Mon, 30 2006 21:49:51 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>>> There would have to be a legal reason to ban the research and that
> >>>> would be difficult considering that abortion is legal. Restricting
> >>>> government funding is a lot easier because the legislature controls
> >>>> the purse strings.
> >>> In other words, if you can't prevent it by legal means, because the
> >>> Constitution won't let you, the let the evangelical right have its way
> >>> via the back door.
> >>>
> >>> Hardly the American way, don't you think?
> >>>
> >>> William Clark
> >>
> >> No, they can't ban the research because it's not illegal. However,
> >> the Congress has every right not to fund ESSR. The government has
> >> restrictions on federal funding for abortion (see Hyde Amendment 1976)
> >> and a majority of states do as well. Challenges to the Hyde Amendment
> >> went to the USSC and the Hyde Amendment was ruled to be
> >> Constitutional. Because an abortion is not a therapeutic procedure
> >> (unless the life of the mother is in danger) it doesn't have to be
> >> funded by Medicaid. The same legal argument is not applicable to
> >> ESSR, but that doesn't matter because funding for any type of research
> >> is discretional spending and therefore up to the discretion of
> >> Congress.
> >>
> >> That's the American way.
> >
> > No, it's the evangelical Christian Right way - and it is most definitely
> > not the American way.
>
> You need to let go of you hatred for the "evangelical Christian Right
> way", whatever it is. And, why do you keep harping about it? You must
> have had a run in with them in the past.

No, they are a brand of religious facism, of the kind that we are
fighting the Taliban and Iraqi militia to put a stop to. I have no time
for religious extremism of any persuasion, especially when it stands in
the way of medical progress that could benefit thousands.

William Clark

Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:08:31
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <MPOdnYF7nud6m9XYnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> No, it's the evangelical Christian Right way - and it is most definitely
>>> not the American way.
>> You need to let go of you hatred for the "evangelical Christian Right
>> way", whatever it is. And, why do you keep harping about it? You must
>> have had a run in with them in the past.
>
> No, they are a brand of religious facism, of the kind that we are
> fighting the Taliban and Iraqi militia to put a stop to. I have no time
> for religious extremism of any persuasion, especially when it stands in
> the way of medical progress that could benefit thousands.

Have they, the Christian religious fascists, mutilated, burned and hung
the bodies of contractors from a bridge? Have they beheaded, on video
tape, anyone?

Would you accept medicine if you knew or had an idea that it was
obtained by the death of another human? Me, I could never let another
human die for so that I could live.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:47:49
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <sM6dnXubYcwyktXYnZ2dnUVZ_tudnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <MPOdnYF7nud6m9XYnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> No, it's the evangelical Christian Right way - and it is most definitely
> >>> not the American way.
> >> You need to let go of you hatred for the "evangelical Christian Right
> >> way", whatever it is. And, why do you keep harping about it? You must
> >> have had a run in with them in the past.
> >
> > No, they are a brand of religious facism, of the kind that we are
> > fighting the Taliban and Iraqi militia to put a stop to. I have no time
> > for religious extremism of any persuasion, especially when it stands in
> > the way of medical progress that could benefit thousands.
>
> Have they, the Christian religious fascists, mutilated, burned and hung
> the bodies of contractors from a bridge? Have they beheaded, on video
> tape, anyone?

Pleanty of times - just look through history. For now, though, why don't
you go learn about the Rapture, and what they have in mind for those who
have not been born again. Very 'christian', I'm sure.
>
> Would you accept medicine if you knew or had an idea that it was
> obtained by the death of another human? Me, I could never let another
> human die for so that I could live.

Now you're back on the "murder' nonsense. Firstly, every heart
transplant patient owes his life to someone who dies. Secondly, where
does the 'death of another human being' come into this? We are talking
about embryos that will NEVER be implanted in vitro to develop into
human life - they are surplus to requirements for that purpose, and are
slated to be destroyed. How many times do you need to hear that before
you accept it as fact?

William Clark

Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:54:46
From: Otto
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Yes.

Otto

Date: 01 Nov 2006 10:56:59
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Tue, 31 2006 22:47:49 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> Have they, the Christian religious fascists, mutilated, burned and hung
>> the bodies of contractors from a bridge? Have they beheaded, on video
>> tape, anyone?
>
>Pleanty of times - just look through history.

We're not talking about history, we're talking about the religious
right in the US right now. Why should they be deprived of their right
to vote for politicians that support their agenda. There's no doubt
that they're intolerant, but so are lots of left-wing groups.

The real problem for you is that they're successful.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 13:49:23
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <7kghk2lo74uuf798fclo52r73eqvmsbb3h@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 31 2006 22:47:49 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> Have they, the Christian religious fascists, mutilated, burned and hung
> >> the bodies of contractors from a bridge? Have they beheaded, on video
> >> tape, anyone?
> >
> >Pleanty of times - just look through history.
>
>
> We're not talking about history, we're talking about the religious
> right in the US right now. Why should they be deprived of their right
> to vote for politicians that support their agenda. There's no doubt
> that they're intolerant, but so are lots of left-wing groups.
>
> The real problem for you is that they're successful.

Nice cut and paste. How convenient that you left the qualifying part
out. Pretty normal, though.

William Clark

Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:17:30
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Bert Robbins wrote:
> Have they, the Christian religious fascists, mutilated, burned and
> hung the bodies of contractors from a bridge? Have they beheaded, on
> video tape, anyone?

Haven't tens of millions died in the name of Christianity in a series of
wars throughout Europe? They have long since moderated of course; but
they are also 700 years more mature than Islam and are certainly in power in
more forward thinking countries. Another interesting item of note -
Muslims have done less to further humanity than pretty much any other major
group. Only one Nobel, and the IQ in many mostly Islamic countries is
close to half of what it is in Europe and USA.

> Would you accept medicine if you knew or had an idea that it was
> obtained by the death of another human? Me, I could never let another
> human die for so that I could live.

I could easily let a Muslim die so that one of my children could live. In
fact, if faced with such a decision - I would let every Muslim on the
planet die so that just one of my children could live an extra year.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 01 Nov 2006 10:46:48
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Tue, 31 2006 21:45:38 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>No, they are a brand of religious facism, of the kind that we are
>fighting the Taliban and Iraqi militia to put a stop to.

Of course, I doubt that Bill objects to religious people involved in
politics if they are from the left.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 13:50:31
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <g8ghk21fkh508p7r8v8l45g5ea65o2cc71@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 31 2006 21:45:38 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >No, they are a brand of religious facism, of the kind that we are
> >fighting the Taliban and Iraqi militia to put a stop to.
>
> Of course, I doubt that Bill objects to religious people involved in
> politics if they are from the left.

I don't care which side of the aisle they are on - if they want to use
their religious dogma to frame legislation to ram down everyone else's
throat, they are toast.

William Clark

Date: 02 Nov 2006 00:06:12
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

> I don't care which side of the aisle they are on - if they want to use
> their religious dogma to frame legislation to ram down everyone else's
> throat, they are toast

This is the beauty of the our Framers: they stripped the dogma out of
religion. I'm afraid many, then and today, don't know the difference between
dogma and spritual tenets.

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 07:01:32
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 31--2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

> No, it's the evangelical Christian Right way - and it is most definitely
> not the American way.

Ever read DeTocqueville?

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 07:00:13
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <45484646$0$17415$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >,
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:

> On 31--2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > No, it's the evangelical Christian Right way - and it is most definitely
> > not the American way.
>
> Ever read DeTocqueville?

Yes.

You?

William Clark

Date: 01 Nov 2006 16:24:50
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

> Yes.

You missed the part about the role and importance of religion in the States
then?

> You?

In the original

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 13:47:55
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <4548ca4c$0$17451$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com >,
"bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org > wrote:

> On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> > Yes.
>
> You missed the part about the role and importance of religion in the States
> then?
>

Not in framing our laws and constitution, no.

William Clark

Date: 01 Nov 2006 13:54:18
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <4548ca4c$0$17451$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> Yes.
>> You missed the part about the role and importance of religion in the States
>> then?
>>
>
> Not in framing our laws and constitution, no.

People, the base of our form of government, are religious and religion
does play a part, major or minor, in how they vote. You may not like it
but, you have to accept it and just move on.

There is not prohibition against religion in the US Constitution. There
is a prohibition against a state, meaning federal, established religion.
Recognizing and including religious prayers in public is not prohibited
either. The secular humanists and the godless hoards believe that all
religions should be banned.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 23:56:21
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

> Not in framing our laws and constitution, no.

do you remember the phrase "natural law?"

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 11:14:53
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:47:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>In article <4548ca4c$0$17451$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>
>> On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> > Yes.
>>
>> You missed the part about the role and importance of religion in the States
>> then?
>>
>
>Not in framing our laws and constitution, no.

You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.

Larry

Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:02:20
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <vfshk214tikmn0mdmksojs4q8j0r3j1igc@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:47:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <4548ca4c$0$17451$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
> >
> >> On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Yes.
> >>
> >> You missed the part about the role and importance of religion in the States
> >> then?
> >>
> >
> >Not in framing our laws and constitution, no.
>
> You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
> Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
>
> Larry

Good one, Larry. Racist xenophobia again, eh?

You can get help for it, you know.

William Clark

Date: 01 Nov 2006 12:13:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:02:20 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>In article <vfshk214tikmn0mdmksojs4q8j0r3j1igc@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:47:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >In article <4548ca4c$0$17451$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>> > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>> >
>> >> On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> > Yes.
>> >>
>> >> You missed the part about the role and importance of religion in the States
>> >> then?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Not in framing our laws and constitution, no.
>>
>> You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
>> Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
>>
>> Larry
>
>Good one, Larry. Racist xenophobia again, eh?
>
>You can get help for it, you know.

So what was so bad that you felt the need to invade America?

Larry

Date: 01 Nov 2006 22:17:54
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <mtvhk21c6h9oqvc7n0mkatbqaruirsj7dm@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:02:20 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>
> >In article <vfshk214tikmn0mdmksojs4q8j0r3j1igc@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:47:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >> >In article <4548ca4c$0$17451$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> >> > "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> > Yes.
> >> >>
> >> >> You missed the part about the role and importance of religion in the
> >> >> States
> >> >> then?
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >Not in framing our laws and constitution, no.
> >>
> >> You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
> >> Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> >Good one, Larry. Racist xenophobia again, eh?
> >
> >You can get help for it, you know.
>
> So what was so bad that you felt the need to invade America?
>
> Larry

"Invade', Larry? I thought you only invaded Iraq. However, I can see
that it must be hard for someone of your limited imagination, and
xenophobic disposition to comprehend the notion of a truly global
economy, and a world of ideas that is not confined by national
boundaries. Go lie down in a darkened room for a while, and give it s
try. Go on, I dare you.

William Clark

Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:03:16
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <vfshk214tikmn0mdmksojs4q8j0r3j1igc@4ax.com>,
> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:47:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> In article <4548ca4c$0$17451$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>>> "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Yes.
>>>> You missed the part about the role and importance of religion in the States
>>>> then?
>>>>
>>> Not in framing our laws and constitution, no.
>> You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
>> Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
>>
>> Larry
>
> Good one, Larry. Racist xenophobia again, eh?
>
> You can get help for it, you know.

Do you want all of the rights and privileges of US citizenship but,
without all of the responsibilities?

Date: 01 Nov 2006 22:19:25
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <GN-dnZGFgOwYYNXYnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <vfshk214tikmn0mdmksojs4q8j0r3j1igc@4ax.com>,
> > larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:47:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> In article <4548ca4c$0$17451$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
> >>> "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> Yes.
> >>>> You missed the part about the role and importance of religion in the
> >>>> States
> >>>> then?
> >>>>
> >>> Not in framing our laws and constitution, no.
> >> You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
> >> Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
> >>
> >> Larry
> >
> > Good one, Larry. Racist xenophobia again, eh?
> >
> > You can get help for it, you know.
>
> Do you want all of the rights and privileges of US citizenship but,
> without all of the responsibilities?

All the rights of someone who contributes fully to society, pays their
taxes, abides by the law, and advances knowledge. You can even have my
vote.

William Clark

Date: 01 Nov 2006 22:23:14
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> All the rights of someone who contributes fully to society, pays their
> taxes, abides by the law, and advances knowledge. You can even have my
> vote.

What have you done to protect my freedom? Or the freedom of your children?
Or the freedom of your students? Go back to UK.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 02 Nov 2006 06:51:23
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <Cwd2h.13335$Bs.2105@bignews8.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > All the rights of someone who contributes fully to society, pays their
> > taxes, abides by the law, and advances knowledge. You can even have my
> > vote.
>
>
> What have you done to protect my freedom? Or the freedom of your children?
> Or the freedom of your students? Go back to UK.

Lightweight body armor?

And you?

William Clark

Date: 02 Nov 2006 06:58:02
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <GN-dnZGFgOwYYNXYnZ2dnUVZ_qSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <vfshk214tikmn0mdmksojs4q8j0r3j1igc@4ax.com>,
>>> larry <larry@delmardata.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:47:55 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
>>>> <clark.31@nospamosu.edu> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <4548ca4c$0$17451$882e0bbb@news.ThunderNews.com>,
>>>>> "bill-o" <assimilate@borg.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Yes.
>>>>>> You missed the part about the role and importance of religion in the
>>>>>> States
>>>>>> then?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Not in framing our laws and constitution, no.
>>>> You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
>>>> Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
>>>>
>>>> Larry
>>> Good one, Larry. Racist xenophobia again, eh?
>>>
>>> You can get help for it, you know.
>> Do you want all of the rights and privileges of US citizenship but,
>> without all of the responsibilities?
>
> All the rights of someone who contributes fully to society, pays their
> taxes, abides by the law, and advances knowledge. You can even have my
> vote.

I don't live in Chicago, I can't cast your illegal vote.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 14:40:28
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:14:53 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
>Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
>
>Larry

As someone who loved to discuss and debate just about anything, I'm
happy to have Bill around to debate with. Citizen, or not, he's
entitled to post his opinions here. After all he lives here and pays
taxes. You should be happy that he can't vote. I would also never
criticize anyone who came to this country for the opportunity for a
better life. Obviously, things had to be pretty bad at home if he
ended up living in Ohio :)

Date: 01 Nov 2006 12:11:07
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:40:28 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:14:53 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
>>Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
>>
>>Larry
>
>As someone who loved to discuss and debate just about anything, I'm
>happy to have Bill around to debate with. Citizen, or not, he's
>entitled to post his opinions here. After all he lives here and pays
>taxes. You should be happy that he can't vote. I would also never
>criticize anyone who came to this country for the opportunity for a
>better life. Obviously, things had to be pretty bad at home if he
>ended up living in Ohio :)

Good point! Whew! How bad must it be in England to chase a guy to
Ohio??

Larry

Date: 01 Nov 2006 22:21:27
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <gpvhk2laqh02clmfha2f8kefiijh0fh1cr@4ax.com >,
larry <larry@delmardata.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 14:40:28 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:14:53 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
> >>Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
> >>
> >>Larry
> >
> >As someone who loved to discuss and debate just about anything, I'm
> >happy to have Bill around to debate with. Citizen, or not, he's
> >entitled to post his opinions here. After all he lives here and pays
> >taxes. You should be happy that he can't vote. I would also never
> >criticize anyone who came to this country for the opportunity for a
> >better life. Obviously, things had to be pretty bad at home if he
> >ended up living in Ohio :)
>
> Good point! Whew! How bad must it be in England to chase a guy to
> Ohio??
>
> Larry

Gosh, not just a racist, but typically arrogant (and ignorant)
Californian, to boot! I must admit, fifteen years of straight Republican
rule have left the state in a shambles, but that is about to change.

And the Buckeyes are still #1.

William Clark

Date: 01 Nov 2006 15:06:15
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <eithk25ul5srdppvn1c9jhvj357moara5o@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:14:53 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
> wrote:
>
> >You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
> >Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
> >
> >Larry
>
> As someone who loved to discuss and debate just about anything, I'm
> happy to have Bill around to debate with. Citizen, or not, he's
> entitled to post his opinions here. After all he lives here and pays
> taxes. You should be happy that he can't vote. I would also never
> criticize anyone who came to this country for the opportunity for a
> better life. Obviously, things had to be pretty bad at home if he
> ended up living in Ohio :)

Thank you - I understand that we don't see eye to eye on many issues,
but I do appreciate the fact that we can acknowledge that it is the
co-existence of different points of view that help to strengthen the
democratic process. Larry, on the other hand . . .

Things were really bad - Margaret Thatcher had just been elected PM, and
the Beatles were a thing of the past. As for Ohio, I live less than five
minutes' walk from Muirfield Village GC, and the Buckeyes are #1. Life
here is just fine.

William Clark

Date: 01 Nov 2006 23:58:49
From: bill-o
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On 1-Nov-2006, "William A. T. Clark" <clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

> As for Ohio, I live less than five
> minutes' walk from Muirfield Village GC, and the Buckeyes are #1. Life
> here is just fine.

I don't give a flip about the Buckeyes (went to 4 colleges and never went to
a football game) but I am green about the other half. The closest I got to
MV was Dublin GC!

--
bill-o

A "gimme" can best be defined as an agreement between
two golfers neither of whom can putt very well.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 12:15:49
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 15:06:15 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>In article <eithk25ul5srdppvn1c9jhvj357moara5o@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 11:14:53 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
>> >Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
>> >
>> >Larry
>>
>> As someone who loved to discuss and debate just about anything, I'm
>> happy to have Bill around to debate with. Citizen, or not, he's
>> entitled to post his opinions here. After all he lives here and pays
>> taxes. You should be happy that he can't vote. I would also never
>> criticize anyone who came to this country for the opportunity for a
>> better life. Obviously, things had to be pretty bad at home if he
>> ended up living in Ohio :)
>
>Thank you - I understand that we don't see eye to eye on many issues,
>but I do appreciate the fact that we can acknowledge that it is the
>co-existence of different points of view that help to strengthen the
>democratic process. Larry, on the other hand . . .
>
>Things were really bad - Margaret Thatcher had just been elected PM, and
>the Beatles were a thing of the past. As for Ohio, I live less than five
>minutes' walk from Muirfield Village GC, and the Buckeyes are #1. Life
>here is just fine.
>
>William Clark

Margaret was the best thing to happen there since Churchill. The
Thatcher years were the best economic years in the UK history.

Larry

Date: 01 Nov 2006 21:17:06
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:15:49 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com >
wrote:

>Margaret was the best thing to happen there since Churchill. The
>Thatcher years were the best economic years in the UK history.
>
>Larry

Maggie did what had to be done and, in the long run, it paid off.
However, a lot of people were left in the lurch at the time. The mine
workers and their families took a terrible hit when she decided to
close most of the mines.

However, the soundness of her policies is attested to by the fact the
next two PMs continued what she had started and Britain has one of the
strongest economies in Europe.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 18:41:43
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 21:17:06 -0500, Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com >
wrote:

>On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 12:15:49 -0800, larry <larry@delmardata.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Margaret was the best thing to happen there since Churchill. The
>>Thatcher years were the best economic years in the UK history.
>>
>>Larry
>
>
>Maggie did what had to be done and, in the long run, it paid off.
>However, a lot of people were left in the lurch at the time. The mine
>workers and their families took a terrible hit when she decided to
>close most of the mines.
>
>However, the soundness of her policies is attested to by the fact the
>next two PMs continued what she had started and Britain has one of the
>strongest economies in Europe.

Yep, and she helped Reagan, "don't go all wobbly on me." She kept
him pushing for tax cuts.

Larry

Date: 01 Nov 2006 10:41:59
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Tue, 31 2006 21:15:36 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@osu.edu > wrote:

>> That's the American way.
>
>No, it's the evangelical Christian Right way - and it is most definitely
>not the American way.

You have to include the Catholic Church as well. In any case, when it
comes to discretionary spending, Congress decides where the money
goes. Somebody writes a piece of legislation and if it gets enough
votes it's passed. If that legislation bans funding for ESCR then
there's no funding. That's the way it works.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 13:55:01
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <pnfhk2tueu4stfl4msv8deuscafqrk5qld@4ax.com >,
Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com > wrote:

> On Tue, 31 2006 21:15:36 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>
> >> That's the American way.
> >
> >No, it's the evangelical Christian Right way - and it is most definitely
> >not the American way.
>
> You have to include the Catholic Church as well. In any case, when it
> comes to discretionary spending, Congress decides where the money
> goes. Somebody writes a piece of legislation and if it gets enough
> votes it's passed. If that legislation bans funding for ESCR then
> there's no funding. That's the way it works.

Probably fewer actual Catholics than you would like to imagine. After
all, if they haven't been born again, then they are for the hell fire
after the rapture, too.

Either way, religious dogma is not the basis for framing legislation or
policy in this country. The Founding Fathers came here to escape exactly
that, and they must be spinning in their graves right now.

William Clark

Date: 01 Nov 2006 14:32:10
From: Jack Hollis
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Wed, 01 Nov 2006 13:55:01 -0500, "William A. T. Clark"
<clark.31@nospamosu.edu > wrote:

>Either way, religious dogma is not the basis for framing legislation or
>policy in this country. The Founding Fathers came here to escape exactly
>that, and they must be spinning in their graves right now.
>
>William Clark

What you call religious dogma, could also be called morality. The
Christian right and the Catholic Church oppose ESCR on moral grounds.
Lots of people oppose, or support, lots of things on moral grounds.
Most of the civil rights legislation was passed on moral grounds.
Slavery was abolished on moral grounds. Public funding of both
abortion and ESCR were banned on moral grounds.

I understand that you don't see ESCR as immoral and neither do I, but
a majority of the elected official in the Congress do. You can't win
them all.

Date: 01 Nov 2006 12:38:55
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

larry wrote:
> > You should say "your" laws and constitution. You are not an American
> Citizen--and thus have no right to comment.
>

Because as we all know, only American citizens have rights.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 17:41:58
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <LIydnaVUlaCSctjYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> All this is as maybe, but the crux of this issue is whether such
>>> research ought to be BANNED, not for reasons of funding priorities (such
>>> decisions are taken all the time), but because a religious pressure
>>> group has it in their dogma to do so. That is what is wrong, both in
>>> fact and in principle, and that is why we need to oppose the ban.
>> The research is not banned just the funding from federal government
>> coffers is banned.
>
> Precisely. Why is it OK for the private sector to "destroy human life"
> but not the public one? Makes it seem that "murder" is fine as long as
> it is being done for profit.

You now admit that it is murder?

The issue is the source of the funding. When it comes out of my pocket
and into the research group then no one can question me. However, when
it comes out of my pocket in the form of taxes, gets mingled with other
peoples taxes and then goes to the research team the funding can be
questioned.

I hope this clears it up for you. One is voluntary and the other is
involuntary.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 18:01:37
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <ZOCdnT0J5oYr4tvYnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <LIydnaVUlaCSctjYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> All this is as maybe, but the crux of this issue is whether such
> >>> research ought to be BANNED, not for reasons of funding priorities (such
> >>> decisions are taken all the time), but because a religious pressure
> >>> group has it in their dogma to do so. That is what is wrong, both in
> >>> fact and in principle, and that is why we need to oppose the ban.
> >> The research is not banned just the funding from federal government
> >> coffers is banned.
> >
> > Precisely. Why is it OK for the private sector to "destroy human life"
> > but not the public one? Makes it seem that "murder" is fine as long as
> > it is being done for profit.
>
> You now admit that it is murder?

No, notice the inverted commas intended to show that it is a quote from
your side.

>
> The issue is the source of the funding. When it comes out of my pocket
> and into the research group then no one can question me. However, when
> it comes out of my pocket in the form of taxes, gets mingled with other
> peoples taxes and then goes to the research team the funding can be
> questioned.

Why? It's all money out of your pocket, and you have no control over how
a pharmaceutical company uses money you pay them for a prescription
drug. Besides the critical point, that you have taken great pains to
avoid, is whether a religious dogma of the far right evangelical
persuasion should hold sway on public policy for the entire country,
especially since we have a formal separation of church and state.
Furthermore, when that dogma is preventing research into finding cures
for vile diseases, then it has gone way too far.
>
> I hope this clears it up for you. One is voluntary and the other is
> involuntary.

See above - you cannot tell me how much of your prescription goes for
embryonic stem cell research, can you?

William Clark

Date: 30 Oct 2006 20:49:32
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <ZOCdnT0J5oYr4tvYnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> In article <LIydnaVUlaCSctjYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>> All this is as maybe, but the crux of this issue is whether such
>>>>> research ought to be BANNED, not for reasons of funding priorities (such
>>>>> decisions are taken all the time), but because a religious pressure
>>>>> group has it in their dogma to do so. That is what is wrong, both in
>>>>> fact and in principle, and that is why we need to oppose the ban.
>>>> The research is not banned just the funding from federal government
>>>> coffers is banned.
>>> Precisely. Why is it OK for the private sector to "destroy human life"
>>> but not the public one? Makes it seem that "murder" is fine as long as
>>> it is being done for profit.
>> You now admit that it is murder?
>
> No, notice the inverted commas intended to show that it is a quote from
> your side.
>
>> The issue is the source of the funding. When it comes out of my pocket
>> and into the research group then no one can question me. However, when
>> it comes out of my pocket in the form of taxes, gets mingled with other
>> peoples taxes and then goes to the research team the funding can be
>> questioned.
>
> Why? It's all money out of your pocket, and you have no control over how
> a pharmaceutical company uses money you pay them for a prescription
> drug. Besides the critical point, that you have taken great pains to
> avoid, is whether a religious dogma of the far right evangelical
> persuasion should hold sway on public policy for the entire country,
> especially since we have a formal separation of church and state.
> Furthermore, when that dogma is preventing research into finding cures
> for vile diseases, then it has gone way too far.

Regardless of whether you like the "religious dogma of the far right
evangelical persuasion" or to whom you attempt to ascribe that faith,
human life has a value in all of its forms and allowing the government
to dictate who may life and who may not live is not the direction any
civilization wants to go.

>> I hope this clears it up for you. One is voluntary and the other is
>> involuntary.
>
> See above - you cannot tell me how much of your prescription goes for
> embryonic stem cell research, can you?

My prescription pays the cost of the medicine I need.

Paying for something and having part of your wages confiscated are two
very different things. One I voluntarily do the other I am compelled to
do or face civil or criminal penalties.

Date: 30 Oct 2006 21:55:34
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <1fqdnaS8x9IwNtvYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <ZOCdnT0J5oYr4tvYnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> > Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >
> >> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>> In article <LIydnaVUlaCSctjYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> >>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >>>>> All this is as maybe, but the crux of this issue is whether such
> >>>>> research ought to be BANNED, not for reasons of funding priorities
> >>>>> (such
> >>>>> decisions are taken all the time), but because a religious pressure
> >>>>> group has it in their dogma to do so. That is what is wrong, both in
> >>>>> fact and in principle, and that is why we need to oppose the ban.
> >>>> The research is not banned just the funding from federal government
> >>>> coffers is banned.
> >>> Precisely. Why is it OK for the private sector to "destroy human life"
> >>> but not the public one? Makes it seem that "murder" is fine as long as
> >>> it is being done for profit.
> >> You now admit that it is murder?
> >
> > No, notice the inverted commas intended to show that it is a quote from
> > your side.
> >
> >> The issue is the source of the funding. When it comes out of my pocket
> >> and into the research group then no one can question me. However, when
> >> it comes out of my pocket in the form of taxes, gets mingled with other
> >> peoples taxes and then goes to the research team the funding can be
> >> questioned.
> >
> > Why? It's all money out of your pocket, and you have no control over how
> > a pharmaceutical company uses money you pay them for a prescription
> > drug. Besides the critical point, that you have taken great pains to
> > avoid, is whether a religious dogma of the far right evangelical
> > persuasion should hold sway on public policy for the entire country,
> > especially since we have a formal separation of church and state.
> > Furthermore, when that dogma is preventing research into finding cures
> > for vile diseases, then it has gone way too far.
>
> Regardless of whether you like the "religious dogma of the far right
> evangelical persuasion" or to whom you attempt to ascribe that faith,
> human life has a value in all of its forms and allowing the government
> to dictate who may life and who may not live is not the direction any
> civilization wants to go.

I see - capital punishment, war in Iraq, etc., etc.,. And these are not
'life', they are human embryo cells that are not to be used to produce
life, but are to be destroyed and thrown away.

Banning the use of embryos, marked for destruction, for the purpose of
improving life and fighting disease, is simply a ridiculous dogmatic
posture. It makes as much sense as not letting useful organs be taken
from your body after death, so that others may have their lives
prolonged.
>
> >> I hope this clears it up for you. One is voluntary and the other is
> >> involuntary.
> >
> > See above - you cannot tell me how much of your prescription goes for
> > embryonic stem cell research, can you?
>
> My prescription pays the cost of the medicine I need.
>
> Paying for something and having part of your wages confiscated are two
> very different things. One I voluntarily do the other I am compelled to
> do or face civil or criminal penalties.

I don't think so. You don't pay the economic price for medicine - you
pay what the companies feel that US customers ought to pay. The same
drugs in Africa will be 5% of what you pay. Ergo, you are being taxed to
provide medical welfare for others, and some of that tax goes into stem
cell research.

William Clark

Date: 31 Oct 2006 07:14:58
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <1fqdnaS8x9IwNtvYnZ2dnUVZ_vGdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>> Paying for something and having part of your wages confiscated are two
>> very different things. One I voluntarily do the other I am compelled to
>> do or face civil or criminal penalties.
>
> I don't think so. You don't pay the economic price for medicine - you
> pay what the companies feel that US customers ought to pay. The same
> drugs in Africa will be 5% of what you pay. Ergo, you are being taxed to
> provide medical welfare for others, and some of that tax goes into stem
> cell research.

Business' do not tax people governments do tax people along with all
kind of other types of taxes.

I choose to pay the prices for services and goods.

If given the choice I would cut my overall tax bill by 70% but, I do not
want to suffer the consequences of that choice. However, I am working to
get elected people that believe we are taxed too much.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 12:34:23
From: JJK
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

"Bert Robbins" wrote:
> Business' do not tax people governments do tax people along with all
> kind of other types of taxes.
>
> I choose to pay the prices for services and goods.
>
> If given the choice I would cut my overall tax bill by 70% but, I do not
> want to suffer the consequences of that choice. However, I am working to
> get elected people that believe we are taxed too much.

What precisely would you cut from the services the US Federal government
provides to its citizens?

Date: 31 Oct 2006 21:26:18
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

JJK wrote:
> "Bert Robbins" wrote:
>> Business' do not tax people governments do tax people along with all
>> kind of other types of taxes.
>>
>> I choose to pay the prices for services and goods.
>>
>> If given the choice I would cut my overall tax bill by 70% but, I do
>> not want to suffer the consequences of that choice. However, I am
>> working to get elected people that believe we are taxed too much.
>
>
> What precisely would you cut from the services the US Federal
> government provides to its citizens?

I would cut pork barrel spending and anything that is not in USC A1 S8 and
ammendments.

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 31 Oct 2006 09:32:45
From: larry
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

On Mon, 30 2006 20:49:32 -0500, Bert Robbins <screw@you.com >
wrote:

>William A. T. Clark wrote:
>> In article <ZOCdnT0J5oYr4tvYnZ2dnUVZ_u2dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>>
>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>> In article <LIydnaVUlaCSctjYnZ2dnUVZ_u-dnZ2d@comcast.com>,
>>>> Bert Robbins <screw@you.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>>>>> All this is as maybe, but the crux of this issue is whether such
>>>>>> research ought to be BANNED, not for reasons of funding priorities (such
>>>>>> decisions are taken all the time), but because a religious pressure
>>>>>> group has it in their dogma to do so. That is what is wrong, both in
>>>>>> fact and in principle, and that is why we need to oppose the ban.
>>>>> The research is not banned just the funding from federal government
>>>>> coffers is banned.
>>>> Precisely. Why is it OK for the private sector to "destroy human life"
>>>> but not the public one? Makes it seem that "murder" is fine as long as
>>>> it is being done for profit.
>>> You now admit that it is murder?
>>
>> No, notice the inverted commas intended to show that it is a quote from
>> your side.
>>
>>> The issue is the source of the funding. When it comes out of my pocket
>>> and into the research group then no one can question me. However, when
>>> it comes out of my pocket in the form of taxes, gets mingled with other
>>> peoples taxes and then goes to the research team the funding can be
>>> questioned.
>>
>> Why? It's all money out of your pocket, and you have no control over how
>> a pharmaceutical company uses money you pay them for a prescription
>> drug. Besides the critical point, that you have taken great pains to
>> avoid, is whether a religious dogma of the far right evangelical
>> persuasion should hold sway on public policy for the entire country,
>> especially since we have a formal separation of church and state.
>> Furthermore, when that dogma is preventing research into finding cures
>> for vile diseases, then it has gone way too far.
>
>Regardless of whether you like the "religious dogma of the far right
>evangelical persuasion" or to whom you attempt to ascribe that faith,
>human life has a value in all of its forms and allowing the government
>to dictate who may life and who may not live is not the direction any
>civilization wants to go.
>
>>> I hope this clears it up for you. One is voluntary and the other is
>>> involuntary.
>>
>> See above - you cannot tell me how much of your prescription goes for
>> embryonic stem cell research, can you?
>
>My prescription pays the cost of the medicine I need.
>
>Paying for something and having part of your wages confiscated are two
>very different things. One I voluntarily do the other I am compelled to
>do or face civil or criminal penalties.

Which principle is precisely the reason the government cannot spend
tax revenues for research in which "life" is destroyed.

Larry

Date: 31 Oct 2006 08:25:14
From: annika1980
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

> Quit being so partisan...take a look at West Virginia...Sen. Byrd
> created "pork".
> In otherwords, they ALL do it.
>

Well, I knew we'd finally agree on something.
I get tickled whenever a Congressman is running for re-election and he
brags about all the great things he's procured for our district, and
then talks about how he wants to go back to Washington to cut spending
by reducing pork.

One district's funding is another district's pork.
Why should you pay for a bridge in my city?

Our Congressman initially ran talking about term limits and how he'd
only serve three terms.
Once he's in there, however, he forgets all about that promise and says
that his tenure gives him more "pull" to get stuff for our district.
>From what I've seen, he hasn't gotten us squat.

Date: 31 Oct 2006 19:25:51
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Bert Robbins wrote:
> John B. wrote:
> > Bert Robbins wrote:
> >> JJK wrote:
> >>>>> "Bert Robbins" wrote:
> >>>>>> Business' do not tax people governments do tax people along with all
> >>>>>> kind of other types of taxes.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I choose to pay the prices for services and goods.
> >>>>>> If given the choice I would cut my overall tax bill by 70% but, I do
> >>> not
> >>>>>> want to suffer the consequences of that choice. However, I am working
> >>> to
> >>>>>> get elected people that believe we are taxed too much.
> >>>> JJK wrote:
> >>>>> What precisely would you cut from the services the US Federal government
> >>>>> provides to its citizens?
> >>> "Tex" wrote:
> >>>> Well, to start...Dept. of Education...State's job.
> >>>> Dept. Health and Human Resources...State's job.
> >>>> Social Security...State's job. (better yet, individual's job!)
> >>>>
> >>>> The list goes on even longer....look inside The Constitution, it's
> >>>> pretty clear what the Feds are to do...any thing else is a State's job.
> >>>
> >>> While I certainly would like to see pork cut from the US Federal Budget
> >>> (check out what and how much per capita Uncle Newt brought home when he was
> >>> in Congress), slashing programs is not always the answer.
> >>>
> >>> 1) Tossing out HHR would eliminate the NIH and the grants it sends to
> >>> universities. Please don't tell me we don't need research into basic Biology
> >>> and human health care or that states would take care of this.
> >>> 2) Even if States took over the tasks you mention above, they couldn't do so
> >>> without raising taxes.
> >> Federal taxes go down and state taxes go up. Then you can pick the state
> >> you like the most. And, if you want a state to change its ways it is
> >> more easily done than trying to convince all of the money grabbing
> >> bastards in the Congress to do the right thing.
> >
> >
> > Right, let's play musical states! Just pick the one you like best and
> > move there. Quit your job, take your kids out of school, say goodbye to
> > your friends and family. It's all so simple, isn't it?
> >
>
> I assume you are pro choice?

What the hell does that have to do with it?

Date: 31 Oct 2006 19:25:38
From: John B.
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

Date: 31 Oct 2006 22:37:50
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

John B. wrote:
> Bert Robbins wrote:
>> John B. wrote:
>>> Bert Robbins wrote:
>>>> JJK wrote:
>>>>>>> "Bert Robbins" wrote:
>>>>>>>> Business' do not tax people governments do tax people along with all
>>>>>>>> kind of other types of taxes.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I choose to pay the prices for services and goods.
>>>>>>>> If given the choice I would cut my overall tax bill by 70% but, I do
>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> want to suffer the consequences of that choice. However, I am working
>>>>> to
>>>>>>>> get elected people that believe we are taxed too much.
>>>>>> JJK wrote:
>>>>>>> What precisely would you cut from the services the US Federal government
>>>>>>> provides to its citizens?
>>>>> "Tex" wrote:
>>>>>> Well, to start...Dept. of Education...State's job.
>>>>>> Dept. Health and Human Resources...State's job.
>>>>>> Social Security...State's job. (better yet, individual's job!)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The list goes on even longer....look inside The Constitution, it's
>>>>>> pretty clear what the Feds are to do...any thing else is a State's job.
>>>>> While I certainly would like to see pork cut from the US Federal Budget
>>>>> (check out what and how much per capita Uncle Newt brought home when he was
>>>>> in Congress), slashing programs is not always the answer.
>>>>>
>>>>> 1) Tossing out HHR would eliminate the NIH and the grants it sends to
>>>>> universities. Please don't tell me we don't need research into basic Biology
>>>>> and human health care or that states would take care of this.
>>>>> 2) Even if States took over the tasks you mention above, they couldn't do so
>>>>> without raising taxes.
>>>> Federal taxes go down and state taxes go up. Then you can pick the state
>>>> you like the most. And, if you want a state to change its ways it is
>>>> more easily done than trying to convince all of the money grabbing
>>>> bastards in the Congress to do the right thing.
>>>
>>> Right, let's play musical states! Just pick the one you like best and
>>> move there. Quit your job, take your kids out of school, say goodbye to
>>> your friends and family. It's all so simple, isn't it?
>>>
>> I assume you are pro choice?
>
>
> What the hekk does that have to do with it?
>

Either you are pro choice or you are anti-choice. The intent of the
framers was to let people make a choice as to what they do and where
they live, essentially pro choice.

Again are you pro choice?

Date: 29 Oct 2006 14:32:37
From: Bert Robbins
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <d8t7k2lb3qbnp1re7bubfogmhb8bo3vp6u@4ax.com>,
> Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 28 2006 20:21:52 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
>> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>> When we see promising avenues cut off by sheer ignorant prejudice,
>>> indeed it does make people see red, and rightly so.
>>
>> No avenues have been cut off. In fact, I don't know of any politician
>> on the left or right who is against stem cell research. The issue is
>> destroying human embryos in the process. There are lots of people who
>> regard this as immoral. I don't think that all of them are ignorant.
>
> Human embryos that are to be destroyed anyway. These are NOT embryos
> that will be used to create life - they will be disposed of as surplus
> to requirements for in vitro fertilization. It is not allowing them to
> be used for the purpose of extending and protecting human life that is
> truly immoral.

Have you ever held a baby in the palm of you hand and I mean in the palm
of you hand? Once you have you view of life expands.

Using embryos that are going to be "destroyed anyway" is the first step
of a slippery slope that I do not want to cross.

>> Personally, I wouldn't mind my tax dollars being spent on embryonic
>> stem cell research, but I'm aware that not everyone feels the same and
>> I wouldn't call them stupid for feeling that way. Human embryos are
>> not your average bundle of cells.
>
> Actually, they are. And I say that as a Christian. All cells are life.

Date: 29 Oct 2006 16:12:24
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <KOudnTUZLrZInNjYnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@comcast.com >,
Bert Robbins <screw@you.com > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> > In article <d8t7k2lb3qbnp1re7bubfogmhb8bo3vp6u@4ax.com>,
> > Jack Hollis <xsleeper@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On Sat, 28 2006 20:21:52 -0400, "William A. T. Clark"
> >> <clark.31@osu.edu> wrote:
> >>
> >>> When we see promising avenues cut off by sheer ignorant prejudice,
> >>> indeed it does make people see red, and rightly so.
> >>
> >> No avenues have been cut off. In fact, I don't know of any politician
> >> on the left or right who is against stem cell research. The issue is
> >> destroying human embryos in the process. There are lots of people who
> >> regard this as immoral. I don't think that all of them are ignorant.
> >
> > Human embryos that are to be destroyed anyway. These are NOT embryos
> > that will be used to create life - they will be disposed of as surplus
> > to requirements for in vitro fertilization. It is not allowing them to
> > be used for the purpose of extending and protecting human life that is
> > truly immoral.
>
> Have you ever held a baby in the palm of you hand and I mean in the palm
> of you hand? Once you have you view of life expands.
>
> Using embryos that are going to be "destroyed anyway" is the first step
> of a slippery slope that I do not want to cross.

This is ridiculous. I have held my dying father, so don't you dare to
lecture me on the value of human life. However, embryos are not 'life',
nor are these particular ones ever going to be 'life'. The fact is that
their most useful role is that they can be used to help find ways to
protect and enhance life. I do that too, by electing to be an organ
donor. Is that morally repugnant to you, too?

The slippery slope is denying that opportunity for life on the basis of
some fundamentalist religious dogma, being exploited to gain votes.

William Clark

Date: 29 Oct 2006 17:50:36
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
>I have held my dying father, so don't you dare to
> lecture me on the value of human life.

How many days did you spend protecting your Father's freedom, coward?

--
___________________________________________________________
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: 29 Oct 2006 21:34:30
From: William A. T. Clark
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

In article <Saa1h.18955$kI6.15596@bignews4.bellsouth.net >,
"Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb > wrote:

> William A. T. Clark wrote:
> >I have held my dying father, so don't you dare to
> > lecture me on the value of human life.
>
> How many days did you spend protecting your Father's freedom, coward?

Don't call me a coward unless you are standing in front of me. Otherwise
it doesn't really make you look like much of a hero.

William Clark

Date: 29 Oct 2006 21:59:12
From: Head Shot
Subject: Re: Are ALL Republicans lying scumbags?

William A. T. Clark wrote:
> In article <Saa1h.18955$kI6.15596@bignews4.bellsouth.net>,
> "Head Shot" <HeadShot@TakeTheShot.kgb> wrote:
>
>> William A. T. Clark wrote:
>>> I have held my dying father, so don't you dare to
>>> lecture me on the value of human life.
>>
>> How many days did you spend protecting your Father's freedom,
>> coward?
>